A DICTIONARY
of EARLY
CHRISTIAN
BIOGRAPHY
And Literature to the End of
the Sixth Century A.D., with an
Account of the Principal Sects and Heresies
EDITED BY
HENRY WACE, D.D. &
WILLIAM C. PIERCY, M.A.
HENDRICKSON
PUBLISHERS
A DICTIONARY OF EARLY CHRISTIAN BIOGRAPHY
Hendrickson Publishers, Inc. edition
ISBN: 1-56563-460-8
reprinted from the edition originally titled
A Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature,
published by John Murray, London, 1911
First printing - June 1999
Printed in the United States of America
PREFACE
This volume is designed to render to a wider circle, alike
of clergy and of laity, the service which, as is generally
admitted, has been rendered to the learned world by
The Dictionary of Christian Biography, Literature,
Sects, and Doctrines, published under the editorship of
Dr. Wace and the late Dr. Wm. Smith, about twenty years ago,
in four large volumes. That
work covered the whole of the first eight centuries of the Christian era, and
was planned on a very comprehensive scale. It aimed at giving an account,
not merely of names of importance, but of all names, however small, concerned
in the Christian literature of those eight centuries; and to illustrate its
extent and minuteness, it may be enough to mention that no fewer than 596
Johns are recorded in due order in its columns. The surviving Editor may
be pardoned for expressing his satisfaction that the work is now recognized,
abroad as well as at home, as a valuable work of reference, being constantly
quoted alike in the great Protestant Cyclopaedia of Herzog, in its third edition
now happily complete, and in the Patrology of the learned Roman Catholic
Professor at Munich, Dr. Bardenhewer. To the generous band of great
English scholars to whose unstinted labours the chief excellences of that
work are due, and too many of whom have now passed away, it is, or it would
have been, a welcome satisfaction to find it described in the Patrology of
that scholar as "very useful, relatively complete and generally reliable."
But that work was mainly adapted to the use of men of learning, and
was unsuited, both by its size and expense, and by the very wideness of
its range, for the use of ordinary readers, or even for the clergy in general.
In the first place, the last two centuries of the period which it covered,
although of immense interest in the history of the Church, as including
the origins of the Teutonic civilization of Europe, have not an equal
interest with the first six as exhibiting primitive Christianity in its purer
forms. With the one important exception of John of Damascus, the
Fathers of the Church, so called, alike in East and West, fall within the
first six centuries, and in the West the series is closed by St. Gregory
the Great, who died in the year 604. English divines accordingly, since the
days of Bp. Jewel, have, like Bp. Cosin, appealed to the first six centuries
of the Church as exhibiting, in doctrine as well as in practice, subject to
Holy Scripture, the standards of primitive Christianity. Those six centuries,
consequently, have a special interest for all Christian students, and particularly
But the limitation of such a work to this period at once disembarrassed our pages of the mass of Teutonic, and sometimes almost pagan, names with which, after the settlement of the barbarians in Europe, we were overwhelmed; and thus of itself rendered it possible to bring the work into much narrower compass. Moreover, a mass of insignificant names, which the principles of scholarly completeness obliged us to introduce into the larger Dictionary, were not needed for the wider circle now in contemplation. They were useful and necessary for purposes of learned reference, but they cast no light on the course and meaning of Church history for ordinary readers. We have had to exercise a discretion (which may sometimes seem to have been arbitrary) in selecting, for instance, from the 596 Johns just mentioned those which were the most valuable for such readers as we had in view; and for the manner in which we have exercised that discretion we must trust ourselves to the indulgent judgment of our readers. The publisher gave us generous limits; but it seemed to him and to ourselves indispensable for the general usefulness of the Dictionary that it should be restricted to one volume; and we were thus, with respect to the minor names, obliged to omit many which, though of some interest, seemed to be such as could be best dispensed with.
By omissions of this nature we have secured an object which will, we
are sure, be felt to be of inestimable value. We have been able to retain,
with no material abbreviation, the admirable articles on the great characters
of early Church history and literature which were contributed, with an
unselfish devotion which can never be sufficiently acknowledged, by the
great scholars who have been the glory of the last generation or two of
English Church scholarship, and some of whom are happily still among us.
To mention only some of the great contributors who have passed away, such
articles as those of Bp. Westcott on Clement of Alexandria and Origen,
Bp. Lightfoot on Eusebius, Archbp. Benson on St. Cyprian, Dr. Bright
on St. Athanasius and kindred subjects, Dr. Salmon on varied subjects
of the first importance, Bp. Stubbs on early English history, and some by
the learned Professor Lipsius of Jena, have a permanent value, as the
appreciations of great characters and moments of Church history and literature
by scholars and divines who have never been surpassed, and will hardly be
equalled again, in English sacred learning. We deemed it one of the greatest
services which such a work as this could render that it should make accessible
to the wide circle in question these unique masterpieces of patristic
and historical study. It has therefore been one of our first objects to avoid,
as far as possible, any abbreviation of the body of these articles. We have
occasionally ventured on slight verbal condensation in secondary passages,
and we have omitted some purely technical discussions of textual points,
and of editions. But in the main the reader is here placed in possession,
within the compass of a moderate volume, of what will probably be allowed
to be at once the most valuable and the most interesting series of monographs,
We must further offer the expression of our cordial gratitude to several living scholars, who have contributed new articles of similar importance to the present volume, in place of some in the original edition which the lapse of time or other circumstances had rendered less valuable than the rest. In particular, our warmest thanks are due to Dr. Robertson, the present Bp. of Exeter, who has substituted for the sketch of St. Augustine contributed to the original edition by an eminent French scholar, M. de Pressensé, a study of that great Father, similar in its thoroughness to the other great monographs just mentioned. We are also deeply indebted to the generosity of Chancellor Lias for fresh studies of such important: subjects as Arius and Monophysitism; and a valuable account of the Nestorian Church has been very kindly contributed by the Rev. W. A. Wigram, who, as head of the Archbishop of Canterbury's Assyrian Mission, possesses unique qualifications for dealing with the subject. We have to thank also the eminent learning of Dr. A. J. Mason for an article on Gaudentius of Brescia, who was unaccountably omitted from the larger work, and whose name has of late acquired new interest. The gratitude of the Editors, is also specially due to Dr. Knowling and Dr. Gee, of Durham University, for their assistance in some cases in which articles required to be supplemented or corrected by the most recent learning.
In all cases where the writers of the original articles are still living they were afforded the opportunity, if they desired it, of revising their work and bringing it up to date, and of checking the condensations: though the Editors and not the writers must take the responsibility for the latter and also, in most cases, for bibliographical additions. The Editors desire gratefully to record their appreciation of the assistance thus readily and kindly rendered by most of the original writers who are still spared to us, and, as an example, we are glad to thank the Rev. E. B. Birks for his very thorough revision of his article on the Epistle to Diognetus.
Cross-references are inserted, where needed, on the principle adopted in Murray's Illustrated Bible Dictionary (to which this is intended to be a companion volume in size, appearance, and price)—namely, the name of the article to which a cross-reference is intended is printed in capitals within brackets, but without the brackets when it occurs in the ordinary course of the text.
In the headings of articles the numbers in brackets after names which are common to more than one person are retained as in the large edition, to facilitate reference to that edition when desired, and also to indicate that there were other persons of the same name.
It was not consistent with the limits of the work to retain in all cases
the minute bibliography sometimes furnished in the larger edition. But,
The Editors cannot conclude without paying a final tribute of honour and gratitude to the generous and devoted scholar whose accurate labours were indispensable to the original work, as is acknowledged often in its Prefaces, and who rendered invaluable assistance in the first stage of the preparation of the present volume—the Rev. Charles Hole, late Lecturer for many years in Ecclesiastical History in King's College, London. Dr. Wace hoped to have had the happiness of having his own name associated with that of his old teacher, friend, and colleague on the title-page of this volume, and he laments that death has deprived him of this privilege. He cannot, however, sufficiently express his sense of obligation to his colleague, Mr. Piercy, for the ability, skill, and generous labour without which the production of the work would have been impossible.
LIST OF WRITERS
| Initials | |
|---|---|
| A.H.D.A. | The Right Hon. A.H. Dyke Acland, LL.D. Hon. Fellow of Balliol College, Oxford. |
| M.F.A. | The late Rev. M. F. Argles, M.A. Formerly Principal of St. Stephen's House, Oxford. |
| C.J.B. | Rev. C. J. Ball, M.A. Lecturer in Assyriology, Oxfrd; Rector of Blechingdon. |
| J.B—y. | The late Rev. J. Barmby, B.D. Formerly Principal of Bishop Hatfield's Hall, Durham, and Rector of Pilkington. |
| S.A.B. | S. A. Bennett, Esq., B.A. Of Lincoln's Inn. |
| E.W.B. | The late Most Rev. E. W. Benson, D.D. Formerly Archbishop of Canterbury. |
| E.B.B. | Rev. E. B. Birks, M.A. Vicar of Kellington; formerly Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. |
| C.W.B. | The late Rev. C. W. Boase, M.A. Formerly Fellow of Exeter College, Oxford. |
| W.B. | The late Rev. Canon W. Bright, D.D. Formerly Regius Professor of Ecclesiastical History, Oxford. |
| T.R.B. | The late Right Hon. T. R. Buchanan, M.A., M.P. Fellow of All Souls' College, Oxford. |
| D.B. | The late Rev. D. Butler, M.A. Formerly Rector of Thwing, Yorkshire. |
| J.G.C. | The late Rev. J. G. Cazenove, D.D. Formerly Provost of Cumbrae College, N.B. |
| M.B.C. | Rev. M. B. Cowell, M.A. Vicar of Ash Bocking. |
| F.D. | F. H. Blackburne Daniel, Esq. Of Lincoln's Inn. |
| G.W.D. | The Ven. G. W. Daniell, M.A. Archdeacon of Kingston-on-Thames. |
| T.W.D. | The late Rev. T. W. Davids. Upton. |
| L.D. | Rev. L. Davidson, M.A. Rector of Stanton St. John, Oxford. |
| J. Ll.D. | Rev. J. Ll. Davies, D.Litt. Formerly Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. |
| C.D. | Rev. C. Deedes, M.A. Prebendary of Chichester. |
| W.P.D. | The late Rev. W. P. Dickson, D.D. Formerly Professor of Divinity, Glasgow. |
| E.S.Ff. | The late Rev. E. S. Ffoulkes, M.A. Formerly Fellow of Jesus College, Oxford, and Vicar of St. Mary's. |
| A.P.F. | The late Right Rev. A. P. Forbes, D.C.L. Formerly Bishop of Brechin. |
| W.H.F. | The Very Rev. and Hon. W. H. Fremantle, D.D. Dean of Ripon. |
| J.M.F. | The late Rev. J. M. Fuller, M.A. Formerly Fellow of St. John's College, Cambridge. |
| J.G. | Rev. J. Gammack, M.A. Rector of St. James's, Hartford, Connecticut, U.S.A. |
| H.G. | Rev. H. Gee, D.D. Master of University College, Durham. |
| C.G. | The Right Rev. C. Gore, D.D. Bishop of Birmingham. |
| J.Gw. | Rev. J. Gwynn, D.D., D.C.L. Regius Professor of Divinity, T.C.D. |
| A.W.H. | The late Rev. A. W. Haddan, B.D. Formerly Fellow of Trinity College, Oxford. |
| T.R.H. | The late Rev. T. R. Halcomb, M.A. Formerly Fellow of Lincoln College, Oxford. |
| C.H. | The late Rev. C. Hole, B.A. Formerly Rector of Loxbear, and Lecturer in Ecclesiastical History in King's College, London. |
| H.S.H. | Rev. Canon H. Scott Holland, D.D. Regius Professor of Divinity, Oxford. |
| H. | The late Rev. F. J. A. Hort, D.D. Formerly Fellow of Emmanuel College, Cambridge. |
| D.R.J. | The late Rev. D. R. Jones. Oxford. |
| R.J.K. | Rev. Canon R. J. Knowling, D.D. Professor of Divinity, Durham. |
| J.J.L. | Rev. Chancellor J. J. Lias, M.A. Chancellor of Llandaff Cathedral. |
| L. | The Right Rev. J. B. Lightfoot, D.D. Formerly Bishop of Durham. |
| R.A.L. | The late R. A. Lipsius, D.D. Formerly Professor of Divinity, University of Jena. |
| W.L. | Rev. W. Lock, D.D. Ireland Professor of Exegesis, Oxford; Warden of Keble College. |
| J.H.L. | The late Rev. J. H. Lupton, M.A. Formerly Fellow of St. John's College, Cambridge. |
| G.F.M. | The late Rev. G. F. Maclear, D.D. Formerly Warden of St. Augustine's College, Canterbury. |
| A.C.M. | A. C. Madan, Esq., M.A. Senior Student of Christ Church, Oxford. |
| S.M. | The late Rev. S. Mansel, M.A. Formerly Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. |
| A.J.M. | Rev. A. J. Mason, D.D. Master of Pembroke College, Cambridge, and Canon of Canterbury. |
| W.M. | The late Rev. W. Milligan, D.D. Formerly Professor of Divinity, Aberdeen. |
| G.H.M. | The late Rev. G. H. Moberly, M.A. Formerly Fellow of Corpus Christi College, Oxford. |
| T.D.C.M. | The late Rev. T. D. C. Morse. Formerly Rector of Drayton, Nuneaton. |
| H.G.C.M. | The Right Rev. H. G. C. Moule, D.D. Bishop of Durham. |
| J.R.M. | J. R. Mozley, Esq., M.A. Formerly Fellow of King's College, Cambridge. |
| F.P. | The Right Rev. F. Paget, D.D. Bishop of Oxford. |
| H.W.P. | The late Rev. H. W. Phillott, M.A. Formerly Rector of Staunton-on-Wye. |
| W.C.P. | Rev. W. C. Piercy, M.A. Dean and Chaplain of Whitelands College, S.W. |
| E.H.P. | The late Rev. E. H. Plumptre, D.D. Formerly Dean of Wells. |
| P.O. | The late Rev. P. Onslow, B.A. Formerly Rector of Upper Sapey. |
| J.R. | The late Rev. Canon J. Raine, M.A. Formerly Fellow of Durham University. |
| H.R.R. | The late Rev. H. R. Reynolds, D.D. Formerly Principal of Cheshunt College. |
| A.R. | The Right Rev. A. Robertson, D.D. Bishop of Exeter. |
| G.S. | The late Rev. G. Salmon, D.D. Formerly Regius Professor of Divinity and Provost of Trinity College, Dublin. |
| P.S. | The late Rev. P. Schaff. Bible House, New York. |
| W.M.S. | The Ven. W. M. Sinclair, D.D. Formerly Archdeacon of London. |
| I.G.S. | Rev. I. G. Smith, LL.D. Formerly Fellow of Brasenose College, Oxford. |
| R.P.S. | The late Very Rev. R. P. Smith, D.D. Formerly Dean of Canterbury |
| G.T.S. | The late Rev. G. T. Stokes, M.A. Formerly Professor of Ecclesiastical History, Trinity College, Dublin. |
| S. | The late Right Rev. W. Stubbs, D.D. Formerly Bishop of Oxford. |
| E.S.T. | The Right Rev. E. S. Talbot, D.D. Bishop of Winchester. |
| R.St.J.T. | The late Rev. R. St. J. Tyrwhitt. Formerly Student of Christchurch, Oxford. |
| E.V. | The late Rev. Canon E. Venables. Formerly Precentor of Lincoln Cathedral. |
| H.W. | The Very Rev. H. Wace, D.D. Dean of Canterbury. |
| M.A.W. | Mrs. Humprhy Ward. Stocks House, Tring. |
| H.W.W. | The Ven. H. W. Watkins, D.D. Prof. of Hebrew, Durham University, and Archdeacon of Durham. |
| W. or B.F.W. | The late Right Rev. B. F. Westcott, D.D. Formerly Bishop of Durham. |
| W.A.W. | Rev. W. A. Wigram, M.A. Archbishop of Canterbury's Mission to Assyria. |
| H.A.W. | Rev. H. A. Wilson, M.A. Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford. |
| J.W. | The Right Rev. J. Wordsworth, D.D. Bishop of Salisbury. |
| E.M.Y. | The late Rev. E. M. Young, M.A. Formerly Headmaster of Sherborne School. |
DICTIONARY OF CHRISTIAN BIOGRAPHY
A
Abercius (Ἀβέρκιος, Ἀουίρκιος, Ἀουέρκιος, etc.; Lat. Avircius, or Avercius; on the form and origin, see Ramsay, Expositor, ix. (3rd ser.), pp. 268, 394, and Zahn, art. "Avercius," Realencyclopädie für protest. Theol. und Kirche, Hauck). The Life of the saint, described as bp. of Hierapolis in Phrygia in the time of M. Aurelius and L. Verus, as given by Symeon Metaphrastes and in the Bollandist Acta Sanctorum, Oct. 22, is full of worthless and fantastic tales. But the epitaph which the Acts incorporate, placed, according to the story, on the altar brought from Rome by the demon whom the saint had driven out of the emperor's daughter, is of great value, and the discovery of some of the actual fragments of the inscription may well be called "a romance of archaeology." For this rediscovery our thanks are due to the rich labours of Prof. Ramsay. The fact that Abercius was described as bp. of Hierapolis at the time mentioned above had contributed to hesitation as to the genuineness of the epitaph. But Ramsay (Bulletin de correspondance hellénique, Juillet 1882) pointed out that Hierapolis had been frequently confounded with Hieropolis; and he also published in the same journal a metrical and early Christian epitaph of a certain Alexander (A. D. 216), discovered at Hieropolis, and evidently copied from the epitaph of Abercius, as given in his Life. As to the copying, there can be no doubt, for the third line of the epitaph of Alexander, son of Antonius, will not scan, owing to the substitution of his name for that of Abercius (Lightfoot, Apost. Fathers2, i. p. 479; Headlam in Authority and Archaeology, pp. 307 ff., 1899). Ramsay's attention being drawn to the earlier epitaph, he collected various topographical notices in the Life of the saint, which pointed to Hieropolis, near Synnada (not Hierapolis on the Maeander), and he further established the case for the former by finding, in 1883, in the bath-room at some hot springs near Hieropolis, a small portion of the epitaph of Abercius himself on the fragment of an altar-shaped tomb; the hot springs in their position near the city exactly correspond with the position of the hot springs described in the Life. We have thus fortunately a threefold help in reconstructing the text of the whole epitaph—(1) the text in the Life; (2) the rediscovered fragments in the stone; (3) the epitaph on the tomb of Alexander.
There is much to be said for the identification of Abercius with the Avircius
Marcellus (Eus. H. E. v. 16) to whom the extracts of the anonymous writer
against Montanus are dedicated. We cannot be sure as to the date of these extracts,
but there is reason to place them towards the close of the reign of Commodus, 180–192,
and the epitaph of Abercius must at least have been earlier than 216, the date of
the epitaph of Alexander. But the writer of the extracts addresses the person to
whom he dedicates his work as a person of authority, although he does not style
him a bishop (but see Lightfoot, u.s. p. 483), who had urged him a very long
time ago to write on the subject. Avircius Marcellus might therefore have well flourished
in the reign of M. Aurelius, and might have visited Rome at the time mentioned in
the legend, A.D. 163. Further, in the extracts mention is
made by the writer of one Zoticus of Otrous, his "fellow-presbyter," and Otrous
was in the neighbourhood of this Hieropolis (for the identification, see further
Lightfoot and Zahn, u.s.; Headlam, u.s.; Ramsay, Expositor,
ix. (3rd ser.), p. 394). Against the attempt of Ficker to prove that the epitaph
was heathen, Sitzungsberichte d. Berl. Akad. 1895, pp. 87–112, and that of
Harnack, Texte und Untersuchungen, xii. 4b, p. 21, to class it as
partly heathen and partly Christian, see Zahn, u.s., and further in Neue
Kirchliche Zeitschrift, 1895, pp. 863–886; also the criticism of Ramsay, quoted
by Headlam, u.s. Both external and internal evidence are in favour of a Christian
origin, and we have in this epitaph what Ramsay describes, C. R. E. pp. 437
ff., as "a testimony, brief, clear, emphatic, of the truth for which Avircius had
contended—the one great figure on the Catholic side produced by the Phrygian church
during this period," a man whose wide experience of men and cities might in itself
have well marked him out as such a champion. The faithful, i.e. the sacred
writings, the Sacraments of Holy Baptism and Holy Communion, the miraculous birth
of our Lord (the most probable reference of παρθένος
ἁγνή), His omnipresent and omniscient energy, the fellowship of the members
of the church, not only in Rome but elsewhere—all these (together with the mixed
cup, wine and water; the prayer for the departed; the symbolic
ΙΧΘΥΣ, one of its earliest instances) have
a place in the picture of early Christian usage and belief gained from this one
epitaph; however widely Abercius travelled, to the far East or West, the same picture,
he assures us, met his gaze. We thus recover an instructive and enduring monument
of Christian life in the 2nd cent., all the more remarkable because it is presented
The following is a translation of the epitaph:
"Citizen of a chosen city I have made this (tomb) in my lifetime, that I may have here before the eyes of men (φανερῶς v.l. καιρῷ) a resting-place for my body—Avircius by name, a disciple of the pure Shepherd, who on the mountains and plains feedeth the flocks of His sheep, who hath eyes large and beholding all things. For He was my Teacher, teaching me (διδάσκων, so Ramsay, omitted by Zahn) the faithful writings; who sent me to Rome to behold the King (βασιλῆαν, so Ramsay, but Lightfoot βασίληαν, Zahn, βασιλῆ ἀναθρῆσαι), and to see the Queen in golden robes and golden sandals, and there, too, I saw a people bearing a shining seal (a reference to Baptism). And I saw the plain of Syria and all its cities, even Nisibis, having crossed the Euphrates, and everywhere I had fellow-worshippers (συνομήθεις, so Lightfoot and Ramsay; συνοδίτην, Zahn, referring to Paul). With Paul in my hands I followed (i.e. the writings of Paul, Ramsay; but Lightfoot and Di Rossi apparently 'with Paul as my comrade'; whilst Zahn conjectures ἔποχον, or rather ἐπ᾿ ὀχῶν instead of ἑπόμην), while Faith everywhere led the way, and everywhere placed before me food, the Fish from the fountain, mighty, pure, which a spotless Virgin grasped (Ramsay refers to the Virgin Mary, but see also Lightfoot and Farrar). And this she (i.e. Faith) gave to the friends to eat continually, having excellent wine, giving the mixed cup with bread. These words, I, Avircius, standing by, bade to be thus written; I was in fact in my seventy-second year. On seeing this let everyone who thinks with him (i.e. who is also an anti-Montanist, so Ramsay; Lightfoot and Farrar simply 'fellow Christian') pray for him (i.e. Avircius). But no one shall place another in my tomb, but if so, he shall pay 2000 gold pieces to the Romans, and 1000 gold pieces to my excellent fatherland Hierapolis" (so Ramsay, vide Expositor, ix. 3rd ser. p. 271, for a justification of this reading).
Abgar. [Thaddaeus.]
Acacius (2), bp. of Caesarea, from a personal defect known as ὁ μονόφθαλμος, the pupil and biographer of Eusebius the church historian. He succeeded his master as bishop, A.D. 340 (Socr. H. E. ii. 4; Soz. H. E. iii. 2). He is chiefly known to us as the bitter and uncompromising adversary of Cyril of Jerusalem, and as the leader of an intriguing band of ambitious prelates. The events of his life show Acacius to have been a man of great intellectual ability but unscrupulous. After the death of Eusebius of Nicomedia, c. 342, he became the head of the courtly Arian party, and is thought by some to be the person styled by Greg. Naz. (Orat. xxi. 21) "the tongue of the Arians," George of Cappadocia being "the hand." He assisted in consecrating Cyril, A.D. 351, and in accordance with the 7th Nicene Canon claimed a right of priority for the metropolitical see of Caesarea over that of Jerusalem. This Cyril refused to yield. Acacius, supported by the Palestinian bishops, deposed Cyril on frivolous grounds, and expelled him from Jerusalem, A.D. 358. [Cyril of Jerusalem.] (Soz. iv. 25; Theod. ii. 26.)
Acacius attended the council of Antioch, A.D. 341 (Soz.
iii. 5), when in the presence of the emperor Constantius "the Golden Basilica" was
dedicated by a band of ninety bishops, and he subscribed the ambiguous creeds then
drawn up from which the term Homoousion and all mention of "substance" were carefully
excluded. With other bishops of the Eusebian party he was deposed at the council
of Sardica, A.D. 347. They refused to submit to the sentence,
and withdrew to Philippopolis, where they held a council of their own, deposing
their deposers, including Pope Julius and Hosius of Cordova (Theod. ii. 26; Socr.
ii. 16; Soz. iii. 14; Labb. Conc. ii. 625–699) According to Jerome (Vir.
Ill. 98), his influence with the emperor Constantius was considerable enough
to nominate Felix (the antipope) to the see of Rome at the fall of Liberius,
A.D. 357. Acacius took a leading place among the intriguing
prelates, who succeeded in splitting into two the oecumenical council which Constantius
had proposed to summon, and thus nullifying its authority. While the Western bishops
were assembling at Rimini, A.D. 359, he and his brethren
of the East gathered at Seleucia, where he headed a turbulent party, called after
him Acacians. After the majority had confirmed the semi-Arian creed of Antioch ("Creed
of the Dedication"), Acacius brought forward a Confession (preserved by Athanasius,
de Synod, § 29; Socr. ii. 40; Soz. iv. 22) rejecting the terms Homoousion
and Homoiousion "as alien from Scripture," and anathematizing the term "Anomoeon,"
but distinctly confessing the "likeness" of the Son to the Father. This formula
the semi-Arian majority rejected, and becoming exasperated by the disingenuousness
of Acacius, who interpreted the "likeness of the Son to the Father" as "likeness
in will alone," ὅμοιον κατὰ τὴν βούλησιν μόνον,
and refused to be judged by his own published writings (Socr. and Soz. l.c.),
they proceeded to depose him and his adherents. Acacius and the other deposed prelates
flew to Constantinople and laid their complaints before the emperor. The adroit
Acacius soon gained the ear of the weak Constantius, and finding that the favour
he had shown to the bold blasphemies of Aetius had to some degree compromised him
with his royal patron, he had no scruple in throwing over his former friend. A new
council was speedily called at Constantinople, of which Acacius was the soul (Philostorg.
iv. 12). Mainly through his intrigues the Council was brought to accept the Confession
of Rimini, by which, in Jerome's strong words, "the whole world groaned and wondered
to find itself Arian" (Dial. adv. Luc. 19). To complete their triumph, he
and
Acacius enriched with parchments the library at Caesarea founded by Pamphilus (Hieron. Ep. ad. Marcellam, 141). He wrote on Ecclesiastes, six books of σύμμικτα ζητήματα and other treatises; a considerable fragment of his Ἀντιλογία against Marcellus of Ancyra is preserved by Epiphanius (Haer. 72, 6–9). His Life of Eusebius Pamphili has unhappily perished. See Fabricius, B. G. vii. p. 336, ix. pp. 254, 256 (ed. Harless); Tillemont, Mem. eccl. vi. (passim); Rivington (Luke), Dublin Review, 1894, i. 358–380; Hefele, Konz. Gesch. Bd. i.
Acacius (4), bp. of Beroea, in Syria, c. A.D. 379–436. He was apparently a Syrian by birth, and in his early youth adopted the ascetic life in the monastery of Gindarus near Antioch, then governed by Asterius (Theod. Vit. Patr. c. 2). Not much is known with certainty of this period of his life. He appears, however, to have been prominent as a champion of the orthodox faith against the Arians, from whom he suffered (Baluz. Nov. Collect. Conc. p. 746), and it is specially mentioned that he did great service in bringing the hermit Julianus Sabbas from his retirement to Antioch to confront this party, who had falsely claimed his support (Theod. Vit. Patr. 2, H. E. iv. 24). We find him in Rome, probably as a deputy from the churches of Syria when the Apollinarian heresy was treated before pope Damasus (Baluz. Conc. 763). After the return of Eusebius of Samosata from exile, A.D. 378, Acacius was consecrated to the see of Beroea (the modern Aleppo) by that prelate (Theod. H. E. v. 4). As bishop he did not relax the strictness of his asceticism, and like Ambrose (August. Confess. vi. 3), throwing the doors of his house open to every comer, he invited all the world to witness the purity and simplicity of his life (Soz. H. E. vii. 28). He attended the council of Constantinople in 381 (Theod. v. 8). The same year, on the death of Meletius, taking a prominent part in the consecration of Flavian to the bishopric of Antioch [Flavianus], thus perpetuating the Eustathian schism, he incurred displeasure both in East and West, and was cut off from communion with the church of Rome (Soz. vii. 11). The council of Capua at the close of 391 or 392 received Acacius again into communion, together with the prelates of Flavian's party (Ambros. Ep. 9; Labb. Conc. ii. 1072); while Flavian himself, through the exertions of Acacius, received letters of communion not only from Rome, but also from Theophilus of Alexandria and the Egyptian bishops. The whole merit of this success was ascribed by the bishops of the East to "their father" Acacius (Socr. vi. 9; Soz. viii. 3; Theod. v. 23; Labb. Conc. iii. p. 391; Pallad. p. 39). Acacius was one of the most implacable of the enemies of Chrysostom. He bore part in the infamous "Synod of the Oak," A.D. 403; took the lead in the Synod of 404, after Chrysostom's return from exile; and joined in urging Arcadius to depose him (Pallad. p. 82). He added acts of open violence to his urgency with the timid emperor, until he had gained his end in the final expulsion of the saint, June 20, 404. Nor was his hostility even now satiated. Acacius sent to Rome one Patronus, with letters accusing Chrysostom of being the author of the conflagration of his own church. The pope treated the accusation with deserved contempt, and Acacius was a second time suspended from communion with Rome (Pallad. p. 35), which he did not regain till 414, and then chiefly through Alexander of Antioch. The letter sent to the pope by Acacius, with those of Alexander, was received with haughty condescension, and an answer was returned readmitting the aged prelate on his complying with certain conditions (Conc. ii. 1266–8). His communion with Alexander was fully restored, and we find the two prelates uniting in ordaining Diogenes, a "bigamus" (Theod. Ep. 110). Acacius's enmity to Chrysostom's memory seems however to have been unquenched; and on the succession of Theodotus of Antioch, A.D. 421, he took the opportunity of writing to Atticus of Constantinople to apologize for the new bishop's having, in defiance of his better judgment, yielded to popular clamour and placed Chrysostom's name on the diptychs (Theod. v. 34; Niceph. xiv. 26, 27). On the rise of the Nestorian controversy Acacius endeavoured to act the part of a peacemaker, for which his age of more than 100 years, and the popular reverence which had gained for him the title of "the father and master of all bishops," well qualified him. With the view of healing the breach between Cyril of Alexandria and Nestorius, he wrote a pacificatory reply to a violent letter of the former (A.D. 430). In the general council which followed at Ephesus, A.D. 431, he entrusted his proxy to Paul of Emesa. The influence of the aged Acacius was powerful at court. Theodosius wrote to him in most reverential terms beseeching him to give his endeavours and prayers for the restoration of unity to the distracted church. Acacius was also appealed to by Pope Sixtus III. for the same object (Baluz. Conc. pp. 721, 754, 757; Labb. Conc. iii. 1087).
Acacius disapproved of Cyril's anathemas of Nestorius, which appeared to him
to savour of Apollinarianism; but he spent his last days in promoting peace between
the rival parties, taking part in the synod held at the emperor's instance in his
own city of Beroea, A.D. 432, by John of Antioch, and doing
all in his power, both by personal influence and by letters to Cyril and to the
Three letters are still extant out of the large number that he wrote, especially
on the Nestorian controversy: two to
Acacius (7), patriarch of Constantinople, A.D. 471–489. Acacias was originally at the head of an orphanage at Constantinople, which he administered with conspicuous success (Suidas, s.v. (Ἀκάκιος). His abilities attracted the notice of the emperor Leo, over whom he obtained great influence by the arts of an accomplished courtier (Suidas, l.c.). On the death of Gennadius (471) he was chosen bp. of Constantinople, and soon found himself involved in controversies, which lasted throughout his patriarchate, and ended in a schism of thirty-five years' duration between the churches of the East and West. On the one side he laboured to restore unity to Eastern Christendom, which was distracted by the varieties of opinion to which the Eutychian debates had given rise; and on the other to aggrandize the authority of his see by asserting its independence of Rome, and extending its influence over Alexandria and Antioch. In both respects he appears to have acted more in the spirit of a statesman than of a theologian; and in this relation the personal traits of liberality, courtliness, and ostentation, noticed by Suidas (l.c.), are not without importance.
The first important measures of Acacius carried with them enthusiastic popular
support and earned for him the praise of pope Simplicius. In conjunction with a
Stylite monk, Daniel, he placed himself at the head of the opposition to the emperor
Basiliscus, who, after usurping the empire of the East, had issued an encyclic letter
in condemnation of the council of Chalcedon, and taken Timotheus Aelurus, the Monophysite
patriarch of Alexandria, under his protection, A.D. 476.
The resistance was completely successful. In the meantime Zeno, the fugitive emperor,
reclaimed the throne which he had lost; and Basiliscus, after abject and vain concessions
to the ecclesiastical power, was given up to him (as it is said) by Acacias, after
he had taken sanctuary in his church, A.D. 477 (Evagr.
H. E. iii. 4 ff.; Theod. Lect. i. 30 ff.; Theophan. Chron. pp. 104
ff.; Procop. B. V. i. 7, p. 195). At this period the relations between Zeno,
Acacius, and Simplicius appear to have been amicable, if not cordial. They were
agreed on the necessity of taking vigorous measures to affirm the decrees of the
council of Chalcedon, and for a time acted in concert (Simplic. Epp. 5, 6).
Before long a serious difference arose, when Acacias, in 479, consecrated a bishop
of Antioch (Theophan. Chron. p. 110), and thus exceeded the proper limits
of his jurisdiction. However, Simplicius admitted the appointment on the plea of
necessity, while he protested against the precedent (Simplic. Epp. 14, 15).
Three years later (482), on the death of the patriarch of Alexandria, the appointment
of his successor gave occasion to a graver dispute. The Monophysites chose
Tillemont has given a detailed history of the whole controversy, up to the death of Fravitas, in his Mémoires, vol. xvi., but with a natural bias towards the Roman side. The original documents, exclusive of the histories of Evagrius, Theophanes, and Liberatus, are for the most part collected in the 58th volume of Migne's Patrologia. See also Hefele, Konz. Gesch. Bd. ii.
Acephali (from ἀ and
κεφαλή, those without a head or leader) is
a term applied:—(1) To the bishops of the oecumenical council of Ephesus in 431,
who refused to follow either St. Cyril or John of Antioch—the leaders of the two
parties in the Nestorian controversy. (2) To a radical branch of Monophysites,
who rejected not only the oecumenical council of Chalcedon in 451, but also the
Henoticon of the emperor Zeno, issued in 482 to the Christians of Egypt,
to unite the orthodox and the Monophysites.
Adamantius (1). [Origen.]
Aerius, Ἀέριος, founder of the heretical sect of the Aerians, c. 355, still living when Epiphanius wrote against heresies, 374–376. He was the early friend and fellow-disciple of Eustathius of Sebaste in Pontus. While they were living an ascetic life together, the bishopric of Sebaste became vacant. Each of the friends was a candidate for the office. The choice fell on Eustathius. This was never forgiven by Aerius. Eustathius endeavoured to soften his friend's disappointment by at once ordaining Aerius presbyter, and setting him over the hospital established at Sebaste (ξενοδοχεῖον, or πτωχοτροφεῖον). But all his attempts were fruitless. Aerius threw up his charge, deserted the hospital, and openly published grave accusations against his bishop. The rupture with Eustathius widened into a rupture with the church. Aerius and his numerous followers openly separated from their fellow-Christians, and professed ἀποταξία, or the renunciation of all worldly goods. They were consequently denied not only admission to the churches, but even access to the towns and villages, and they were compelled to sojourn in the fields, or in caves and ravines, and hold their religious assemblies in the open air exposed to the severity of Armenian winters.
Our knowledge of Aerius is from Epiphanius (Haer. 75). Augustine, de Haeresibus, c. 53, merely epitomises Epiphanius. Aerius went so fearlessly to the root of much that the church was beginning to cling to, that we cannot feel much surprise at the vehemence of Epiphanius with regard to his teaching.
Epiphanius asserts that he went beyond Arius in his impieties, specifying four counts. (1) The first with which the name of Aerius has been chiefly identified in modern times is the assertion of the equality of bishops and presbyters, μία τάξις, μία τιμή. ἕν ἀξίωμα. (2) Aerius also ridiculed the observance of Easter as a relic of Jewish superstition. (3) Prayers and offerings for the dead he regarded as pernicious. If they availed for the departed, no one need trouble himself to live holily: he would only have to provide, by bribes or otherwise, a multitude of prayers and offerings for him, and his salvation was secure. (4) All set fasts he condemned. A Christian man should fast when he felt it to be for his soul's good: appointed days of fasting were relics of Jewish bondage. Philaster, whose unconfirmed authority is very small, confounds the Aerians with the Encratites, and asserts that they practised abstinence from food and rejected marriage (Philast. Haer. 72). Consult Schröckh, Christliche Kirch. Gesch. vol. vi. pp. 226–234; Walch, Ketzerhist. vol. iii. pp. 221 seq.; Neander, Ch. Hist. vol.iii. pp. 461–563 (Clark's trans.); Herzog. Real-encycl. vol. i. 165; Tillemont, Hist. eccl . vol. ix. pp. 87 seq.
Aetius (Ἀέτιος), the founder and
head of the strictest sect of Arianism, upon whom, on account of the boldness of
his reasonings on the nature of God, was affixed the surname of "the ungodly,"
ἄθεος (Soz. iii. 15). He was the first to carry
out the doctrines of Arius to their legitimate issue, and in opposition both to
Homoousians and Homoiousians maintained that the Son was unlike,
ἀνόμοιος, the Father, from which his followers
took the name of Anomoeans.
They were also known as Eunomians, from his amanuensis Eunomius.
the principal apologist of the party; and
The events of his singularly vagrant and chequered career are related from very different points of view by the Eunomian Philostorgius, and the orthodox writers Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, and Gregory Nyssen. We must regard Aetius as a bold and unprincipled adventurer, endowed with an indomitable love of disputation, which led him into incessant arguments on the nature of the Godhead, the person of our Lord, and other transcendental subjects, not only with the orthodox but with the less pronounced Arians. He was born at Antioch. His father, dying insolvent, left Aetius, then a child, and his mother in extreme destitution (Philost. H. E. iii. 15; cf. Valesius's notes; Suidas, sub. voc. Ἀέτιος). According to Gregory Nyssen, he became the slave of a woman named Ampelis; and having obtained his freedom in some disgraceful manner, became a travelling tinker, and afterwards a goldsmith. Having been convicted of substituting copper for gold in an ornament entrusted to him for repair, he gave up his trade, and attaching himself to an itinerant quack, picked up some knowledge of medicine. He met with a ready dupe in an Armenian, whose large fees placed Aetius above the reach of want. He now began to take rank as a regular and recognized practitioner at Antioch (Greg. Nys. adv. Eunom. lib. i. vol. ii. p.293). Philostorgius merely tells us that he devoted himself to the study of philosophy and dialectics, and became the pupil of Paulinus the Arian bishop, recently removed from Tyre to Antioch, c. 323 (Philost. iii. 15). Aetius attached himself to the Aristotelian form of philosophy, and with him, Milman remarks (Hist. of Christianity, vol. ii. p.443) the strife between Aristotelianism and Platonism among theologians seems to have begun. His chief study was the Categories of Aristotle, the scope of which, according to Socrates (H.E. ii. 35), he entirely misconceived, drawing from them sophistical arguments repudiating the prevailing Platonic mode of argument used by Origen and Clemens Alex. On the death of Paulinus his protector, c. 324, he was banished to Anazarbus in Cilicia, where he gained his livelihood by his trade. Here his dialectic skill charmed a grammarian, who instructed him more fully, receiving repayment by his menial services. Aetius tried his polemic powers against his benefactor, whom he put to public shame by the confutation of his interpretation of Scripture. On the ignominious dismissal which naturally followed, Athanasius, the Arian bishop of the place, opened his doors to the outcast, and read the Gospels with him. Aetius also read St. Paul's Epistles at Tarsus with Antonius, who, like Athanasius, was a disciple of Lucian, Arius's master. On Antonius's elevation to the episcopate, Aetius returned to Antioch, where he studied the prophets, particularly Ezekiel, with Leontius, afterwards bishop of that see, also a pupil of Lucian. A storm of unpopularity soon drove him from Antioch to Cilicia; but having been defeated in argument by one of the Borborian Gnostics, he betook himself to Alexandria, where he soon recovered his character as an invincible adversary by vanquishing the Manichean leader Aphthonius. Aphthonius, according to Philostorgius (H. E. iii. 15), only survived his defeat seven days. Here Aetius took up his former professions, studying medicine and working as a goldsmith.
On the return of St. Athanasius to Alexandria in 349, Aetius retired to Antioch, of which his former teacher Leontius was now bishop. By him Aetius was ordained deacon, c. 350 (Philost. iii. 17; Socr. H. E. ii. 35; Athan. de Synod. § 38, Ox. trans. p 137; Suidas, s.v.). His ordination was protested against by Flavian and Diodorus, and he was inhibited from the exercise of his ministry (Theod. H. E. ii. 24). Epiphanius erroneously asserts that he was admitted to the diaconate by George of Cappadocia, the intruding bp. of Alexandria (Epiph. Haeres. lxxvi. 1). Aetius now developed more fully his Anomoean tenets, and he exerted all his influence to induce the Arian party to refuse communion with the orthodox. He also began to withdraw himself from the less pronounced Arians (Socr. H. E. ii. 359). This schism in the Arian party was still further developed at the first council of Sirmium, A.D. 351, where he attacked the respectable semi-Arian (Homoiousian) bishops, Basil of Ancyra and Eustathius of Sebaste (Philost. H. E. iii. 16), reducing them to silence. Exasperated by his discomfiture, Basil denounced Aetius to Gallus. His life was spared at the intercession of bp. Leontius; and being subsequently introduced to Gallus by Theophilus Blemmys, he was sent by him to his brother Julian to win him back from the paganism into which he was lapsing. Gallus also appointed him his religious teacher (Philost. H. E. iii. 27; Greg. Nys. u.s. p. 294).
The fall of Gallus in 354 caused a change in the fortunes of Aetius, who returned
to Alexandria in 356 to support the waning cause of Arianism. The see of Athanasius
was then occupied by George of Cappadocia, under whom Aetius served as a deacon,
and when nominated to the episcopate by two Arian bishops, Serras and Secundus,
he refused to be consecrated by them on the ground that they had held communion
with the Homoousian party (Philost. iii. 19). Here he was joined by his renowned
pupil and secretary Eunomius (Greg. Nys. u.s. p. 299; Socr. H. E.
ii. 22; Philost. H. E. iii. 20). Greater troubles were now at hand for Aetius.
Basil of Ancyra denounced him to the civil power for his supposed complicity in
the treasonable designs of Gallus, and he was banished to Pepuza in Phrygia. The
influence of Ursacius and Valens procured his recall; but he was soon driven again
into exile. The hard irreverence of Aetius, and the determination with which he
pushed conclusions from the principles of Arius, shocked the more religious among
the Arian party, and forced the bishops to use all measures to crush him. His doctrines
were also becoming alarmingly prevalent. "Nearly the whole of Antioch had suffered
from the shipwreck of Aetius, and there was danger lest the whole (once more) should
be submerged" (Letter of George, bp. of Laodicea, ap. Soz. H. E. vi. 13).
A synod was therefore appointed for Nicomedia in Bithynia. A violent earthquake
The death of Constantius, A.D. 361, put an end to Aetius's exile. Julian recalled all the banished bishops, and invited Aetius to his court (Ep. Juliana, 31, p. 52, ed. Boisson; Soz. v. 5), and at the instance of Eudoxius (Philost. ix. 4) presented him with an estate in the island of Lesbos. The ecclesiastical censure was taken off Aetius by Euzoius, the Arian bp. of Antioch (ib. vii. 5), who, with the bishop of his party, compiled a defence of his doctrines (ib. viii. 2). According to Epiphanius (Haer. u.s.), he was consecrated bishop at Constantinople, though not to any particular see; and he and Eunomius consecrated bishops for his own party (Philost. viii. 2). On the death of Jovian, A.D. 364, Valens shewed special favour to Eudoxius, between whom and Aetius and Eunomius a schism had arisen. Aetius in disgust retired to his farm in Lesbos (ib. ix.4). The revolt of Procopius once more endangered his life. He was accused to the governor, whom Procopius had placed in the island, of favouring the cause of Valens, A.D. 365–366 (ib. ix. 6). Aetius returned to Constantinople. He was the author of several letters to Constantius and others, filled with subtle disquisition on the nature of the Deity (Socr. ii. 35), and of 300 heretical propositions, of which Epiphanius has preserved 47 (Haer. lxxvi. § 10), with a refutation of each. Hefele, Konz. Gesch. Bd. i.
Africanus, Julius (Ἀφρκανός), a Christian
writer at the beginning of the 3rd cent. A great part of his life was passed at
Emmaus in Palestine—not, however, the Emmaus of St. Luke (
Africanus ranks with Clement and Origen as among the most learned of the ante-Nicene fathers (Socr. H. E. ii. 35; Hieron. Ep. ad Magnum, 83, vol. iv. p. 656). His great work, a comparative view of sacred and profane history from the creation of the world, demanded extensive reading; and the fragments that remain refer to the works of a considerable number of historical writers. His only work now extant in a complete state is his letter to Origen referred to by many authors (Eus. H. E. vi. 31; Hieron. de Vir. Ill. c. 63; Photius, Cod. 34; Suidas, s.v. Ἀφρικανός; Niceph. Call. H. E. v. 21, and others). The correspondence originated in a discussion between Origen and a certain Bassus, at which Africanus was present, and in which Origen appealed to the authority of that part of the Book of Daniel which contains the story of Susanna. Africanus afterwards wrote a short letter to Origen urging several objections to the authenticity of this part of the book; among others, that the style is different from that of the genuine book, that this section is not in the book as received by the Jews, and that it contains a play on Gk. words which shews that, unlike other O.T. books, it was originally written in Gk. and not in Heb. Origen replied at greater length. That Africanus had any intimate knowledge of Heb. must not be regarded as proved by this letter. The date of the correspondence is limited by the facts that Origen writes from Nicomedia, having previously visited Palestine, and refers to his labours in a comparison of the Gk. and Heb. text, indicating that he had already published the Hexapla. These conditions are best satisfied by a date c. 238.
Not less celebrated is the letter of Africanus to Aristides on the discrepancy
in our Saviour's genealogies as given by St. Matthew and St. Luke. A considerable
portion of this has been preserved by Eusebius (H. E. i. 7), and Routh (Rel.
Sac. ii. 228) has published this together with a fragment not previously edited.
A compressed version of the letter is given also in Eusebii ad Stephanum, Quaest.
iv. (Mai, Script. Vet. Nov. Coll. vol. i.). Africanus begins by rejecting
a previous explanation that the genealogies are fictitious lists, designed to establish
our Lord's claim to be both king and priest by tracing His descent in one Gospel
from Solomon, in the other from Nathan, who was assumed to be Nathan the prophet.
Africanus argues the necessity of maintaining the literal truth of the Gospel narrative,
and against drawing dogmatic consequences from any statements not founded on historical
fact. He then gives his own explanation, founded on the levirate law of the Jews,
and professing to be traditionally derived from the Desposyni (or descendants of
the kindred of our Lord), who dwelt near the villages of Nazareth and Cochaba. According
to this view Matthew gives the natural, Luke the legal, descent of our Lord. Matthan,
it is said, of the house of Solomon, and Melchi of the house of Nathan, married
the same woman, whose name is given as Estha. Heli the son of Melchi (the names
Matthat and Levi found in our present copies of St. Luke are omitted by Africanus)
having died childless, his uterine brother Jacob, Matthan's son, took his wife and
raised up seed to him; so that the offspring Joseph was legally Heli's son as stated
by St. Luke, but naturally Jacob's son as stated by St. Matthew. For a critical
examination and defence of this solution, which is adopted by St.
The great work of Africanus was his "accurately laboured " (Eus. H. E. vi. 31) treatise on chronology, in five books. As a whole it is lost, but we can form a good idea of its general character from the still remaining Chronicon of Eusebius, which was based upon it, and which undoubtedly incorporates much of it. Eusebius himself, p. 132, mentions Africanus among his authorities for Jewish history, subsequent to O.T. times. Several fragments of the work of Africanus can be identified by express quotations, either by Eusebius in his Praeparatio and Demonstratio Evangelii, or by other writers, in particular by Georgius Syncellus in his Chronographia. These have been collected by Gallandi (Bibl. Vet. Pat. vol. ii.), and more fully by Routh (Rel. Sac. vol. ii.).
Christian Apologists had been forced to engage in chronological discussions, to remove the heathen contempt of Christianity as a novelty, by demonstrating the great antiquity of the Jewish system, out of which the Christian sprang. Thus Tatian (Or. ad Graec. c. 39), Theophilus of Antioch (ad. Autol. iii. 21), Clement of Alexandria (Stromata, i. 21), discuss the question of the antiquity of Moses, and, following Josephus (cont. Apion. i. 16), arrive at the conclusion that Moses was a contemporary of Inachus, and that the Exodus took place 393 years before the coming of Danaus to Argos. Africanus set himself to make a complete synopsis of sacred and profane history from the Creation, and to establish a synchronism between the two. He concludes that Moses and Ogyges were contemporaries. He thinks a connexion between the Ogygian deluge and the plagues of Egypt likely; and confirms his conclusions by deducing from Polemo, Apion, and Ptolemaeus Mendesius, that Moses was a contemporary of Inachus, whose son, Phoroneus, reigned at Argos in the time of Ogyges. Africanus follows the LXX: he counts 2262 years to the Deluge; he does not recognize the second Cainan; he places the Exodus A.M. 3707. In computing the years of the Judges he is blamed by Eusebius for lengthening the chronology by adding, without authority, 30 years for the elders after Joshua, 40 for anarchy after Samson, and 25 years of peace. He thus makes 740 years between the Exodus and Solomon. Our Lord's birth he places A.M. 5500, and two years before our common computation of Anno Domini. But he allows only one year for our Lord's public ministry, and thus dates the Crucifixion A.M. 5531. He calculates the commencement of the 70 weeks from the 20th year of Artaxerxes: from this to the death of our Lord he counts only 475 years, contending that the 70 weeks of Daniel are to be understood as 490 lunar years of 354 days each, equivalent to 475 Julian years.
Another interesting passage in the χρονικά
is one in which he treats of the darkness at the Crucifixion, and shews, in opposition
to the Syrian historian Thallus, that it was miraculous, and that an eclipse of
the sun could not have taken place at the full moon. Lastly, we may notice his statement
that there were still in his time remains of Jacob's terebinth at Shechem,
The work in all probability concluded with the Doxology, which St. Basil has cited (de Spir. Sanct. § 73, iii. 61) in justification of the form of doxology σὺν Ἀγίῳ Πνεύματι.
It remains to speak of another work, the κεστοί, expressly ascribed to Africanus by Eusebius (H. E. vi. 31), Photius (l.c.), Suidas (l.c.), and Syncellus (p. 359). Perhaps (as Scaliger suggests) quoting the Chronika of Eusebius. According to this authority, the work consisted of nine books; and it is probably owing to errors of transcribers that we now find Photius enumerating 14 and Suidas 24. The work seems to have received the fanciful name of Cesti, or variegated girdles, from the miscellaneous character of its contents, which embraced the subjects of geography, natural history, medicine, agriculture, the art of war, etc. The portions that remain have suffered mutilation and addition by different copyists. The external evidence for ascribing the Cesti and Chronology to the same author is too strong to be easily set aside, and is not without some internal confirmation. Thus the author of the Cesti was better acquainted with Syria than with Libya; for he mentions the abundance of a certain kind of serpent in Syria, and gives its Syrian name (Vet. Math. p. 290), but when he gives a Libyan word (Geopon. p. 226) he does so on second-hand testimony. And he was a Christian, for he asserts (Geopon. p. 178) that wine may be kept from spoiling by writing on the vessels "the divine words, Taste and see that the Lord is gracious." The unlikelihood of Africanus having written such a work becomes less if we look upon him not as an ecclesiastic, but as a Christian philosopher, pursuing his former studies after his conversion, and entering in his note-books many things more in accordance with the spirit of his own age than with that of ours. Cf. Harnack on Julius Africanus Sextus in Herzog, 3rd ed. The last edition of the Chronography is in Gelzer, Sex. Jul. Afr. (2 vols. Leipzig, 1880–1898); see also Spitta (Halle, 1877) on the letter to Aristides, Harnack, Lit. i. 507–513 and ii. 1, pp. 124 sqq.
Agapetus, bp. of Rome, was, we are told, a Roman by birth, the son of Gordianus a priest (Anast. quoted by Clinton, Fasti Romani, p. 763; Jaffé, Regesta Pontificum, p. 73). He was already an old man when, six days after the death of Johannes II., he was elected pope in June 535. He began by formally reversing an act of Bonifacius II., one of his own immediate predecessors, fulminating anathemas against the deceased antipope Dioscorus, A.D. 530 (Anast. vol. i. p. 100).
We next find him entering Constantinople on Feb. 19, 536 (Glint. F. R.
p. 765), sent thither by Theodahad to avert, if possible, the war with which he
was threatened by the emperor Justinian in revenge for the murder of his queen Amalasontha:
and we are told that he succeeded in the objects of his mission (Anast. vol. i.
p. 102), which must refer to other objects, for lie certainly failed to avert
Agatha, a virgin martyred at Catana in Sicily under Decius, Feb. 5, 251, according to her Acta; but under Diocletian according to the Martyrol. and Aldhelm (de Virgin. 22); mentioned by Pope Damasus A.D. 366 (Carm. v.), and by Venantius Fortunatus c. 580; inserted in the Canon of the Mass by Gregory the Great according to Aldhelm (u.s., and see also S. Greg. M. Dial. iii. 30); and commemorated in a homily by Methodius, c. 900. Her name is in the Carthag. Calendar of c. 450; in Ruinart, p. 695; and in the black-letter calendar in our Prayer-book. Churches at Rome were dedicated to her by pope Symmachus c. 500; by Ricimer A.D. 460, enriched with her relics by Gregory the Great; and by Gregory II. in 726. She is the patroness of Malta (Butler's Lives of Saints). See also the homily against Peril of Idolatry, p. iii.
Agnes, M. a virgin, 12 or 13 years old, beheaded at Rome under Diocletian, celebrated by Ambrose (de Offic. i. 41; de Virg. ad Marcell. i. 2), Jerome (Ep. 97 ad demetriad.), Augustine (Serm. 273, 286, and 354), Sulp. Sever. (Dial. ii. 14), Prudentius (περὶ Στεφάνων, xiv.), Venant. Fortunatus (Poem. vii. iii. 35), Aldhelm (de Virgin.); and by her Acta in Syriac in Assemani, Act. Mart. ii. 148 seq.; besides Acta falsely attributed to St. Ambrose, a doubtful homily of St. Maxim. Taurin., and some verses questionably assigned to pope Damasus. Her name is in the Carthag. Cal. of c. 450, Jan. 21; in Ruinart, p. 695. A church at Rome, in her honour, said to have been built under Constantine the Great, was repaired by Pope Honorius, A.D. 625–638, and another was built at Rome by Innocent X. (Assemani, Act. Mart. ii. 154, 155). See also Act. SS. Jan. 21, on which day her name stands in the black-letter calendar of our Prayer-book. Baeda and Usuard place it on Jan. 23; the Menolog. and Menaea on July 5.
Agnoëtae (from ἀγνοέω, to be ignorant of), a name applied to two sects who denied the omniscience either of God the Father, or of God the Son in His state of humiliation.
I. The first were a sect of the Arians, and called from Eunomius and Theophronius "Eunomio-Theophronians" (Socr. H. E. v. 24). Their leader, Theophronius, of Cappadocia, who flourished about 370, maintained that God knew things past by memory and things future only by uncertain prescience. Sozomen (H. E. vii. 17) writes of him: "Having given some attention to the writings of Aristotle, he composed an appendix to them, entitled Exercises of the Mind. But he afterwards engaged in many unprofitable disputations, and soon ceased to confine himself to the doctrines of his master. [Eunomius.] Under the assumption of being deeply versed in the terms of Scripture, he attempted to prove that though God is acquainted with the present, the past, and the future, his knowledge on these subjects is not the same in degree, and is subject to some kind of mutation. As this hypothesis appeared positively absurd to the Eunomians, they excommunicated him from their church; and he constituted himself the leader of a new sect, called after his own name, 'Theophronians.'"
II. Better known are the Agnoëtae or Themistiani, in the Monophysite
controversy in 6th cent. Themistius, deacon of Alexandria, representing a small
branch of the Monophysite Severians, taught, after the death of Severus, that the
human soul (not the Divine nature) of Christ was like us in all things, even in
the limitation of knowledge, and was ignorant of many things, especially the day
of judgment, which the Father alone knew (
Alaric (Teut. prob. = Athalaric, noble ruler), general and king (398) of the Goths, the most civilized and merciful of the barbarian chiefs who ravaged the Roman Empire.
Alaric first appears among the Gothic army who assisted Theodosius in opposing Eugenius, 394. He led the revolt of his nation against Arcadius, ravaged the provinces south of the Danube, and invaded Greece 395. Athens capitulated, and afterwards Corinth, Argos, and Sparta. Under the title of Master-General of Eastern Illyricum, 398, he became the ally of Arcadius and secretly planned the invasion of Italy. In the winter of 402 he crossed the Alps, was defeated by Stilicho at Pollentia on Easter Day 403, and driven from Italy. In 404 he exchanged the prefecture of Eastern for that of Western Illyricum, and the service of Arcadius for that of Honorius, and, after the incursion and annihilation of Radagaisus and his Sclavonian hordes in 405, he was subsidized for his supposed services to the empire by the payment of 4,000 pounds of gold. Stilicho's ruin and death in 408, the subsequent massacre of the Goths settled in Italy, and Honorius's impolitic refusal of Alaric's equitable terms, caused the second invasion of Italy, and the first siege of Rome, which ended in a capitulation. At the second siege in 409, preceded by the capture of Ostia, the city was surrendered unconditionally, and Alaric set up Attalus as emperor, in opposition to Honorius, who remained at Ravenna. At the close of the third siege, in 410 (Aug. 24), the city was in the hands of the Goths for six days, during three of which the sack was continued. Alaric died at Consentia late in 410.
The effect of Alaric's conquests on the cause of Christianity, and on the spiritual position of Rome in Western Christendom, is well traced by Dean Milman (Lat. Christ. i. 110–140). Alaric and his Goths had embraced Christianity probably from the teaching of Ulfilas, the Arian bishop, who died in 388 (Mosheim, ed. Stubbs, i. 233). This age witnessed the last efforts of Paganism to assert itself as the ancient and national religion, and Rome was its last stronghold. Pagans and Christians had retorted upon each other the charge that the calamities of the empire were due to the desertion of the old or new system of faith respectively, and the truth of falsehood of either was generally staked upon the issue. The almost miraculous discomfiture of the heathen Radagaisus by Stilicho, in spite of his vow to sacrifice the noblest senators of Rome on the altars of the gods which delighted in human blood, was accepted as an ill omen by those at Rome who hoped for a public restoration of Paganism (Gibbon, iv. 47–49, ed. Smith; Milman, Lat. Christ. i. 122). Rome, impregnable while Stilicho, her Christian defender, lived, could submit only to the approach of Alaric, "a Christian and a soldier, the leader of a disciplined army, who understood the laws of war, and respected the sanctity of treaties." In the first siege of Rome both pagan and Christian historians relate the strange proposal to relieve the city by the magical arts of some Etruscan diviners, who were believed to have power to call down lightning from heaven, and direct it against Alaric's camp. That pope Innocent assented to this public ceremony rests only on the authority of the heathen Zosimus (v. 41). It is questioned whether this idolatrous rite actually took place. Alaric perhaps imagined that he was furthering the Divine purpose in besieging Rome. Sozomen (Hist. Eccl. ix. c. 7) mentions as a current story that a certain monk, on urging the king, then on his march through Italy, to spare the city, received the reply that he was not acting of his own accord, but that some one was persistently forcing him on and urging him to sack Rome.
The shock felt through the world at the news of the capture of Rome in Alaric's
third siege, 410, was disproportioned to the real magnitude of the calamity: contrast
the exaggerated language of St. Jerome, Ep. ad Principiam, with Orosius,
1. vii. c. 39, and St. Augustine, de Civ. Dei, ii. 2 (a work written between
413 and 426 with the express object of refuting the Pagan arguments from the sack
of Rome), and his tract, de Excidio Urbis (Opp. t. vi. 622–628, ed.
Bened.). The book in which Zosimus related the fall of Rome has been lost, so that
we have to gather information from Christian sources; but it is plain that the destruction
and loss was chiefly on the side of Paganism, and that little escaped which did
not shelter itself under the protection of Christianity. "The heathens fled to the
churches, the only places of refuge. . . . There alone rapacity and lust and cruelty
were arrested and stood abashed" (Milman, p. 133). The property of the churches
and the persons of Christian virgins were generally respected. The pagan inhabitants
of Rome were scattered over Africa, Egypt, Syria, and the East, and were encountered
alike by St. Jerome at Bethlehem and by St. Augustine at Carthage. Innocent I. was
absent at Ravenna during the siege of Rome. On his return heathen temples were converted
into Christian churches; "with Paganism expired the venerable titles of the religion,
the great High Priests and Flamens, the Auspices and Augurs. On the pontifical throne
sat the bp. of Rome, who would soon possess the substance of the imperial power"
(ib. p. 139). Alaric was also instrumental in driving Paganism from Greece.
Zosimus (v. 7)
The conquests of Alaric, though achieved at an age when the Church boasted many eminent saints and writers, afford far fewer materials for the martyrologist and hagiologist than those of Attila. Alaric, though an Arian, is nowhere recorded to have persecuted the Catholics whom war had placed in his power. Jornandes and Isidore of Seville, Gothic historians, and Orosius, a Spanish Catholic, are equally silent on this point. The following facts of personal history have been preserved. In the sack of Rome Marcella, an aged matron, was thrown on the ground and cruelly beaten (Hieron. Ep. ad Princip.); a nameless lady, who persistently repelled her capturer, was conducted by him to the sanctuary of the Vatican; and an aged virgin, to whose charge some sacred vessels had been entrusted, through her bold constancy preserved them intact. At the plunder of Nola in Campania, St. Paulinus its bishop is said to have prayed, "Lord, let me not suffer torture either for gold or silver, since Thou knowest where are all my riches" (Fleury, Eccl. Hist. ed. Newman, bk. xxii. c. 21). Proba, widow of the prefect Petronius, retired to Africa with her daughter Laeta and her granddaughter Demetrias (Hieron. Ep. cxxx. t. i. p. 969, ed. Vallars.), and spent her large fortune in relieving the captives and exiles. (See Tillemont, Mém. ecclés. t. xiii. pp. 620–635.) Valuable contributions to the history of Alaric not already mentioned are Sigonius, Opp. t. i. par. 1, pp. 347 sqq. ed. Argellati; Aschbach, Gesch. der Westgothen.
Albanus, M. The protomartyr of Britain was martyred probably at Verulamium, and according to either the "conjecture" or the "knowledge" (conjicimus or cognoscimus) of Gildas, in the time of Diocletian, and if so, A.D. 304, but according to another legend, which, however, still speaks of Diocletian, in 286 (Anglo-Sax. Chron., Lib. Landav.). Eusebius (H. E. viii. 13, and de Mart. Palaest. xiii. 10, 11), Lactantius (de Mort. Persecut. xv. xvi.), and Sozomen (i. 6) deny that there was any persecution during the time of Constantius in "the Gauls," which term included Britain. Possibly, however, Constantius may have been compelled to allow one or two martyrdoms. It is certain that 125 years after the latest date assigned to Alban's martyrdom, 144 after the earliest, viz. A.D. 429 (Prosper, Chron.), Germanus visited his relics in Britain, presumably at Verulamium (Constant. in V. S. Germani, written A.D. 473–492). Gildas mentions him in 560 (his statement, however, about the persecution is of no value, being simply a transference of Eusebius's words to Britain, to which Eusebius himself says they did not apply), and Venantius Fortunatus (Poem. viii. iv. 155) c. 580. Bede, in 731, copies Constantius and certain Acta otherwise unknown. And the subsequent foundation of Offa in 793 only serves to identify the place with the tradition. The British Life discovered by the St. Albans monk Unwona in the 10th cent., according to Matthew Paris, in VV. Abb. S. Alban., is apparently a myth; and the Life by William of St. Albans (12th cent.) is of the ordinary nature and value of lives of the kind and date. But the testimony of Germanus, in Constantius's Life of him, seems sufficient proof that a tradition of the martyrdom of somebody named Albanus existed at Verulamium a century and something more after the supposed date of that martyrdom. His martyrdom with many fabulous details is related in Bede (i. 7). W. Bright, Chapters of Early Ch. Hist. (1897), p. 6.
Albion, king of the Langobardi, or Lombards, and founder of the kingdom
subject to that people in Italy, was the son of that Audoin under whom the Lombards
emerge from obscurity to occupy Pannonia, invited by the Emperor of Constantinople,
in accordance with the usual Byzantine policy, as a check to the Gepidae. In the
wars with the latter nation Alboin first appears. The confused accounts of them
which Procopius preserves exhibit the tribe and their prince as rude and ferocious
barbarians, and Alboin was a fit leader of such a tribe (Paul. Diac. i. 27, ii.
28). That he was personally a Christian, though an Arian, is proved by a letter
from a Gallic bishop to his first wife, a Gallic princess, which deplores, not his
heathenism, but his heresy (Sirmond. Conc. Gall. i.). Succeeding his father,
Alboin accomplished, by the aid of the Avars, the destruction of the Gepidae (see
Gibbon, c. xlv.). The conquest of Italy followed. Alboin's invading army was heterogeneous.
Besides 20,000 Saxons accompanied by their families, who recrossed the Alps after
the conquest, Muratori has deduced (Antich. It. i. diss. 1) from Italian
topography the presence of the Bavarians, and Paul. (ii. 26) adds distinctly the
names of several other tribes. The number of the army is unknown, but was considerable,
as it was a migration of the whole tribe, and it largely changed the character and
arrangements of population in Italy. Alboin left Pannonia in April 568; the passes
were unguarded, and he learnt from his own success the need of securing his rear
and the frontier of his future kingdom, and entrusted the defence and government
of Venetia Prima, his first conquest, to Gisulf his nephew, with the title of duke
and the command of those whom he should himself select among the most eminent of
the "Farae" or nobles (Paul. ii. ix.). From this point the conquest was rapid. In
Liguria (the western half of north Italy), Genoa, with some cities of the Riviera,
alone escaped. Pavia held out for three years: perhaps its siege was not very vigorously
pressed, for we know that a great part of Alboin's force was detached in flying
squadrons which ravaged the country southwards all through Tuscany and Aemilia,
to so great a distance that Paul mentions Rome and Ravenna as almost the only places
which escaped. The death of Alboin followed the fall of Pavia. The story of his
death is like that of his early life in the picture which it gives of a thoroughly
barbaric society, where the skull of an enemy is used as a drinking-cup, and the
men hold their banquets apart from the women (Gibbon, c. 45). Paul. avouches that
the cup was to be seen in his own day. The chief authority for the life of Alboin,
Paulus Diaconus, lived towards the
Alexander, St., archbp. of Alexandria, appears to have come to that see
in 313, after the short episcopate of Achillas. He was an elderly man, of a kindly
and attractive disposition; "gentle and quiet," as Rufinus says (i. 1), but also
capable of acting with vigour and persistency. Accusations were laid against him
by the malcontent Meletian faction, "before the emperor," Constantine (Athan.
Apol. c. Ar. 11; ad Ep. Aeg. 23), but apparently without result. He was
involved in a controversy with one Crescentius as to the proper time for keeping
Easter (Epiph. Haer. 70, 9). But in 319 he was called upon to confront a
far more formidable adversary. [Arius.]
Arius was the parish priest, as he may be described, of the church of Baukalis,
the oldest and the most important of the churches of Alexandria, situated "in the
head of the mercantile part of the city" (Neale, Hist. Alex. i. 116), a man
whose personal abilities enhanced the influence of his official position; he had
been a possible successor at the last vacancy of the "Evangelical Throne," and may
have consequently entertained unfriendly feelings towards its actual occupant. But
it would be unreasonable to ascribe his opinions to private resentment. Doubtless
the habits of his mind (Bright, Hist. Ch. p. 11) prepared him to adopt and
carry out to their consequences, with a peculiar boldness of logic, such views as
he now began to disseminate in Alexandrian society: that the Son of God could not
be co-eternal with His Father; that He must be regarded as external to the Divine
essence, and only a creature. The bishop tried at first to check this heresy by
remonstrance at an interview, but with no real success. Agitation increasing, Alexander
summoned a conference of his clergy; free discussion was allowed; and, according
to Sozomen, Alexander seemed to waver between the Arian and anti-Arian positions.
Ultimately he asserted in strong terms the co-equality of the Son; whereupon Arius
criticized his language as savouring of the Sabellian error [Sabellius]
which had "confounded the Persons." The movement increased, and Alexander himself
was charged with irresolution or even with some inclination towards the new errors.
It was then, apparently, that Colluthus, one of the city presbyters, went so far
as to separate from his bishop's communion, and, on the plea of the necessities
of the crisis, "ordained" some of his followers as clergy. (See Valesius on Theod,
i. 4, and Neale, i. 116). Alexander's next step was to write to Arius and his supporters,
including two bishops, five priests, and six deacons, exhorting them to renounce
their "impiety"; and the majority of the clergy of Alexandria and the Mareotis,
at his request, subscribed his letter. The exhortation failing, the archbishop brought
the case formally before the synod of his suffragans, who numbered nearly 100. The
Arians were summoned to appear: they stated their opinions; the Son, they held,
was not eternal, but was created by the impersonal "Word," or Wisdom of the Father;
foreign, therefore, to the Father's essence, imperfectly cognizant of Him, and,
in fact, called into existence to be His instrument in the creation of man. "And
can He then," asked one of the bishops, "change from good to evil, as Satan did?"
They did not shrink from answering, "Since He is a creature, such a change is not
impossible"; and the council instantly pronounced them to be "anathema." Such was
the excommunication of Arius, apparently in 320. It was as far as possible from
arresting the great movement of rationalistic thought (for this, in truth, was the
character of Arianism) which had now so determinedly set in. The new opinions became
extraordinarily popular; Alexandrian society was flooded with colloquial irreverence.
But Arius ere long found that he could not maintain his position in the city when
under the ban of the archbishop; it may be that Alexander had power actually to
banish him; and he repaired to Palestine, where, as he expected, he found that his
representations of the case made a favourable impression on several bishops, including
Eusebius of Caesarea. Some wrote in his favour to Alexander, who, on his part, was
most indefatigable in writing to various bishops in order to prevent them from being
deceived by Arius; Epiphanius tells us that seventy such letters were preserved
in his time (Haer. 69. 4). Of these, some were sufficiently effectual in
Palestine to constrain Arius to seek an abode at Nicomedia. He had secured the support
of the bishop of the city, the able but unprincipled Eusebius (Theod. i. 5; Athan.
de Syn. 17); and he now wrote (Athan. de Syn. 16) in the name of "the
presbyters and deacons" who had been excommunicated, to Alexander, giving a statement
of their views, and professing that they had been learned from Alexander himself;
the fact being, probably, as Möhler thinks, that Alexander had formerly used vague
language in an anti-Sabellian direction. Eusebius now repeatedly urged Alexander
to readmit Arius to communion; and the other bishops of Bithynia, in synod (Soz.
i. 15), authorized their chief to send circular letters in his favour to various
prelates. A Cilician bishop, Athanasius of Anazarbus, wrote to Alexander, openly
declaring that Christ was "one of the hundred sheep"; George, an Alexandrian presbyter,
then staying at Antioch, had the boldness to write to his bishop to the effect that
the Son once "was not," just as Isaiah "was not," before he was born to Amoz (Athan.
de Syn. 17), for which he was deposed by Alexander from the priesthood. Arius
now returned into Palestine, and three bishops of that country, one of whom was
Eusebius of Caesarea, permitted him to hold religious assemblies within their dioceses.
This permission naturally gave great offence to Alexander. He had hitherto written
only to individual bishops, but he now
Another correspondent now appears on the scene. Eusebius of Nicomedia, who had a strong influence over the emperor Constantine, persuaded the latter to write, or to adopt and sign, a letter to Alexander and Arius, in which the controversy was treated as a logomachy (Eus. Vit. Con. ii. 64 seq.; Socr. i. 7). The imperial epistle was entrusted to a prelate of very high position, Hosius of Cordova, who can have had but little sympathy with the tone assumed by the Emperor. The council held at Alexandria on his arrival decided one point very unequivocally: the ordinations performed by Colluthus were pronounced absolutely null (Athan. Apol. 76). Peace was impossible on the basis of indifferentism, and Constantine summoned a general assembly of bishops to meet at Nicaea, in June 325. [D. C. A., art. NICAEA, COUNCIL OF.] The Arians were condemned, and the Nicene Creed, in its original form, was drawn up.
The story told by Epiphanius, of severities used by Alexander towards the Meletians [Meletius], and of a consequent petition addressed by them to Constantine, appears to be one of several misstatements which he adopted from some Meletian sources. Athanasius tells us expressly that Alexander died within five months after the reception of the Meletians into church communion in the council of Nicaea (Apol. c. Ari. 59), and this, if strictly reckoned from the close of the council, would place his death in Jan. 326. It cannot be dated later than April 18 in that year. See further, Athanasius.
Athanasius mentions a circumstance of Alexander's local administration which furnished a precedent, on one occasion, for himself. Alexander was building the church of St. Theonas at Alexandria, on a larger scale than any of the existing churches, and used it, for convenience' sake, before it was completed (Ap. ad Const. 15). He is also said by tradition to have never read the Gospels in a sitting posture, and to have never eaten on fast days while the sun was in the sky (Bolland. Act. SS., Feb. 26). Two short fragments of a letter addressed by him to a bishop named Aeglon, against the Arians, are quoted in the works of Maximus the Confessor (in the Monothelite controversy), vol. ii. p. 152. A trans. of his extant writings is in the Ante-Nicene Lib. (T. & T. Clark).
Alexander, St., bp. of Byzantium, as the city was then called (Theod. Hist. i. 19) for about 23 years, his consecration being variously dated from A.D. 313 to 317. He was already 73 years old at the time (Socr. Hist. ii. 6; Soz. Hist. iii. 3). He is highly praised by Gregory of Nazianzum (Or. 27), and by Epiphanius (adv. Haer. lxix. 10). Theodoret calls him an "apostolic" bishop (Hist. i. 3, cf. Phil. 12). In the commencement of the Arian troubles the co-operation of Alexander was specially requested by his namesake of Alexandria (Theod. i. 4); and he was present at the council of Nicaea (Soz. ii. 29). When Constantine, induced by the Eusebians (Athan. Ep. ad Serap.; Rufinus, Hist. i.), and deceived by the equivocations of Arius (Socr. i. 37), commanded that Arius should be received to communion, Alexander, though threatened by the Eusebians with deposition and banishment, persisted in his refusal to admit the archheretic to communion, and shut himself up in the church of Irene for prayer in this extremity. Alexander did not long survive Arius (Socr. ii. 6; Theod. i. 19). On his death-bed he is said to have designated Paulus as his successor, and warned his clergy against the speciousness of Macedonius.
Alexander, bp. of Hierapolis Euphratensis and metropolitan in the patriarchate of Antioch; the uncompromising opponent of Cyril of Alexandria, and the resolute advocate of Nestorius in the controversies that followed the council of Ephesus, A.D. 431. His dignity as metropolitan gave him a leading place in the opposition of which the patriarch John of Antioch was the head, and his influence was confirmed by personal character. He may have commenced his episcopate as early as A.D. 404, when with uncompromising zeal he erased from the diptychs of one of his churches the name of Julian, a man famous for sanctity, but accused of Apollinarianism (Baluz. Nov. Coll. Conc. p. 867).
Alexander arrived at the council of Ephesus in company with his brother metropolitan
Alexander of Apamea on or about June 20, 431. As soon as the Alexanders discovered
Cyril's intention to open the council before John of Antioch's arrival they, on
June 21, united with the other bishops of the East in signing a formal act demanding
delay (Labbe, Concil. iii. 552, 660, 662; Baluz. 697, 699). The council heeded
them not, opened their sittings the next day, June 22, and soon did the work for
which they had been summoned, the condemnation of Nestorius. When John at last arrived,
June 27, Alexander joined in the counter-council held by him and the prelates of
his party in his inn, and signed the acts which cancelled the proceedings of the
former council, deposing Cyril and Memnon, bp. of Ephesus, and declaring Cyril's
anathemas heretical. As a necessary consequence Alexander was included in the sentence
against John, and cut off from communion with Cyril's party (Labbe, iii. 764; Baluz.
507). Later he joined the council held by John at Tarsus, which pronounced a fresh
sentence of deposition on Cyril (Baluz. 840, 843, 874); also that at Antioch in
the middle of December, ratifying the former acts and declaring adherence to the
Nicene faith. A meeting was held at Antioch early in 432, attended by Alexander,
when six alternative articles were drawn up, one of which it was hoped Cyril would
accept, and so afford a basis of reconciliation (ib. 764). One declared a
resolution to be content with the Nicene Creed and to reject all the documents
that had caused the controversy. Another council was summoned at Beroea. Four more
articles were added to the six, and the whole were despatched to Cyril. Cyril was
well content to express his adherence to the Nicene Creed, but felt it unreasonable
that he should
The end was now near at hand. Pulcheria and Theodosius had been carefully informed of the obstinate refusal of Alexander and the few left to support him to communicate with those whose orthodoxy had been recognized by the church. John had obtained imperial rescripts decreeing the expulsion and banishment of all bishops who still refused to communicate with him (ib. 876). This rescript was executed in the case of other recusants; Alexander still remained. John expressed great unwillingness to take any steps towards the deprivation of his former friend. He commissioned Theodoret to use his influence with him. But Theodoret had again to report the impossibility of softening his inflexibility. John now, A.D. 435, felt he could not offer any further resistance to the imperial decrees. But no compulsion was needed: Alexander obeyed the order with calmness, and even with joy at laying aside the burdens and anxieties of the episcopate. He went forth in utter poverty, not taking with him a single penny of his episcopal revenue, or a book or paper belonging to the church. His sole outfit consisted of some necessary documents, and the funds contributed by friends for the hire of vehicles (ib. 868, 881, 882). The banishment of their beloved and revered bishop overwhelmed the people of Hierapolis with grief. Fear of the civil authorities deterred them from any open manifestation, but they closed the churches, shut themselves up in their houses, and wept in private. In exile at the mines of Phamuthin in Egypt, Alexander died, sternly adhering to his anathemas of Cyril to the last (Tillemont, Mém. Ecclés. xiv. xv.; Labbe, Concil. vol. iii.; Baluz. Nov. Collect.)
Alexander, bp. of Jerusalem, was an early friend and fellow scholar of Origen at Alexandria, where they studied together under Pantaenus and Clemens Alex. (Eus. H. E. vi. 14). He was bishop of a city in Cappadocia (ib. vi. 11); or, according to Valesius (Not. ad Euseb.) and Tillemont (Mém. eccl. iii. p. 183), of Flaviopolis in Cilicia. He became a confessor in the persecution of Severus, A.D. 204, and was thrown into prison, where he continued some years. He was still a prisoner at the commencement of Caracalla's reign, A.D. 211, when he sent a letter by the hand of Clemens to congratulate the church of Antioch on the appointment of Asclepiades as their bishop in the room of Serapion (Eus. vi. 11). The next year he was released from prison, and, in fulfilment of a vow, visited Jerusalem, where he was chosen coadjutor to the aged bp. Narcissus. This being the first occasion of the translation of a bishop, as well as of the appointment of a coadjutor bishop, and in apparent violation of the canons of the church, it was deemed essential to obtain the sanction of the whole episcopate of Palestine. A synod was summoned at Jerusalem, and the assembled bishops gave their unanimous consent to the step, A.D. 213 (Hieron. de Script. Eccl.; Vales. Not. in Euseb. vi. 11; Socr. vii. 36; Bingham, Origines, bk. ii. § 4). On the death of Narcissus, Alexander succeeded as sole bishop. His chief claim to celebrity rests on the library he formed at Jerusalem, and on the boldness with which he supported Origen against his bishop, Demetrius of Alexandria. [Origen.] The friendship of Alexander and Origen was warm and lasting; and the latter bears testimony to the remarkable gentleness and sweetness of character manifested in all Alexander's public instructions (Orig. Homil. I. in Lib. Reg. No. 1). Alexander was again thrown into prison at Caesarea in the Decian persecution, where he died A.D. 251 (Eus. H. E. vi. 46; Hieron. Script. Eccl.). Eusebius has preserved some fragments of Alexander's letters: to the Antinoites, H. E. vi. 11, to the church of Antioch, ib.; to Origen, H. E. vi. 14, and to Demetrius, H. E. vi. 19. These have been published by Galland, Biblioth. Vet. Patrum, vol. ii. pp. 201 seq. Clemens Alex. dedicated his Canon Ecclesiasticus to him (Eus. vi. 13).
Alexander I., bp. of Rome, is stated by all the authorities to have been the successor of Evaristus. Eusebius (H. E. iv. 4) makes him succeed in A.D. 109, in his Chronicle, A. D. 111 (f. 89). He assigns him in both works a reign of ten years. He has been confused with a martyr of the same name, who is mentioned in a fragment of an inscription.
Alogians, or Alogi (from ἀ
privative and Λόγος, deniers of the Logos,
or at least of the strongest witness for the Logos; not from
ἄλογοι, unreasonable), a heretical sect
of disputed
Epiphanius, Haer. 50, and esp. 54; M. Merkel, Historisch-kritische Aufklärung der Streitigkeit der Aloger über die Apokalypsis (Frankf. and Leipz. 1782); F. A. Heinichen, de Alogis, Theodotianis atque Artemonitis (Leipz. 1829); Neander, Kirchengesch. i. ii. pp. 906, 1003; Dorner, op. cit. vol. ii. pp. 500–503; Harnack, Literatur, ii. 1; Zahn, Neutest. Kanon. i. 220, ii. 967.
Ambrosiaster, or Pseudo-Ambrosius, a name generally employed to
denote the unknown author of the Commentaria in xiii Epistolas beati Pauli,
formerly ascribed to St. Ambrose and usually printed along with his works. The
commentary itself contains no definite indication of its authorship. An incidental
remark, however, on
It was the generally received opinion in the Middle Ages that our author was
Ambrose, bp. of Milan; but this belief, which Erasmus was among the first to question,
is now universally admitted to rest on no sufficient grounds, though opinions differ
much as to the probable author. From certain expressions which appear favourable
to Pelagianism the work has been assigned by some to Julian of Aeclanum; but, as
Richard Simon has naïvely remarked, "if the writer does not always appear orthodox
to those who profess to follow the doctrine of St. Augustine, it must be taken into
account that he wrote before that Father had published his opinions." The expressions
in question were probably employed without reference to the Pelagian controversy,
and previous to its emergence, and are, moreover, accompanied by others entirely
incompatible with a Pelagian authorship (e.g. the statement in Ep. ad
Rom.
The only positive statement as to the authorship is contained in the following
passage of Augustine, Contra duas Epistolas Pelagianorum, lib. iv. c. 7:
"Nam et sic sanctus Hilarius intellexit quod scriptum est, in quo
omnes peccaverunt: ait enim, 'In quo, id est in Adam omnes peccaverunt.' Deinde
addidit: 'Manifestum est in Adam omnes peccasse quasi in massâ; ipse enim per peccatum
corruptus, quos genuit omnes nati sunt sub peccato.' Haec scribens Hilarius sine
ambiguitate commonuit, quomodo intelligendum esset, in quo omnes peccaverunt."
As the words cited are found in this commentary, it may be reasonably assumed that
the statement applies to it, and that Augustine reckoned Hilarius its author. Of
the persons of that name, Augustine elsewhere mentions only Hilarius the Sardinian,
deacon of the Roman church, sent by pope Liberius in 354 to the emperor Constantius
after the synod
There is, moreover, a marked affinity between this commentary and certain portions of the Quaestiones Veteris et Novi Testamenti usually printed with the works of St. Augustine. The similarity of ideas and, in various cases, identity of language can only be explained by supposing either that they have had a common author, or that the writer of the one work has borrowed largely from the other. The note of time in the Quaestiones—300 years after the destruction of Jerusalem—and some references to contemporary events suit the period of Damasus, and have induced many to ascribe this work also to Hilary the deacon. But the authorship of both remains uncertain, and probably the Quaestiones was composed subsequently to the commentary.
The commentary on the Pauline Epistles, notwithstanding its inequalities of treatment, is of great value, and is well characterized by Sixtus Senensis as "brief in words, but weighty in matter"; and, although the writer is frequently controversial, he speedily returns to the proper work of exegesis. In consequence of his use of the old Latin version and frequent reference to various readings, his work affords important materials for textual criticism.
The commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, which accompanies the others in some editions, but is omitted by the Benedictine editors, is a compilation from various Patristic sources, principally from Chrysostom. Cf. H. B. Swete, Theod. Mops. Comm. (1880), vol. i. p. lxxviii., vol. ii. p. 351.
The commentary was issued separately at Cologne in 1530 and 1532. Cf. A Study of Ambrosiaster by A. Souter (Camb. Univ. Press); Text and Studies, vol. vii. No. 4.
Ambrosius (1) (Ἀμβρόσιος) of Alexandria, a deacon according to Jerome (de Vir. Ill. 56), the disciple and friend of Origen, died c. 250.
It is not certain whether Ambrose was a Christian by birth; but he was of a noble and wealthy family (Orig. Exhort. ad. Mart. 14 f. 49; Hieron. l.c.), and probably occupied some office under the Imperial Government (Epiph. Haer. 64, 3: cf. Orig. ib. c. 36). Endowed with an active and critical mind, he at first neglected the simple teaching of the Gospel for the more philosophic systems of heresy (Orig. in Johann. tom. v.). However, when he met Origen he recognized his true teacher, and embraced the orthodox faith (Epiph. l.c.). From that time to his death Ambrose devoted his whole energy to encouraging his great master in his labours on Holy Scripture, and used his fortune to further them (Eus. H. E. vi. 23).
Ambrose left no writings of his own except some letters, but it is evident that he exercised a powerful influence upon Origen, who called him his "taskmaster," ἐργοδιώκτης (in Johann. tom. v.), and it may have been through his zeal in "collation" (Orig. Ep. 1.) that Origen undertook his critical labours. Through mistaken devotion, Ambrose indiscreetly permitted the publication of some unrevised treatises of Origen which were intended only for his own use (Hieron. Ep. 84, 10).
Ambrosius (2), "a chief man of Greece," and a "senator," "who became a Christian," and, according to the title of the Syriac translation, wrote the "Address to the Greeks" (Λόγος πρὸς Ἕλληνας), which is published with the works of Justin Martyr (Cureton, Spicil. Syr. pp. xi. 61). There is no other trace of this tradition, nor ground for identifying him with Ambrose of Alexandria.
Ambrosius, St., bp. of Milan (A.D. 374–397). The chief materials for his life are his own works, which include an important collection of letters. Another source is a Life by Paulinus, his notarius or secretary, who had been with him at his death and wrote at the suggestion of St. Augustine. This Life is full of prodigies, and adds hardly anything to what we learn from the works. The letters have been reduced to a chronological order with great care by the Benedictine editors of St. Ambrose, who have also digested the various particulars into a useful biography.
Ambrose's father, who bore the same name, was a Roman of the highest rank, and at the time of St. Ambrose's birth was prefect of the Galliae, a province which included Britain and Spain, and constituted one of the four great praetorian prefectures of the empire. The only datum for determining the year of Ambrose's birth is a passage in one of his letters in which he happens to mention that he is fifty-three years old, and at the same time contrasts the quiet of Campania with the commotions by which he was himself surrounded (Ep. lix. 3). There are two periods to which this description would apply, A.D. 387 or 393. If we assume, as seems most probable, that Ambrose was fifty-three years old in 393, we shall place his birth in 340.
After receiving a liberal education at Rome, Ambrose devoted himself to the profession
of the law, which was then the usual path to the highest civil offices (see Gibbon,
c. xvii.). He practised at the court of the praetorian prefect of Italy, Probus,
who appointed him "consular"
One of his first cares after his ordination was to divest himself of the charge of private property. As a member of a wealthy family he appears to have possessed both money and lands. What he did not give away to the poor or the church or reserve as an income for his sister, he placed entirely under the management of a dearly loved brother named Satyrus. He was thus free to devote his whole energies to the work of his calling. His writings enable us to follow him in both his ordinary and his extraordinary occupations. He was wont to "celebrate the sacrifice" every day (Ep. xx. 15). Every Lord's Day he preached in the Basilica. His extant works consist mainly of addresses and expositions which had been first spoken in the church and were afterwards revised for publication. They bear traces of this mode of composition in their simplicity and naturalness, and also in their popular character and undigested form. Ambrose had to begin, as he ingenuously declares, to learn and to teach at the same time (de Officiis, lib. i. cap. i. 4.). In doctrine he followed reverently what was of best repute in the church in his time, carefully guarding his own and his people's orthodoxy from all heresy, and urging, but with wholesome, if not always consistent, qualifications, the ascetic religious perfection which the best Christians were then pursuing. The sacred books, for which he had a profound reverence, were to him—what pastoral and didactic theology has always tended to make them—verbal materials for edification, which was to be extracted from them by any and every kind of interpretation to which their letter could be subjected. His writings, therefore, or sermons, are chiefly of interest with reference to the history and character of their author; but they are lively and ingenuous, full of good practical advice, and interspersed with gnomic sentences of much felicity.
One of the secrets of Ambrose's influence over the people was his admission of them into all his interests and cares. He had nothing private from the congregation in the Basilica. The sister Marcellina and the brothers Satyrus and Ambrose (this was the order of their ages) were united together by a remarkable affection. The three loved one another too devotedly to think of marrying. Marcellina became early a consecrated virgin, but continued to feel the keenest and tenderest concern in her brothers' lives. When Ambrose became a bishop, Satyrus appears to have given up an important appointment in order to come and live with his brother and take every secular care off his hands. These domestic virtues of Marcellina and Satyrus we learn from sermons of Ambrose. His discourses on virginity became famous, and attracted virgins from distant parts to receive consecration at his hands. These discourses, in the third year after his ordination, he digested into three books, de Virginibus, which were addressed in their new form to his sister, and which contain, besides much praise of Marcellina, the address made to her at her consecration by the bp. of Rome. A year or two later occurred the death of Satyrus, in the flower of his age. In the depth of his grief Ambrose pronounced a funeral discourse upon his brother (de Excessu Satyri), which was followed seven days after by a sermon upon the hope of a future life (de Fide Res.).
The bp. of Milan, exercising the authority of a patriarchate, and presiding over
a city which was frequently the residence of the emperor, was a great dignitary.
But we cannot fail to recognize the high reputation which Ambrose had won for himself
personally and in a surprisingly short period, when we observe the deference paid
to him by the emperors of his time. He was certainly fortunate in the sovereigns
with whom he had to do. The youths Gratian and Valentinian II., and the great Theodosius,
were singularly virtuous and religious princes. Gratian was a boy of sixteen when
the death of his father placed him on the throne, and in the year 377, the third
of Ambrose's episcopate, he was two years older. In that year he was preparing to
go to the assistance of his uncle Valens against the barbarian invaders by whom
he was hard pressed; and desiring to be fortified against the arguments of the Arians
whom Valens was favouring at Constantinople, he wrote to Ambrose, and asked him
to furnish him with a controversial treatise in support of the orthodox faith. Ambrose
complied with the pious youth's request by writing two books de Fide. In
the following year Gratian wrote a letter, preserved with those of Ambrose, in which
he requests another copy of that work, together with an additional argument upon
the divinity of the Holy Spirit. In this letter he calls Ambrose
parens. Ambrose amplified his former treatise by adding three books
to the two he had already composed. This work de Fide was reckoned an important
defence of the
The successes of the Goths which attended the defeat and death of Valens were the occasion of frightful calamities to the empire. From Illyricum and Thrace, especially, an immense number of captives were carried off by the barbarians, in ransoming whom the whole available resources of the church were exhausted by Ambrose; and when everything else had been taken, he did not scruple to break up and sell the sacramental vessels. He himself relates this fact with pride (de Off. lib. ii. 136, 138). We now see Ambrose zealous in the general affairs of the church, and the leading ecclesiastic of his time. Presiding in the council of Aquileia, 381, he questioned the two Arianizing prelates who were put on their trial before it. Several letters addressed to the emperor at this time in the name of the council of Aquileia or of the Italian episcopate on the general government of the church are preserved amongst Ambrose's letters (Epp. ix.–xii.). When Acholius died—the bp. of Thessalonica by whom Theodosius had been baptized—his death was formally announced to Ambrose by the clergy and people of his diocese; and we have two letters in reply, one written to the church and the other to Anysius the new bishop. The next two letters of the collection (xvii., xviii.) are addressed to the emperor Valentinian, after the death of Gratian, to exhort him not to comply with a request of Symmachus, prefect of the city, that he would replace the altar of Victory in the Senate House, and restore the funds for certain heathen ceremonies. Ambrose, whose influence was invoked by the bp. of Rome, protested strongly against any such concessions to paganism; and Victory, as it was said, favoured in the result her enemy more than her champion.
The struggle between Ambrose and Justina, the mother of Valentinian II., which afterwards reached such a height at Milan, had been begun with a preliminary trial of strength about the appointment of a bishop at Sirmium. But when the usurpation of Maximus occurred (A.D. 383), and had been stained by the violent death of Gratian, Justina in her alarm had recourse to the great Catholic bishop, and persuaded him to go on an embassy to Maximus, to beg him to leave Italy untouched. Maximus had Theodosius to deal with behind the boy-emperor and his mother; and his first act, when Gaul had fallen into his hands, was to send to Theodosius and propose to him, instead of war, the partition of the empire. Theodosius was constrained by motives of policy to assent to the proposal; and Ambrose had the comfort of returning to Milan with the announcement that the new emperor would refrain from passing the boundary of the Alps. Allusions are made to this embassy in a letter of Ambrose (Ep. xxiv. 7) in which he reports the less successful issue of a later appeal to Maximus.
One of the chief glories of Ambrose is that St. Augustine ascribed to him his conversion, and sought Christian baptism at his hands. The circumstances of his intercourse with St. Ambrose (A.D. 383–387) are related by St. Augustine in his Confessions. He tells us of the singularly eminent position of St. Ambrose (vi. 3), of his reputation for eloquence (vi. 13), of the difficulty of getting an opportunity of conversing with him on account of his many engagements, and his habit of reading to himself when company was present (v. 3), and of his method of expounding the Old Testament by finding under the letter a spiritual or mystical sense (vi. 4).
It was during this period, in the years 385–6, that Ambrose defended the churches
of Milan so stoutly against the intrusion of Arian worship. Justina, who patronized
the languishing Arian party, was bent on obtaining one of the churches at Milan
for the use of her friends. Ambrose was not likely to make the concession. How in
this matter he resisted the violent efforts of Justina, and the authority of her
son (at this time fifteen years of age), is described at length by Ambrose himself
in letters to his sister Marcellina and to Valentinian, and in a sermon preached
at the crisis of the struggle (Epp. xx. xxi., and the Sermo de Basilicis
Tradendis which follows them). There appear to have been two churches at Milan,
the one without, the other within, the walls. The former, as of less importance,
was first asked for. This being refused, some persons of the court came to Ambrose,
and begged him to concede—probably for partial use only—the newer and larger basilica,
and to exert his influence to prevent any popular disturbance. For it is important
to observe that throughout the struggle the people were on the Catholic side. Ambrose
replied loftily that the temple of God could not be surrendered by His priest. The
next day, which was Sunday, as Ambrose was officiating in the principal basilica,
news came that police-agents had been sent from the palace, who were hanging on
the Portian basilica the curtains which marked a building as claimed for the imperial
treasury. A part of the multitude hastened thither; Ambrose remained to perform
Mass. Then he heard that the people had seized on a certain Arian presbyter, whom
they met on the way. Ambrose began to pray with bitter tears that the cause of the
church might not be stained with blood; and sent presbyters and deacons, who succeeded
in rescuing the prisoner unhurt. Justina, in her irritation, treated the rich men
of the city as responsible for a tumult, and threw many of them into prison. The
imperial authority was being dangerously strained. Politic officials came to Ambrose
and entreated him to give way to the sovereign rights of the emperor; Ambrose replied
that the emperor had no rights over what belonged to God. A body of troops was sent
to take possession of the basilica, and there was great fear of blood being shed;
but after mutual appeals between their officers and Ambrose, the soldiers withdrew,
and Ambrose remained all day in the church. At night he went home, and on coming
out the next morning he found that the church (the Portian) was surrounded by soldiers.
But the soldiers were in awe of Ambrose, and, learning that he had threatened them
with excommunication, they began to crowd in, protesting that they came to pray
and not to fight. Ambrose took the lesson for the day as the subject of a sermon,
and
In the course of the following year the attempts of the Arian party, and of the emperor as at this time governed by that party, were renewed. Ambrose was asked to hold a discussion with Auxentius, an Arian bishop, before chosen judges in the presence of the court, or else to withdraw from Milan. He consulted such bishops and presbyters as were within reach, and in their name wrote a letter to the emperor (Ep. xxi.), declining the discussion. An alarm was spread amongst the people that he was going to be taken away from Milan, and for some days, by night and by day, he was surrounded and watched by an immense concourse of his friends. He preached them a sermon (de Basilicis Tradendis), assuring them of his steadfastness, and encouraging them to confidence, and at the same time gave them hymns composed by himself to sing—hymns in honour of the Trinity—by which their fervour was greatly stimulated. Again the court party found themselves worsted, and gave way.
The singing of hymns, by which this remarkable occupation of the basilica was characterized, is described by St. Augustine as extremely moving (Conf. vi. 7), and is said by him to have been an imitation of Eastern customs, and to have been followed generally throughout the church. Paulinus also observes that at this time "antiphons, hymns, and vigils began to be performed in the church of Milan, and had spread thence amongst all the churches of the West" (Vita, 13). The reputation of St. Ambrose as a composer of hymns was such that many certainly not his have been attributed to him, and amongst them the Te Deum. The Benedictine edition gives twelve hymns, which there is some good authority for ascribing to Ambrose, the best known of which are those beginning Aeterne rerum conditor, Deus creator omnium, Veni redemptor gentium, and O lux beata Trinitas. They have a brightness and felicity which have reasonably made them favourites in the church to the present day.
We must take into account the state of mind brought about in the bishop and his flock by that protracted vigil in the basilica, when we read of the miracles into which their triumph over heresy blazed forth. We have a narrative from St. Ambrose's own pen, in a letter to Marcellina (Ep. xxii.), of the wonderful discovery of the remains of two martyrs, and of the cures wrought by them. A basilica was to be dedicated, and Ambrose was longing to find some relics of martyrs. A presage suddenly struck him. (This "presagium" is called a vision by St. Augustine, Conf. lx. 7, de Civ. Dei, xxii. 8.) He caused the ground to be opened in the church that was consecrated by the remains of St. Felix and St. Nabor. Two bodies were found, of wonderful size ( ut prisca aetas ferebat ), the heads severed from the shoulders, the tomb stained with blood. This discovery, so precious to a church "barren of martyrs," was welcomed with the wildest enthusiasm. Old men began to remember that they had heard formerly the names of these martyrs—Gervasius and Protasius—and had read the title on their grave. Miracles crowded thick upon one another. They were mostly cures of demoniacs, and of sickly persons; but one blind man received his sight. Ambrose himself, for once, eagerly and positively affirms the reality of the cure; and Augustine, who generally held that the age of miracles was past, also bears witness to the common acceptance of the fact at Milan. Gibbon has some excuse for his note, "I should recommend this miracle to our divines, if it did not prove the worship of relics, as well as the Nicene Creed." The Arians, as we learn from Ambrose and Paulinus, made light of the healing of demoniacs, and were sceptical about the blind man's history. The martyrs' bones were carried into the "Ambrosian" Basilica (now the church of St. Ambrogio), and deposited beneath the altar in a place which Ambrose had designed for his own remains.
The memory of this conflict did not restrain Justina and her son from asking help shortly after of Ambrose. It was evident that Maximus was preparing to invade Italy; and as Ambrose had apparently been successful in his former embassy, he was charged with another conciliatory appeal to the same ruler. The magnanimous bishop consented to go, but he was unfavourably received, and having given great offence by abstaining from communion with the bishops who were about Maximus, he was summarily ordered to return home. He reports the failure of his mission in a letter to Valentinian (Ep. xxiv.). It is worthy of remark that the punishment of heresy by death was so hateful to Ambrose that he declined communion with bishops who had been accomplices in it ("qui aliquos, devios licet a fide, ad necem petebant," ib. 12). These bishops had prevailed on Maximus to put to death Priscillian—the first time that heresy was so punished. [Priscillianus.]
Maximus was not diverted from his project. He crossed the Alps, and Justina,
with her son, fled to Theodosius. It was not long before the vigour and ability
of Theodosius triumphed over Maximus, who perished in the conflict he had provoked.
Ambrose, who withdrew from Milan when Maximus came to occupy it, appears to have
been near Theodosius in the hour of victory, and used his influence with him in
favour of moderation and clemency, which the emperor, according to his usual habit,
displayed in an eminent degree (Ep. xl.
About two years later (A.D. 390) the lamentable massacre
at Thessalonica gave occasion for a very grand act of spiritual discipline. The
commander of the garrison at Thessalonica and several of his officers had been brutally
murdered by a mob in that city. The indignation of the emperor was extreme; and
after appearing to yield to gentler counsels, he sent orders, which were executed
by an indiscriminate slaughter of at least 7,000 persons in Thessalonica. Ambrose
protested against this in the name of God and of the church. He had always acted
on the principle that "nothing was more dangerous before God or base amongst men
than for a priest not to speak out his convictions freely," and his lofty disinterestedness
(non pro meis commodis faciebam,
In the course of the following year (391), Theodosius having returned to the East, the weak authority of Valentinian II. was overthrown by Arbogastes and his puppet Eugenius, and the unfortunate youth perished by the same fate as his brother. He was in Gaul at the time of his death, and Ambrose was at that moment crossing the Alps to visit him there, partly by the desire of the Italian magistrates, who wished Valentinian to return to Italy, and partly at the request of the emperor himself, who was anxious to be baptized by him. In the next year (392) a funeral oration was delivered at Milan by Ambrose (de Obitu Valentiniani), in which he praises the piety as well as the many virtues of the departed. It appears that under the influence of Theodosius, Valentinian had learnt to regard Ambrose with the same reverence as his brother had done before him (Letter to Theodosius, Ep. liii. 2). He had died unbaptized; but Ambrose assures his sorrowing sisters that his desire was equivalent to the act of baptism, and that he had been washed in his piety as the martyrs in their blood (de Ob. Val. 51–53).
Eugenius held the sovereign power in the West for two or three years, and made friendly overtures to the great Italian prelate. But Ambrose for a time returned no answer; and when Eugenius came to Milan, he retired from that city. Shortly after this withdrawal, he wrote a respectful letter to Eugenius, explaining that the reason why he had refused to hold intercourse with him was that he had given permission, though himself a Christian, that the altar of Victory should be restored—the boon which Symmachus had begged for in vain being yielded to the power of Arbogastes.
When the military genius and vigour of Theodosius had gained one more brilliant triumph by the rapid overthrow of Arbogastes and Eugenius, Ambrose, who had returned to Milan (Aug. A.D. 394), received there a letter from Theodosius requesting him to offer a public thanksgiving for his victory. Ambrose replies (Ep. lxi.) with enthusiastic congratulations. But the happiness thus secured did not last long. In the following year the great Theodosius died at Milan (Jan. 395), asking for Ambrose with his last breath (de Obitu Theod. 35). The bishop had the satisfaction of paying a cordial tribute to his memory in the funeral oration he delivered over his remains.
Ambrose himself had only two more years
By the weight of his character St. Ambrose gave a powerful support to the tendencies which he favoured. He held without misgivings that the church was the organ of God in the world, and that secular government had the choice of being either hostile or subservient to the Divine authority ruling in the church. To passages already quoted which express this conviction may be added a remark let fall by Ambrose at the council of Aquileia, "Sacerdotes de laicis judicare debent, non laici de sacerdotibus" (Gesta Conc. Aqu. 51). He was of strict Athanasian orthodoxy as against heresy of every colour. His views of the work of Christ in the Incarnation, the Passion, and the Resurrection, have in a marked degree the broad and universal character which belongs to the higher patristic theology on this subject. (For example, speaking of the resurrection of Christ, he says, "Resurrexit in eo mundus, resurrexit in eo coelum, resurrexit in eo terra," de Fide Res. 102.) With regard to religion and religious practices, he is emphatic in insisting that the worship of the heart is all-important ("Deo enim velle pro facto est," de Fide Res. 115; "Deus non sanguine sed pietate placatur," ib. 98; "Non pecuniam Deus sed fidem quaerit," de Poen. ii. ix.); but at the same time his language concerning the two Sacraments is often undeniably that of materializing theology. Attempts have been made, chiefly on this account, to call in question the Ambrosian authorship of the treatises de Mysteriis and de Sacramentis; but their expressions are supported by others to be found in undoubted works of Ambrose. He praises his brother Satyrus for having tied a portion of the consecrated elements in a napkin round his neck when he was shipwrecked, and adds, that having found the benefit of "the heavenly mystery" in this form, he was eager to receive it into his mouth—"quam majus putabat fusum in viscera, quod tantum sibi tectum orario profuisset!" (de Exc. Sat. 43, 46). He argues for the daily reception of the Eucharist from the prayer, Give us this day our daily bread (de Sacr. v. 25). His frequent strong recommendations of virginity are based, not on a theory of self-denial, but rather on one of detachment from the cares of the world and the troubles inseparable from matrimony and parentage. According to him, marriage is the more painful state, as well as the less favourable to spiritual devotion. Nevertheless, he did not expect or desire a large number to embrace the life which he so highly eulogized. "Dicet aliquis: Ergo dissuades nuptias? ego vero suadeo, et eos damno qui dissuadere consuerunt . . . . Paucarum quippe hoc munus [virginity] est, illud omnium" (de Virginibus, I. vii.). He and his sister used to press Satyrus to marry, but Satyrus put it off through family affection—"ne a fratribus divelleretur" (de Exc. Sat. §§ 53, 59). Fasting is commended, not as self-torture pleasing to God, but as the means of making the body more wholesome and stronger. A keen sense of the restraints and temptations and annoyances which reside in the flesh is expressed in Ambrose's remarkable language concerning death. It is a great point with him that death is altogether to be desired. He argues this point very fully in the address de Fide Resurrectionis and in the essay de Bono Mortis. There are three kinds of death, he says the death of sin, death to sin, and the death of the body (de B. M. § 3). This last is the emancipation of the soul from the body. He appeals to the arguments of philosophers and to the analogies of nature, as well as to Scripture, to shew not only that such a deliverance may be hoped for, but that it must be a thing to be desired by all. The terrors of the future state almost entirely disappear. He admits now and then that punishment must be looked for by the wicked; but he affirms that even to the wicked death is a gain (de B. M. § 28). There are two reasons why the foolish fear death: one because they regard it as destruction; "altera, quod poenas reformident, poetarum scilicet fabulis territi, latratus Cerberi, et Cocyti fluminis tristem voraginem, etc., etc. Haec plena sunt fabularum, nec tamen negaverim poenas esse post mortem" (ib. 33). "Qui infideles sunt, descendunt in infernum viventes; etsi nobiscum videntur vivere sed in inferno sunt" (ib. 56).
The see of Milan was in no way dependent upon that of Rome; but Ambrose always
delighted to pay respect to the bp. of Rome, as representing more than any other
the unity of the church. His feeling towards Rome is expressed in the apology with
which he defends the custom of washing the feet in baptism—a custom which prevailed
at Milan but not at Rome. "In omnibus cupio sequi Ecclesiam Romanam;
sed tamen et nos homines sensum habemus; ideo quod alibi rectius servatur, et nos
rectius custodimus. Ipsum sequimur apostolum Petrum, . . . qui
As a writer, St. Ambrose left a multitude of works behind him, which show competent learning, a familiar acquaintance with Plato, Cicero, Vergil, and other classics, and much intellectual liveliness and industry. Their want of originality did not hinder them from obtaining for their author, through their popular and practical qualities, a distinguished reputation as a sound and edifying teacher. He is often mentioned with respect by his contemporaries, St. Jerome and St. Augustine (see especially the latter, de Doctrina Christianâ, iv. 46, 48, 50). He came to be joined with them and Gregory the Great as one of the four Latin doctors of the church. His writings may be classified under three heads, as (1) Expository, (2) Doctrinal or Didactic, and (3) Occasional.
(1) The first class contains a long list of expositions, delivered first as sermons,
of many books of Scripture. They begin with the Hexaemeron, or commentary
on the Creation. Of this work St. Jerome says, "Nuper S. Ambrosius
sic Hexaemeron illius [Origenus] compilavit, ut magis Hippolyti sententias Basiliique
sequeretur" (Ep. 41). It is in a great part a literal translation
from St. Basil. St. Augustine was interested by the method of interpretation in
which Ambrose followed Basil, Origen, and Philo Judaeus, finding a spiritual or
mystical meaning latent under the natural or historical. The Hexaemeron (6
books) is followed by de Paradiso, de Cain et Abel (2), de Noe et Arcâ,
de Abraham (2), de Isaac et Animâ, de Bono Mortis, de Fugâ Saeculi, de Jacob
et Beatâ Vitâ (2), de Joseph Patriarchâ, de Benedictionibus Patriarcharum,
de Eliâ et Jejunio, de Nabuthe Jezraelitâ, de Tobiâ, de Interpellatione Job et David
(4), Apologia Prophetae David, Apol. altera ib., Enarrationes in Psalmos
(12), Expositio in
(2) The second class contains de Officiis Ministrorum (3 books), de Virginibus (3), de Viduis, de Virginitate, Exhortatio Virginitatis, de Lapsu Virginis Consecratae, de Mysteriis, de Sacramentis (6), de Poenitentiâ (2), de Fide (5), de Spiritu Sancto (3), de Incarnationis Dominicae Sacramento. Of these the books de Officiis, addressed to the clergy (imitated from Cicero), and those de Fide, mentioned above, are the most important.
(3) The occasional writings, which are biographically the most valuable, are the discourses de Excessu Fratris sui Satyri (2), de Obitu Valentiniani Consolatio, de Obitu Theodosii Oratio, and the Epistles, ninety-one in number, with the Gesta Concilii Aquileiensis inserted amongst them.
Various ecclesiastical writings have been attributed to Ambrose, which critical examination has determined to be spurious. [Ambrosiaster.] Most of these are given in the Benedictine edition; in that of Migne there is an additional appendix, containing some other compositions which have borne Ambrose's name, but are either manifestly spurious or have no sufficient title to be considered genuine. Some of his genuine works appear to have been lost, especially one, mentioned with high praise by St. Augustine (Ep. xxxi. 8), against those who alleged that our Lord had learnt from Plato.
Of the connexion of St. Ambrose with the liturgical arrangement which bears his name, we know nothing more than what has been quoted above from Paulinus. [See D. C. A., arts. Liturgies; Ambrosian Music.]
There are three principal editions of Ambrose's works—that of Erasmus, the Roman, and the Benedictine. Erasmus's ed. was pub. at Basle, by Froben, in 1527. He divided the works into four tomes, with the titles, (1) Ethica, (2) Polemica, (3) Orationes, Epistolae, et Conciones, (4) Explanationes Vet. et Novi Testamenti. The great Roman edition was the work of many years' labour, undertaken by the desire of popes Pius IV. and Pius V., and begun by a monk who afterwards became pope with the name of Sixtus V. It was pub. in 5 vols. at Rome, in the years 1580–1–2–5. This edition superseded all others, until the publication of the excellent work of the Benedictines (du Frische and Le Nourry) at Paris, A.D. 1686 and 1690. A small revised ed. of the de Officiis and the Hexaemeron has been printed in the Bibliotheca Pat. Eccl. Latin. Selecta (Tauchnitz, Leipz.). Some of his works are reprinted in the Vienna Corpus Ser. Eccl. Lat.; and in the 10th vol. of the Nic. and Post-Nic. Fathers are English trans. of select works. An elaborate Life of St. Ambrose by Baronius, extracted from his Annales, is prefixed to the Roman edition; but improved upon by the more critical investigations of the Benedictine editors, who have laid the basis for all subsequent Lives. (Cf. Th. Forshaw, Ambrose, Bp. of Milan, 1884; a Life by the duc de Broglie in Les Saints, 1899 (Paris). A cheap popular Life by R. Thornton is pub. by S.P.C.K. in their Fathers for Eng. Readers.)
Ammon (or Amon), St., the founder of the celebrated settlement of coenobites and hermits on and near Mons Nitria (Ruf. de Mon. 30); he is often styled the "father of Egyptian monasticism." He was contemporary with St. Anthony, and filled the same place in Lower Egypt as Anthony in the Thebaid. Being left an orphan by his parents, wealthy people near Alexandria, he was forced by his uncle to marry. But on the wedding day he persuaded his bride to take a vow of celibacy, and for eighteen years they lived together as brother and sister: afterwards with her consent he withdrew to Nitria, and from that time only visited his wife twice a year (Pall. Hist. Laus. 8). A great multitude of zealous disciples soon gathered round him; so that Palladius not many years later found about five thousand monks, some living quite alone, some with one or more companions; while six hundred "advanced in holiness" (τελείοι) dwelt apart from the rest in more complete isolation (ib.). Several miracles are related of Ammon (Socr. Hist. iv. 23; Soz. Hist. i. 14; Niceph. Hist. viii. 41).
Ammonius, a disciple of Pambo, and one of the most celebrated of the monks
of Nitria. Being of unusual stature, he and his brothers Dioscorus,
Eusebius, and Euthymius were called the Tall Brothers (Soz. Hist. viii. 12).
Ammonius himself was distinguished by the epithet
παρωής (Niceph. Hist. xi. 37), in
Ammonius Saccas. Next to nothing is known of this philosopher. That he obtained his name of Saccas (= σακκοφόρος) from having been a porter in his youth is affirmed by Suidas (under Origenes) and Ammianus Marcellinus (xxii. 528). He was a native of Alexandria; Porphyry asserts that he was born of Christian parents, and returned to the heathen religion. Eusebius (H. E. vi. 19, 7) denies this, but perhaps confounds him with another Ammonius, the author of a Diatessaron, still extant. That the founder of the Alexandrian school of philosophy (for such Ammonius Saccas was) should have been at the same time a Christian, though not impossible, seems hardly likely. Moreover, the Ammonius of Eusebius wrote books; whereas, according to both Longinus and Porphyry, Ammonius Saccas wrote none. Plotinus is said to have been most strongly impressed with his first hearing of Ammonius, and to have cried out, "This is the man I was looking for!" (τοῦτον ἐζήτουν), after which he remained his constant friend till the death of the elder philosopher. Among other disciples of Ammonius were Herennius, the celebrated Longinus, Heracles the Christian, Olympius, Antonius, a heathen called Origen, and also the famous Christian of that name. It is possible, however, that the Christians, Origen and Heracles, may have been the disciples of that Ammonius whom Eusebius confounds with Ammonius Saccas, and who was himself a Christian; but this cannot be certainly known. We may guess something concerning the philosophy of Ammonius Saccas from the fact that Plotinus was his pupil. Hierocles (ap. Photius) affirms that his aim was to reconcile the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle, hence he appears to have combined mysticism and eclecticism. Nemesius, a bishop and a neo-Platonist of the close of the 4th cent., cites two passages, one of which he declares to contain the views of Numenius and Ammonius, the other he attributes to Ammonius alone. They concern the nature of the soul and its relation to the body; but they appear to have been merely the traditional views of Ammonius, not any actual written words of his. The life and philosophy of Ammonius have been discussed by Vacherot, Hist. de l᾿Ecole d᾿Alex. i. 342; Jules Simon, Hist. de l᾿Ecole d᾿Alex. i. 204; Dehaut in his historical essay on the life and teaching of our philosopher; and Zeller in his Philosophie der Griechen, who also mentions other writers on Ammonius.
Amphilochius (1), archbp. of Iconium. Of this great Catholic leader, who was regarded by his contemporaries as the foremost man in the Eastern church after his friends Basil of Caesarea and Gregory of Nazianzus, very scanty information remains. The works ascribed to him are mostly spurious; and the Life (Migne, Patr. Gk. xxxix. p. 14) is a later fiction. Various references to the writings of Basil and Gregory contain nearly all that is known of him and his family. Amphilochius appears to have been a first cousin of Gregory Nazianzen. The language of Basil (Ep. 161) might imply that he was born and lived in Basil's own town Caesarea. Gregory expresses regret that he did not see much of Amphilochius during his earlier years (Ep. 13). Their intimate friendship commenced at a later date. Amphilochius, like many other eminent Christian fathers, was educated for the bar. The letters of his cousin imply that he carried on his profession at Constantinople.
It is not improbable that trouble in regard to money matters about 369 weaned
Amphilochius from his worldly pursuits and turned his thoughts inward. He had abandoned
his profession, and was then living in retirement at Ozizala, devoting himself apparently
to religious exercises and to the care of his aged father. His cousin Gregory appears
to have been mainly instrumental in bringing about this change. At least he says
with honest pride, that "together with the pure Thecla"
From this time forward till his death, about five years afterwards, Basil holds close intercourse with Amphilochius, receiving from him frequent visits. The first took place soon after his consecration, about Easter 374, and was somewhat protracted, his ministrations on this occasion making a deep impression on the people of Caesarea (Ep. 163, 176).
It was probably in another visit in 374 (see Garnier, Op. iii. p. cxl.) that Amphilochius urged Basil to clear up all doubt as to his doctrine of the Holy Spirit by writing a treatise on the subject. This was the occasion of Basil's extant work, de Spiritu Sancto (see § 1), which, when completed, was dedicated to the petitioner himself and sent to him engrossed on vellum (Ep. 231). During this and the following year Basil likewise addresses to Amphilochius his three Canonical Letters (Ep. 188, 199, 217), to solve some questions relating to ecclesiastical order, which the bp. of Iconium had propounded to him. At this same period also we find Amphilochius arranging the ecclesiastical affairs of Isauria (Ep. 190), Lycaonia (Ep. 200), and Lycia (Ep. 218), under the direction of Basil. He is also invited by Basil to assist in the administration of his own diocese of Caesarea, which has become too great a burden for him, prostrated as he now is by a succession of maladies (Ep. 200, 201). The affectionate confidence which the great man reposes in his younger friend is a powerful testimony to the character and influence of Amphilochius.
After the death of Basil, the slender thread by which we trace the career of Amphilochius is taken up in the correspondence of Gregory. Gregory writes with equal affection and esteem, and with more tenderness than Basil. He has been ill, and he speaks of Amphilochius as having helped to work his cure. Sleeping and waking, he has him ever in his mind. He mentions the many letters which he has received from Amphilochius (μυριάκις γράφων), and which have called forth harmonies from his soul, as the plectrum strikes music out of the lyre (Ep. 171). The last of Gregory's letters to Amphilochius (Ep. 184) seems to have been written about the year 383. Not long before (A.D. 381) Amphilochius had been present with his friend at the council of Constantinople, and had subscribed to the creed there sanctioned, as chief pastor of the Lycaonian church, at the head of twelve other bishops (Labb. Conc. ii. p. 1135, ed. Coleti). At this council a metropolitan authority was confirmed to, rather than conferred on, his see of Iconium; for we find it occupying this position even before his election to the episcopate. During this sojourn at Constantinople he signs his name as first witness to Gregory's will (Greg. Op. ii. p. 204), in which the testator leaves directions to restore to his most reverend son the bp. Amphilochius the purchase-money of an estate at Canotala (ib. p. 203). It was probably on this occasion also that Amphilochius fell in with Jerome and read to him a book which he had written on the Holy Spirit (Hieron. de Vir. Ill. 133) as Jerome is known to have paid a visit to Gregory Nazianzen at this time (Hieron. Op. xi. 65 seq., ed. Vallarsi).
About two years later must be placed the well-known incident in which the zeal
of Amphilochius against the Arians appears (Theod. H. E. v. 16).
The date of Amphilochius's death is uncertain. When Jerome wrote the work quoted above, he was still living (A.D. 392); and two years later (A.D. 394) his name occurs among the bishops present at a synod held at Constantinople, when the new basilica of St. Peter and St. Paul was dedicated (Labb. Conc. ii. 1378, ed. Coleti). On the other hand, he is not mentioned in connexion with the troubles of St. Chrysostom (A.D. 403 seq.); and it is a fairly safe assumption that he was no longer living. Despite the martyrologies, he probably died in middle life. His day is Nov. 23 in both Greek and Latin calendars.
The works ascribed to Amphilochius (Iambi ad Seleucum, Homilies, etc.)
seem to be mostly spurious, with the exception of an Epistola Synodica (Migne,
p. 94), on the Macedonian heresy. Its object is to explain why the Nicene fathers
did not dwell on the doctrine of the Spirit, and to justify the ordinary form
Of his ability as a theologian and a writer the extant fragments are a wholly inadequate criterion; but his reputation with his contemporaries and with the later church leaves very little ground for doubt. His contemporary Jerome, an eminently competent judge, speaks of the Cappadocian triad, Basil, Gregory, and Amphilochius, as writers "who cram [ refarciunt ] their books with the lessons and sentences of the philosophers to such an extent that you cannot tell which you ought to admire most in them, their secular erudition or their Scriptural knowledge" (Ep. 70, i. p. 429).
Of his character his intimate friends are the best witnesses. The trust reposed in him by Basil and Gregory appears throughout their correspondence. The former more especially praises his love of learning and patient investigation, addressing him as his "brother Amphilochius, his dear friend most honoured of all" (de Spir. Sanct. § 1); while the latter speaks of him as "the blameless high-priest, the loud herald of truth, his pride" (Carm. ii. p. 1068). He seems to have united the genial sympathy which endears the friend, and the administrative energy which constitutes the ruler, with intellectual abilities and acquirements of no mean order.
Amphilochius (2), bp. of Sida in Pamphylia. Like his more famous namesake of Iconium, he appears as an antagonist of the Messalians. He was urged, as one of the Pamphylian metropolitans, to take measures against them in encyclical letters written by two successive bps. of Constantinople, Atticus and Sisinnius (Phot. Bibl. 52), and seems to have prosecuted the matter with zeal. He brought forward the subject at the council of Ephesus (A.D. 431) in conjunction with Valerianus; and in consequence of their representations the council confirmed the decrees of former synods against these heretics (Labbe, Conc. iii. 1331 seq., ed. Coleti). At this same council we find him assenting to Cyril's letter, and subscribing in very strong language to the condemnation and deposition of Nestorius (ib. pp. 1012, 1046, 1077, 1133). His conduct, later, was marked by great vacillation, if not insincerity. It is sometimes stated that he was present at the "Robbers' Synod" (A.D. 449), and there committed himself to the policy of Dioscorus and the heresy of Eutyches (Le Quien, Oriens Christ. i. 998); but his name does not appear in the list of bishops assembled there (Labbe, Conc. iv. 889 seq.). At the council of Chalcedon, however (A.D. 451), he shewed great tenderness for Dioscorus, and here his career of tergiversation began. He tried to defer the second citation of Dioscorus (iv. 1260); and when after three citations Dioscorus did not appear, he consented to his condemnation, though with evident reluctance (iv. 1310, 1337). At a later session, too, he subscribed his assent to the epistle of pope Leo (iv. 1358, 1366); and we find his name also appended to the canons of the council (iv. 1715). Thus he committed himself fully to the principles of this council, and to the reversal of the proceedings of Latrocinium. But a few years later (A.D. 458) when the emperor Leo wrote to the bishops to elicit their opinions, Amphilochius stated, in reply, that, while he disapproved the appointment of Timotheus Aelurus, he did not acknowledge the authority of the council of Chalcedon (Evagr. H. E. ii. 10). Yet, as if this were not enough, we are told that he shortly afterwards assented and subscribed to its decrees (Eulogius in Phot. Bibl. 230).
Anastasia. [Chrysogonus.]
Anastasius (1), a presbyter of Antioch, the confidential friend and counsellor of Nestorius, the archbp. of Constantinople. Theophanes styles him the "syncellus," or confidential secretary of Nestorius, who never took any step without consulting him and being guided by his opinions. Nestorius having commenced a persecution against the Quartodecimans of Asia in 428, two presbyters, Antonius and Jacobus, were dispatched to carry his designs into effect. They were furnished with letters commendatory from Anastasius and Photius, bearing witness to the soundness of their faith. The two emissaries of the archbp. of Constantinople did not restrict themselves to their ostensible object, to set the Asiatics right as to the keeping of Easter, but endeavoured to tamper with their faith. At Philadelphia they persuaded some simple-minded clergy to sign a creed of doubtful orthodoxy, attributed to Theodore of Mopsuestia. This was strongly opposed by Charisius, the oeconomus of the church, who charged Jacobus with unsoundness in the faith. His opposition aroused the indignation of Anastasius and Photius, who dispatched fresh letters, reasserting the orthodoxy of Jacobus, and requiring the deprivation of Charisius (Labbe, Conc. iii. 1202 seq.; Socr. vii. 29).
It was in a sermon preached by Anastasius at Constantinople that the fatal words were uttered that destroyed the peace of the church for so many years. "Let no one call Mary θεοτόκος. She was but a human being. It is impossible for God to be born of a human being." These words, eagerly caught up by the enemies of Nestorius, caused much excitement among clergy and laity, which was greatly increased when the archbishop by supporting and defending Anastasius adopted the language as his own (Socr. H. E. vii. 32; Evagr. H. E. i. 2). [Nestorius.] In 430, when Cyril had sent a deputation to Constantinople with an address to the emperor, Anastasius seems to have attempted to bring about an accommodation between him and Nestorius (Cyril, Ep. viii.; Mercator, vol. ii. p. 49). We find him after the deposition of Nestorius still maintaining his cause and animating his party at Constantinople (Lupus, Ep. 144).
Tillemont identifies him with the Anastasius who in 434 wrote to Helladius, bp. of Tarsus, when he and the Oriental bishops were refusing to recognize Proclus as bp. of Constantinople, bearing witness to his orthodoxy, and urging them to receive him into communion (Baluz. § 144).
Anastasius I., bp. of Rome, was consecrated A.D.
398 ("Honorio IV. et Eutychiano coss."
Anastasius II., bp. of Rome, succeeded Gelasius I. in Nov. 496 (Clinton's Fasti Romani, pp. 536, 713). The month after his accession Clovis was baptized, and the new Pope wrote congratulating him on his conversion. Anastasius has left a name of ill-odour in the Western church; attributable to his having taken a different line from his predecessors with regard to the Eastern church. Felix III. had excommunicated Acacius of Constantinople, professedly on account of his communicating with heretics, but really because Zeno's Henoticon, which he had sanctioned, gave the church of Constantinople a primacy in the East which the see of Rome could not tolerate. Gelasius I. had followed closely in the steps of Felix. But Anastasius, in the year of his accession, sent two bishops, Germanus of Capua and Cresconius of Todi, (Baronius) to Constantinople, with a proposal that Acacius's name, instead of being expunged from the roll of patriarchs of Constantinople as Gelasius had proposed, should be left upon the diptychs, and no more be said upon the subject. This proposal, in the very spirit of the Henoticon, gave lasting offence to the Western church, and it excites no surprise that he was charged with communicating secretly with Photinus, a deacon of Thessalonica who held with Acacius; and of wishing to heal the breach between the East and West—for so it seems best to interpret the words of Anastasius Bibliothecarius—"voluit revocare Acacium" (vol. i. p. 83).
Anastasius died in Nov. 498. He was still remembered as the traitor who would have reversed the excommunication of Acacius; and Dante finds him suffering in hell the punishment of one whom "Fotino" seduced from the right way (Dante, Inf. xi. 8, 9).
Two epistles by him are extant: one informing the emperor Anastasius of his accession (Mansi, viii. p. 188); the other to Clovis as above (ib. p. 193).
Anastasius Sinaita (Ἀναστάσιος Σιναίτης). Three of this name are mentioned by ecclesiastical writers, among whom some confusion exists. Two were patriarchs of Antioch; and it has been reasonably questioned whether they were ever monks of Mount Sinai, and whether the title "Sinaita" has not been given to them from a confusion with the one who really was so, and who falls, outside our period (see Smith's D. C. B. in loc.).
(1) Bp. of Antioch, succeeded Domnus III. A.D. 559 (Clinton, Fasti Romani). He is praised by Evagrius (H. E. iv. 40) for his theological learning, strictness of life, and well-balanced character. He resolutely opposed Justinian's edict in favour of the Aphthartodocetae, and encouraged the monastic bodies of Syria against it, A.D. 563 (Evagr. iv. 39, 40). Justinian threatened him with deposition and exile, but his death in 565 hindered his design, which was carried into effect by his nephew Justin II., A.D. 570. Fresh charges were brought against Anastasius of profuse expenditure of the funds of his see, and of intemperate language and action in reference to the consecration of John, bp. of Alexandria, by John, bp. of Constantinople, in the lifetime of the previous bp. Eutychius (Evagr. v. 1; Valesius's notes, ib.; Theoph. Chron.; Clinton, Fast. Rom.). He was succeeded by Gregory, on whose death, in the middle of 593 (Clinton), he was restored to his episcopate. This was chiefly due to the influence of Gregory the Great with the emperor Maurice and his son Theodosius (Evagr. vi. 24; Greg. Mag. Ep. i. 25, 27, Ind. ix.). Gregory wrote him a congratulatory letter on his return to Antioch (Ep. iv. 37; Ind. xiv.); and several epistles of his are preserved relating to the claim the bp. of Constantinople was then making to the title of "universal bishop" (Ep. iv. 36, Ind. xiii.; vi. 24, 31, Ind. xv.). Anastasius defended the orthodox view of the Procession of the Holy Ghost (Baron. Annal. Eccl. 593), and died at the close of 598 (Clinton, Fast. Rom.). Five sermons, "de Orthodoxa Fide," and five others, printed in a Latin version by Migne and others, are ascribed by some to this Anastasius. Oudin, Dupin, and others refer them more probably to a later Anastasius. For a catalogue and description of the works assigned to him, either existing or lost, see Fabricius, Bibl. Graec. vol. ix. pp. 332–336, and Migne.
(2) Followed the preceding as by of Antioch in the beginning of 599. A letter of Gregory the Great to him (Ep. vii. 48, Ind. ii.) acknowledges one announcing his appointment and declaring his adherence to the orthodox faith. Gregory had written to him before 597 (Ep. vii. 3, Ind. i.), exhorting him to constancy under the persecutions of heretics. He translated Gregory's de Curâ Pastorali into Greek (ib. x. 22, Ind. v.). His death occurred in an insurrection of the Jews, Sept. 610 (Clinton, F. R.). Nicephorus (H. E. xviii. 44) confounds him with (1).
Anatolius, bp. of Constantinople, 449 A.D., through
the influence of Dioscorus of Alexandria with Theodosius II., after the deposition
of Flavian by the "Robber Council," having previously been the "apocrisiarius"
or representative of Dioscorus at Constantinople (Zon. Ann. iii.). After
his consecration, being
Anatolius, bp. of Laodicea in Syria Prima (Eus. H. E. vii. 32). He had been famous at Alexandria for proficiency in the liberal arts, while his reputation for practical wisdom was so great that when the suburb of Brucheium was besieged by the Romans during the revolt of Aemilianus, A.D. 262, the command of the place was assigned to him. Provisions having failed, and his proposition of making terms with the besiegers having been indignantly rejected, Anatolius obtained leave to relieve the garrison of all idle mouths, and by a clever deception marched out all the Christians, and the greater part of the rest, many disguised as women. Having passed over to Palestine, he was ordained by Theotecnus, bp. of Caesarea, as bishop-coadjutor, with the right of succession. But going to Antioch to attend the synod against Paul of Samosata, on his way through Laodicea, which had just lost its bishop, his old friend Eusebius, he was detained and made bishop in his room, A.D. 269.
Eusebius speaks of him as not having written much, but enough to show at once his eloquence and manifold learning. He specially mentions a work on the Paschal question, published in a Latin version by Bucherius (Doct. Temp., Antv. 1634). Some fragments of his mathematical works were pub. at Paris, 1543, and by Fabricius (Bibl. Graec. iii. 462; Hieron. Sc. Eccl. c. 73). For an Eng. trans. of his extant works see Ante-Nicene Lib. (T. & T. Clark).
Ancyra, Seven Martyrs of, female victims of Diocletian's persecution, 304. They were unmarried, about 70 years old, and notable for piety and good works. When the persecution was determined upon, Theotecnus, a magician, a philosopher and pervert from Christianity, was dispatched as governor to Galatia to root out Christianity. Among the earliest victims were the seven virgins, Tecusa, Alexandra, Faina, Claudia, Euphrasia, Matrona, Julitta. Theotecnus called upon them to offer incense, and upon their refusal condemned them to the public brothel, from which they escaped scatheless on account of their age, and by the ingenuity of Tecusa their leader. He then ordered them to officiate as priestesses of Diana and Minerva in washing their statues according to the annual custom of Ancyra. They were accordingly carried naked through the streets to a neighbouring lake, where garlands and white garments were offered them in which to fulfil his commands. Upon their refusal Theotecnus ordered them to be drowned in the lake, with heavy stones tied round their necks lest their bodies should be recovered and buried by their fellow Christians. Many legends have gathered round the story. The acts of the seven virgins and of St. Theodotus (a tavern-keeper of Ancyra martyred for rescuing and burying the bodies) are recorded in Gk. in a Vatican MS., purporting to have been written by an eye-witness named Nilus. They are found in Gk. and Lat. in Boll. Acta SS. May 18; cf. also Ruinart, Acta Sincera, p. 336; Ceillier, iii. 15
Andreas of Caesarea. [Arethas.]
Andreas Samosatensis, bp. of Samosata at the time of the council of Ephesus,
A.D. 431. Sickness prevented his attending the council (Labbe,
Conc. iii. 506), but he took a leading part in the controversies between
Cyril and the Oriental bishops that succeeded it. Without identifying himself with
the erroneous teaching ascribed to Nestorius, he shewed himself his zealous defender,
and remained firm to him when his cause had been deserted by almost all. For his
zeal in the defence of an heresiarch he is styled by Anastasius Sinaita
ὁ δράκων. The reputation of Andreas for learning
and controversial skill caused John of Antioch to select him, together with his
attached friend Theodoret, to answer Cyril's anathemas against Nestorius (Labbe,
iii. 1150; Liberatus, c. iv. p. 16). Cyril replied and wrote in defence of his anathemas,
which called forth a second treatise from Andreas (Labbe, iii. 827). In 453 Andreas
accompanied Alexander and Theodoret to the council summoned at Antioch by Aristolaus
the tribune, in compliance with the commands of Theodosius, to consult how the breach
with Cyril might be healed (ib. 764). On the amicable reception by Acacius
and John of Cyril's letter written in answer to the rescript of this council, Andreas
fully sympathized with his aged metropolitan Alexander's distress and indignation.
Andreas deplored the recognition of Cyril's orthodoxy by so many bishops, and desired
to bury himself in some solitude where he might weep (ib. 784, 785,
His death must have occurred before 451, when Rufinus was bp. of Samosata. Theodoret speaks of Andreas with much affection and esteem, praising his humility and readiness to help the distressed (Theod. Ep. xxiv. p. 918). His own letters give us a high idea of his sound, practical wisdom, readiness to confess an error, and firmness in maintaining what he believed right.
Anicetus, bp. of Rome, stated in Eusebius's History (iv. 11) and by Irenaeus (Adv. omn. Haer. iii. 3, 3) to have succeeded Pius. As to the date of his pontificate, see Lightfoot's elaborate discussion in Apost. Fathers (part i. vol. i. pp. 201–345). As Polycarp visited him at Rome, and as Polycarp's death has been fixed by recent criticism in 155, Lightfoot says that "the latest possible date for the accession of Anicetus is 154," and if he sat for eleven years, as is said, his death would be in 165. Anastasius Bibliothecarius singles him out as the pope who prescribed the tonsure for the clergy (Anast. vol. i. p. 13); and a forged letter upon this subject is given by Isidorus Mercator (Constant. p. 75). But the single reliable fact recorded of him has reference to the early Paschal controversy (Eus. H. E. iv. 24). He, like his four predecessors, did not allow the Jewish or Quartodeciman usage within their own church, but communicated as freely as before with other churches which did allow it. Polycarp visited Rome, hoping to persuade Anicetus to adopt the Quartodeciman practice. But Anicetus was firm, even against the age and saintliness of Polycarp. As a mark of personal respect, he allowed him to celebrate the Eucharist in Rome; but they parted without agreement, though with mutual cordiality. We are told that Anicetus was buried in the Calixtine cemetery on April 20.
Anomoeans (from ἀνόμοιος, dissimilar), one of the appellations of the radical Arians who, in opposition to the Athanasian or Nicene doctrine of the consubstantiality (ὁμοουσία) and the semi-Arian view of the likeness (ὁμοιουσία) of the Son to the Father, taught that the Son was dissimilar, and of a different substance (ἑτεροούσιος). [Arianism.]
Anonomastus (Iren. 56: cf 54). [Valentinus; Epiphanes.]
Anthimus, bp. of Tyana, a contemporary of St. Basil bp. of Caesarea in Cappodocia (Basil. Ep. 58). In 372 he joined in subscribing a circular letter addressed by the Oriental bishops to those of Italy and Gaul (Ep. 92). But dissensions broke out between them. (1) When the civil province of Cappadocia was divided and Tyana became the capital of the second division, Anthimus, insisting that the ecclesiastical arrangements should follow the civil, claimed metropolitan rights over several of Basil's suffragans. Herein he was assisted by the disaffection which prevailed in Basil's province. He was even bold enough to attack Basil on a journey, and plunder a train of mules laden with supplies of money and provisions for the bp. of Caesarea. Basil, thinking to establish an invincible outpost against his aggressive antagonist, consecrated his friend Gregory bp. of Sasima, a town not far from Tyana and one over which Anthimus claimed metropolitan rights. So long as Gregory remained there, he staunchly resisted alike the enticements and the menaces of Anthimus; but he soon resigned the see which he had unwillingly occupied. [Gregory Nazianzen.] A peace was patched up between Basil and Anthimus, apparently by the intercession of Gregory. This happened in the year 372 (Greg. Naz. Or. xliii. i. pp. 813 seq.; Ep. 47, 48, 49, 50, ii. pp. 42 seq.; Carm. ii. pp. 696 seq.). (2) A certain Faustus had applied to Basil to consecrate him to an Armenian see; but as he did not produce the proper authority, the consecration was deferred. Faustus immediately applied to Anthimus, who at once complied with his request, thus setting canonical rules at defiance (Basil, Ep. 120, 121, 122). A reconciliation, however, seems to have been effected, as Basil afterwards spoke of Anthimus in very friendly terms (Ep. 210, τὸν ὁμόψυχον ἡμῶν). Except in connexion with Basil and Gregory, nothing is known of this prelate. (See Tillemont, Mém. eccl. ix. pp. 174 seq., 196 seq.; Garnier, Vit. Bas. Op. iii. pp. cxi. seq., pp. cxxiii. seq.)
Anthropolatrae (Ἀνθρωπόλατραι), a nickname given by the Apollinarians (c. A.D. 371) to the Catholics, on the assumption that the union of "perfect God" with "perfect Man" necessarily involved two Persons in Christ, and therefore that the Catholic exposition of the doctrine implied the worship of a man: an inference assumed to be avoided by the special Apollinarian dogma. See Apollinaris (the Younger). The nickname in question is mentioned by St. Greg. Naz. Orat. li., who retorts that in truth, if any one is to be called by a name of the kind, the Apollinarian ought to be called "σαρκολάτρης."
Anthropomorphitae (Anthropomorphism), (ἄνθρωπος,
man, and μορφή, form). Terms
applied to those who ascribe to God human shape and form. We must distinguish two
kinds of anthropomorphism, a doctrinal and a symbolical. The former is heretical,
the latter Scriptural, and necessarily arises from the imperfection of human language
and human knowledge of God. The one takes the Scripture passages which speak of
God's arm, hand, eye, ear, mouth, etc., literally; the other understands and uses
them figuratively. Anthropomorphism is always connected with anthropopathism (from
ἄνθρωπος and
πάθος, passion), which ascribes to God human passions and affections,
such as wrath, anger, envy, jealousy, pity, repentance. The latter, however, does
not necessarily imply the
Antidikomarianitae (Ἀντιδικομαριανίται = Adversaries of Mary: Epiph. Haer. lxxxix.). The name given to those in Arabia in the latter part of the 4th cent. who (in opposition to the Κολλυριδιάνιδες) maintained the novel supposition advanced at that time by Bonosus of Sadica, and by Helvidius, that "our Lord's brethren" were children borne by the Blessed Virgin to Joseph after our Lord's birth. The controversy arose out of the then prevailing reverence for virginity, which in its extreme form had led certain women, originally from Thrace, but dwelling in Arabia, to celebrate an idolatrous festival in honour of the Virgin, by taking certain cakes (κολλύριδες) about in chariots, and then solemnly offering them to her and consuming them, in imitation of the Lord's Supper, or (more probably) of the pagan worship of Ceres. The reaction from this superstition led to the existence of the sect spoken of in this article, which, contemporaneously with the controversy carried on by St. Jerome and by others against Helvidius and Bonosus, the literary supporters of the hypothesis, was led to endeavour to cut away all pretence for the Collyridian superstition by adopting their view and so denying its very groundwork. The controversy itself is discussed in Smith's D. B. (4 vols. 1893) under Brothers and James, and in Murray's Illus. B. D. (1908) under James. For its literary history, see under Helvidius, Hieronymus.
Antiochus (1), bp. of Ptolemais, c. A.D. 401. To display his oratorical powers in a wider field he left Ptolemais and settled at Constantinople, where his fine voice and appropriate action, together with the eloquent and perspicuous character of his discourses, soon attracted large auditories, by whom, like his great contemporary John, he was surnamed "The Golden-mouthed." Having amassed considerable wealth, he returned to his deserted see, where he employed his leisure in composing a long treatise "against avarice." He took a zealous part in the proceedings against Chrysostom, and is reckoned by Palladius among his bitterest enemies. He died in the reign of Arcadius, before A.D. 408, and, according to Nicephorus, his end, like that of all the enemies of Chrysostom, was miserable. A homily on The Cure of the Blind Man is also mentioned. With the exception of a sentence quoted by Theodoret, Dial. 2, and a longer fragment given in the Catena on St. John, xix. p. 443, his works have perished (Socr. vi. 11; Soz. viii. 10; Niceph. xiii. 26; Gennadius in Catalog.; Pallad. Dialog. p. 49; Fabr. Bibl. Gk. ix. 259).
Antipopes, claimants to the popedom in opposition to the lawful popes. There were seven such during the first six centuries, some owing their elevation to the existence of conflicting parties at Rome, others intruded into the see by the civil power. A fuller account of them, with the authorities, is given under their respective names—viz. Novatianus; Felix; Ursinus (or Ursicinus); Eulalius; Laurentius; Dioscorus; Vigilius.
Antoninus, Pius, emperor, A.D.
138–161. The character of this prince as loving righteousness and mercy, choosing
rather, in his own noble words, "to save the life of one citizen than to slay a
thousand foes," shewed itself, as in other things, so also in his treatment of the
Christians of the empire. Hadrian had checked the tendency to persecution by imposing
severe penalties on false accusers (Just. Mart. Apol. i. c. 68). In some
way or other, Antoninus was led to adopt a policy which was even more favourable
to them (Xiphilin. Epit. Dion. Cass. 1, 70, p. 1173). Melito, writing his
Apologia to Marcus Aurelius (Eus. H. E. iv. 26), speaks of edicts
which Antoninus had issued, forbidding any new and violent measures against the
Christians. A
Antonius, St. (Abbas), termed by Athanasius "the founder of asceticism" and his life a "model for monks" (Praef. Vit. St. Ant.). We have a tolerably complete, but probably interpolated, biography of him by Athanasius, derived in part from his own recollections, in part from others who had known him, as well as frequent mention of him by the ecclesiastical historians; and we shall here treat Anthony as a historic character, despite the recent assumption that he is "a myth" (see, e.g., Gwatkin's Arian Controversy, 1891, and cf. F. W. Farrar, Contemp. Rev. 1887, pp. 617–627).
Anthony was born c. A.D. 250 at Coma, on the borders of Upper Egypt (Soz. Hist. i. 13). By his parents, who were wealthy Christians, he was trained in pious habits (Athan. Vit. St. Ant.; Aug. de Doct. in Prol.). Six months after the death of his parents, being then 18 years of age, he chanced to hear in church the words "If thou wilt be perfect," etc., and resolved to obey the precept literally, reserving only a small portion for his sister. Returning into the church he heard, "Take no thought for the morrow." On this he resolved to commend her to the care of some devout woman, and gave away all his property to the poor (Athan. cf. Soz. i. 13).
At that time cells of Anchorites (μοναστηρία) were very rare in Egypt, and none far from the habitations of men. Anthony retired by degrees farther and farther from his native village, fixing his abode first in a tomb, afterwards in a ruined castle near the Nile. Here he remained some 20 years, shut up for months at a time with only bread and water (the bread of the country is said to be good for keeping), and issuing forth only to instruct the multitudes who flocked to see and hear him; at other times communication was prevented by a huge stone at the entrance. During the persecution of Maximinus (A.D. 311), in which their bishop had fallen, he went to comfort the Christians of Alexandria; and though the presence of monks at these trials was forbidden as encouraging the martyrs in their disobedience to the emperor's edict, he persisted in appearing in court. When the storm had ceased he withdrew, though now an old man, to a more complete isolation than ever, near the Red Sea; and here, to save his disciples the trouble of bringing him food, he made a small field of wheat, which he cultivated with his own hands, working also at making mats. From time to time he revisited his former disciples in the Thebaid, always, however, declining to preside over a convent. About A.D. 335 he revisited Alexandria, at the urgent request of Athanasius, to preach against the Arians (Theod. Hist. iv. 27), and there was followed by crowds as "the man of God." But he soon returned to the congenial seclusion of his cell, and there died, at the great age of 105, in the presence of the two disciples, Amathas and Macarius, who had ministered to his wants during the last 15 years. To them he bequeathed his hair-shirt; and the rest of his worldly goods, his two woollen tunics and the rough cloak on which he slept, to bp. Serapion and St. Athanasius (Athan. Vit. St. Ant.).
The fame of Anthony spread rapidly through Christendom; and the effect of his
example in inducing Christians, especially in the East, to embrace the monastic
life is described by his biographers as incalculable. In the next century he began
to be venerated as a saint by the Greek church, and in the ninth by the Latin. St.
Jerome says he was the author of seven Epistles to certain Eastern monasteries,
which have been translated from the Egyptian into the Greek (Hieron. de Script.
88), but whether these are the same as those now extant in Latin is doubtful (cf.
Erdinger's ed. of them (Innsbruck, 1871). Though by all accounts far from being
a learned man (Soz. Hist. i. 13; Niceph. Hist. vii. 40; Athan.
Vit. St. Ant.), his discourses are evidence that he was not altogether illiterate.
His influence was great at the court of the emperor. Constantine the Great and his
sons wrote to him as a father (Athan.), and when Athanasius was contending with
the Meletians, Anthony wrote from his cell to the emperor in behalf of his friend
(Soz. ii. 31). His austerities were great; as a rule he fasted till sunset, and
sometimes for four days together. Of sleep he was equally sparing. His coarse rough
shirt is said to have lasted him for a lifetime; and his only ablutions seem to
have been involuntary in wading occasionally through a river. Yet
Anthony was evidently a man, not merely of strong determination, but of ability, and the discourses, if indeed they are his, which his disciples record as addressed to themselves and to the pagan philosophers who disputed with him, shew that if he read little he thought much. He met objections against the doctrines of the Incarnation and the Resurrection as mysterious by the retort that the pagan mythology, whether in its grossness as apprehended by the vulgar or as the mystical system of philosophers, was equally above reason. From their dialectical subtleties he appealed to facts, to a Christian's contempt of death and triumph over temptation; and contrasted the decay of pagan oracles and magic with the growth of Christianity in spite of persecutions. He taught that prayer to be perfect must be ecstatic (Cass. Coll. ix. 3). Mingled with sound and practical advice are strange stories of his visions, in which he describes himself as engaged continually in deadly conflict with evil spirits.
Beyond these encounters and powers of exorcism it is not clear how far and in what manner Anthony believed himself able to work miracles. It would indeed be strange if so lonely an existence did not breed many involuntary and unconscious illusions; still more strange if those whose eyes were dazzled by the almost more than human self-abnegation of the great eremite had not exaggerated this aspect of his story. Among the many in whom the marvellous experiences of Anthony awoke a longing to renounce the world was Augustine himself (Aug. Conf. viii. 6, 12). A. Verger, Vie de St. Antoine le Grand (Tours, 1898).
Aphraat (Aphrahat, Farhad, "the Sage of Persia"). Little is known
of the life of this writer, who was the principal theologian of the Persian (i.e.
Eastern or Nestorian) church in the 4th cent. He was born late in the 3rd cent.,
and was certainly a monk, and probably a bishop of his church. Tradition says that
he resided at the monastery of Mar Mattai, near Mosul, and was bishop in that province.
Either at his baptism or consecration he adopted the name Jacob (
)
in addition to his own, and for this reason his works have sometimes been attributed
to better-known namesakes.
In the year 344 he presided over a council of the church of his province (Adiabene), and the synodal letter is included in his works (Homily xiv.). Sapor's persecution was then raging in the country, but is known to have been, for local reasons, less severe in this district than elsewhere. The time and manner of his death are not known.
Works.—These consist of a collection of 22 Homilies, written at the request of a friend (a monk) to give an exposition of the Christian faith. Their importance consists in the picture that they give of the current teaching of an independent church, already organized under its own primate, outside the Roman empire. The language is Syriac, the quotations from the O.T. are taken from the Peshitta, but in the N.T. he quotes the Gospels from the Diatessaron. Some of his interpretations (e.g. Hom. xv.) shew signs of Jewish or "Talmudical" teaching.
Doctrine.—As a theologian, Aphraat is strikingly independent and remote from the controversies of his day in the Roman empire. Writing 20 years after the council of Nicaea, he expresses himself in a way impossible for any one who had heard of the Arian controversy, whatever his sympathies in it; with him we are back in the indefiniteness of an earlier age, when an orthodox writer might use on one page the language of psilanthropism (Hom. xvii.) and on another confess both the Trinity and the Divinity of Christ (vi. 11.). This is consistent with the fact that the "church of the East" was so isolated that it was never asked to accept the Nicene Creed till the year 410; and apparently used, till that date, the formula that Aphraat gives (Hom. i.). See Nestorian Church.
A curious feature in Aphraat's teaching is the use of expressions that plainly suggest that he regarded the Holy Spirit as the female element in the Godhead (xviii. 10). It is a thought strange to us, but not necessarily unorthodox, and natural to a mind of Semitic cast, that used a word for "spirit" that is feminine; its absence from Greek and Latin theology may account in part for the enthronement of another figure as Queen of Heaven. Aphraat's whole teaching has the ascetic cast natural to a 4th-cent. Oriental monk. The celibates (xviii.) are emphatically the aristocracy of the church, the professors of the higher life, who alone can attain to true communion with God. Any one who doubts his own capacity for the keeping of a vow of virginity, which apparently was often taken at the time of baptism, is advised to marry before that rite, a fall subsequent to it being a heinous sin (vii. 10). Nevertheless, all are warned that open abandonment of the resolution and avowed marriage is better than secret incontinence.
Broadly, Aphraat shews us the existence of an independent Oriental theology, which, however, was not allowed to develop on its own lines, but was assimilated to Greek standards a few generations later. This was a distinct loss to the fullness of Christian thought, and a misfortune to the Syriac church itself, in that it soon shewed itself unable to think on Greek lines, so that schisms resulted that endure to this day. Parisot, Patrol. Syriac. Aphraatis Demonstrationes; Labourt. Christianisme dans l’empire perse; Burkitt, Early Eastern Christianity.
Aphthartodocetae (from ἄφθαρτος,
incorruptible, and δοκέω, to think),
a sect of the Monophysites,
which arose in the 6th cent. They were also called Phantasiastae, because
they appeared to acknowledge only a seeming body of Christ, and to border
on Docetism; and Julianists, from their leader Julian, bp. of
The Aphthartodocetae were subdivided into Ktistolatrae, or, from their founder, Gajanitae, who taught that the body of Christ was created (κτιστόν), and Aktistetae, who asserted that the body of Christ, although in itself created, yet by its union with the eternal Logos became increate, and therefore incorruptible. The most consistent Monophysite in this direction was the rhetorician Stephanus Niobes (about 550), who declared that every attempt to distinguish between the divine and the human in Christ was improper and useless, since they had become absolutely one in him. An abbot of Edessa, Bar Sudaili, extended this principle even to the creation, which he thought would at last be wholly absorbed in God.
Cf. the dissertations of Gieseler, Monophysitarum variae de Christi Persona Opiniones, 1835 and 1838; the remarks of Dorner, History of Christology, ii. 159 ff. (German ed.); Ebrard, Church and Doctrine History, i. 268; and Schaff, Church History, iii. 766 ff.
Apion. The name is properly Egyptian (see Procop. Pers. i. 8; Ross. Inscr. fasc. 2, p. 62) and derived from the god Apis, after the analogy of Anubion, Serapion, etc.
(1) The son of Poseidonius (Justin (?) Coh, ad Gent. § 9; Africanus in Eus. Pr. Ev. x. 10. p. 490), a grammarian of Alexandria in the 1st cent. His literary triumphs and critical labours on Homer do not fall within our scope, but his conflict with Jews and Jewish Christians entitles him to a place here.
(i) His hostility to Judaism was deep, persistent, and unscrupulous (Joseph. c. Ap. ii. 1–13; Clem. Hom. iv. 24, v. 2, πάνυ Ἰουδαίους δἰ ἀπεχθείας ἔξοντα, v. 27, 29, ὁ ἀλόγως μισῶν τὸ Ἰουδαίων κ.τ.λ.; Clem. Strom. i. 21), as the direct extracts preserved by Josephus from his writings clearly prove. These attacks were contained in two works especially in his Egyptian History (Αἰγυπτιακά), and in a separate treatise Against the Jews (κατὰ Ἰουδαίων βίβλος, Justin. (?) l.c.; Africanus, l.c.). Josephus exposes the ignorance, mendacity, and self-contradictions of Apion.
(ii) It is not surprising that the spent wave of this antagonism should have overflowed on Judaic Christianity. Whether Apion actually came in contact with any members of the new brotherhood is more than questionable. His early date (for he flourished in the reigns of Tiberius, Caius, and Claudius) renders this improbable. But in the writings of the Petro-Clementine cycle he holds a prominent place as an antagonist of the Gospel. In the Clementine Homilies he appears in company with Anubion and Athenodorus among the satellites of Simon Magus, the arch-enemy of St. Peter and St. Peter's faith. The Clementine Recognitions contain nothing corresponding to the disputes of Clement and Apion in the 4th, 5th, and 6th books of the Homilies; but at the close of this work (x. 52), as at the close of the Homilies, he is introduced as a subsidiary character in the plot. See the treatises on these writings by Schliemann, Uhlhorn, Hilgenfeld, Lehmann, and others.
(2) A Christian author about the end of 2nd cent., who wrote on the Hexaemeron (Eus. H. E. v. 27; Hieron. Vir. Ill. 49).
Apolinaris, or Apolinarius Claudius. Ἀπολινάριος: so spelt in the most ancient Gk. MSS.; Latin writers generally use the form Apollinaris), bp. of Hierapolis, in Phrygia A.D. 171 and onwards (Eus. Chron.); one of the most active and esteemed Christian writers of the day, he is praised by Photius for his style (Phot. Cod. 14). Jerome enumerates him among the ecclesiastical writers who were acquainted with heathen literature, and who made use of this knowledge in the refutation of heresy (Ep. ad Magnum, iv. 83, p. 656. Cf. Theod. Haer. Fab. Compend. iii. 2).
Only a few fragments of his works have been preserved. Eusebius (H. E.
iv. 27) gives the following list of those which had fallen into his hands; and his
list is repeated by St. Jerome (de Vir. Ill. c. 26) and Nicephorus (H.
E. iv. 11). (1) An apology addressed to Marcus Aurelius, probably written
after A.D. 174, since it is likely
that it contained the reference to the miracle of the Thundering Legion elsewhere
quoted by Eusebius from Apolinaris (H. E. v. 5). (2) Five books
πρὸς Ἕλληνας, written according to Nicephorus
in the form of a dialogue. (3) Two books περὶ
ἀληθείας. (4) Two books πρὸς Ἰουδαίους:
these are not mentioned by St. Jerome, and the reference to them is absent from
some copies of Eusebius. (5) Writings against the Phrygian heresy, published
when Montanus was first propounding his heresy; i.e. according to the
Chronicon of Eusebius, c. 172. These writings, which were probably in
the form of letters, are appealed to by Serapion, bp. of Antioch (Eus. H. E.
v. 19); and Eusebius elsewhere (v. 16) describes Apolinaris as raised up as a strong
and irresistible weapon against Montanism.
Apolinaris had been set down as a Chiliast on St. Jerome's authority (de Vir. Ill. c. 18), but Routh (Rel. Sac. i. 174) has given good reason for thinking that the Apollinaris intended is the younger Apollinaris, of Laodicea; since Jerome speaks of Irenaeus and Apollinaris as the first and the last of the Greek Millenarians (lib. xi. Comm. in Ezech. c. 36, iii. 952), and also states that Apollinaris answered Dionysius of Alexandria (Prooem. in lib. xviii. Comm. Esaiae iii. 478).
The Martyrologies commemorate the death of Apollinaris on Feb. 7. Of the year or of the place and manner of his death nothing is known; but that it was before the end of the 2nd cent. may be inferred from the language in which he is described in the letter of Serapion written about that time (Κλαυδίου Ἀπολιναρίου τοῦ μακαριωτάτου γενομένου ἐν Ιεραπόλει τῆς Ἀσίας ἐπισκόπου).
Apollinarianism, Apollinarians, Apollinarists. [Apollinaris the Younger.]
Apollinaris, St. and Mart., first bp. or archbp. of Ravenna, perhaps from 50–78. According to the Life written by Agnellus in 9th cent. (Liber Pontificalis, ap. Muratori, Rer. It. Script. ii. part i.), St. Apollinaris was a native of Antioch, well instructed in Gk. and Lat. literature, who followed St. Peter to Rome, and was sent by him to Ravenna. On his way he healed the son of Irenaeus who was blind, and did other miracles. At Ravenna he baptized in the river Bidens, and raised the daughter of the patrician Rufus to life; imprisoned by the heathen near the capitol, he was there fed by angels. Afterwards, being expelled from the city, he preached in Dalmatia, Pannonia, Thrace, and Corinth. After three years he returned, suffered new persecutions, and did new miracles, destroying a statue and temple of Apollo by his prayers. He was martyred under Vespasian, after an episcopate of over 28 years.
Other lives, such as that in the Acta Sanctorum, are more full of miracles, but do not add anything else of importance. The day of his death is agreed upon as July 23; the year may have been 78. From a sermon of St. Peter Chrysologus in 5th cent. (No. 128, pp. 552 seq. ed. Migne), it appears that St. Apollinaris was the only bp. of Ravenna who suffered martyrdom, and that he, strictly speaking, can only be called a confessor. He did not die, it would seem, a violent death, though it may have been hastened by the persecutions he underwent. Probably, like his successor Aderitus, he died in the port town Classis, where he was buried. A new church, still existing, was built about the same time as that of St. Vitale, and into this his body was translated by St. Maximianus c. 552. The mosaic over the apse seems to realize the words of St. Peter Chrysologus (u.s.), "Ecce vivit, ecce ut bonus pastor suo medius assistit in grege." As early as 575 it was the custom to take solemn oaths upon his relics (St. Greg. Magn. Ep. vi. 61). His body was taken to Ravenna in 1515 for safety, but restored in 1655 (see authorities in Acta Sanctor. for July 23). This most interesting basilica, with the vacant monastery adjoining, is now the only remnant of the town of Classis.
Apollinaris (or, according to Greek orthography, Apollinarius) the Elder, of Alexandria, was born about the beginning of the 4th cent. After teaching grammar for some time at Berytus in Phoenicea, he removed, A.D. 335, to Laodicea, of which church he was made presbyter. Here he married and had a son, afterwards the bp. of Laodicea. [Apollinaris the Younger.] Both father and son were on intimate terms with the heathen sophists Libanius and Epiphanius of Petra, frequenting the lecture-room of the latter, on which account they were admonished and, upon their venturing to sit out the recitation of a hymn to Bacchus, excommunicated by Theodotus, bp. of Laodicea, but restored upon their subsequent repentance (Socr. Eccl. Hist. iii. 16; Soz. vi. 25).
The elder Apollinaris is chiefly noted for
The Metaphrasis Psalmorum was published at Paris 1552; by Sylburg, at Heidelberg, 1596; and subsequently in various collections of the Fathers. The latest edition is that in Migne's Patr. Gk. xxiii.
Apollinaris the Younger, bp. of Laodicea, flourished in the latter half of the 4th cent., and was at first highly esteemed, even by Athanasius and Basil, for his classical culture, piety, and adhesion to the Nicene Creed during the Arian controversy, until he introduced a Christological heresy which is called after him, and which in some respects prepared the way for Monophysitism. He assisted his father in rewriting the Christian Scriptures in imitation of the style of Homer, Menander, etc., mentioned in the preceding article. He also wrote in defence of Christianity against Julian and Porphyry; of orthodoxy against the Manicheans, Arians, Marcellus, Eunomius, and other heretics; Biblical commentaries, and other works, of which only fragments remain. Jerome enjoyed his instruction, A.D. 374. He did not secede from the communion of the church and begin to form a sect of his own till 375. He died about 392. After his death his followers, who were not numerous, were divided into two parties, the Polemians and Valentinians. His doctrine was condemned by a synod of Alexandria (not naming him), by two synods at Rome under Damasus (377 and 378), and by the second oecumenical council (381). Imperial decrees prohibited the public worship of the Apollinarists (388, 397, 428), until during the 5th cent. they were absorbed partly by the orthodox, partly by the Monophysites. But the peculiar Christology of Apollinaris has reappeared from time to time, in a modified shape, as an isolated theological opinion.
Apollinaris was the first to apply the results of the Nicene controversy to Christology
proper, and to call the attention of the church to the psychical and pneumatic element
in the humanity of Christ; but in his zeal for the true deity of Christ, and fear
of a double personality, he fell into the error of a partial denial of His true
Humanity. Adopting the psychological trichotomy of Plato (σῶμα,
ψυχή, πνεῦμα), for which he quoted
The faith of the church revolted against such a mutilated and stunted humanity
of Christ, which necessarily involved also a merely partial redemption. The incarnation
is an assumption of the entire human nature, sin only excluded. The
ἐνσάρκωσις is
ἐνανθρώπησις. To be a full and complete Redeemer, Christ must be a perfect
man (τέλειος ἄνθρωπος). The spirit or rational
soul is the most important element in man,
Athanasius, the two Gregories, Basil, and Epiphanius combated the Apollinarian error, but were unprepared to answer duly its main point, that two integral persons cannot form one person. The later orthodox doctrine surmounted this difficulty by teaching the impersonality of the human nature of Christ, and by making the personality of Christ to reside wholly in the Logos.
Apollinarianism opened the long line of Christological controversies, which resulted in the Chalcedonian symbol.
Literature.—Of the writings of Apollinaris,
περὶ σαρκώσεως, περὶ πίστεως, περὶ ἀναστάσεως, κατὰ
κεφάλειον and other polemical and exegetical works and epistles, only fragments
remain in the answers of Gregory of Nyssa and Theodoret, in Leontius Byzant. in
the Catenae, and in Angelo Mai's Nova Bibliotheca Patrum, tom. vii. (
Apollonius, M. [Commodus.]
Apollonius of Ephesus, so called on the doubtful authority of the writer of Praedestinatus, ed. by Sirmond, who styles him bp. of Ephesus, but the silence of Eusebius and all other earlier testimony makes it difficult to lay much stress on this statement. He wrote a work in five books against the Cataphrygian or Montanist heresy. Fragments of the first three books are extant in Eusebius (H. E. v. 18), and contain much that is curious and valuable with regard to the lives and characters of Montanus, the prophetesses Priscilla and Maximilla, and their followers. Jerome also devotes an article to Apollonius. Vir. Illust. c. 50, in which he calls him ἀνὴρ ἐλλογιμώτατος, the author of a μέγα καὶ ἐπίσημον τεῦχος, and quotes him as stating that Montanus and his prophetesses hanged themselves. The book professes to be written 40 years after the commencement of Montanus's pretensions to prophesy. Taking for the rise of Montanism the date given in the Chronicon of Eusebius (A.D. 172), this would give about A.D. 210 for the date of this work. Eusebius mentions also that Apollonius cites the Revelation of St. John, that he relates the raising to life of a dead man at Ephesus by the same John, and that he makes mention of the tradition quoted also by Clement of Alexandria (Strom. vi. 5 sub finem) from the Apocryphal "Preaching of Peter" that our Lord commanded His apostles not to leave Jerusalem for twelve years after His ascension. This work of Apollonius was thought sufficiently important by Tertullian to demand an answer; bk. vii. of his lost work, de Ecstasi, was devoted to a refutation of his assertions (Hieron. de Vir. Ill. c. 50). Tillemont, Hist. Eccl. ii. 426; Bonwetsch. Gesch. des Montanismus (Erlanger, 1881).
Apollonius of Tyana. The life of this philosopher is related by Philostratus, but the entire fabulousness of his story is obvious. The prodigies, anachronisms, and geographical blunders, and entire absence of other authority are fatal to it (see H. Conybeare in the Guardian, June 21, 1893, and Apollon. Apology, Acts, etc, Lond. 1894). Philostratus indeed claims the authority of "the records of cities and temples, and Apollonius's epistles to the Eleans, Delphians, Indians, and Egyptians"; but the cities and temples are nameless.
What, then, can we really be said to know of Apollonius of Tyana? That he was born at Tyana and educated at Aegae, that he professed Pythagoreanism, and that he was celebrated in his day for what were considered magical arts, are the only facts that rest on altogether unexceptionable authority. The account of his opposition to the Stoic Euphrates may perhaps also be taken as authentic. His reputation as a magician is confirmed by the double authority of Moeragenes and Lucian (Pseudomantis, c. 5). Yet there are also reasons for believing that he was more than a mere magician, and even a philosopher of some considerable insight. Eusebius (Praep. Ev. p. 150 b) quotes a passage from his book On Sacrifices (with the reservation "Apollonius is said to write as follows"), which if really his is certainly remarkable. All later authorities base their accounts on the Life by Philostratus; except Origen, who quotes Moeragenes. Hierocles mentions Maximus of Aegae, and Damis, but probably only knew of them through Philostratus. We now come to the collection of letters still extant which are attributed to Apollonius. Prof. Jowett (in the D. of G. and R. Biogr.) thinks that part may be genuine; but Kayser and Zeller reject them summarily, and most writers on Apollonius barely mention them. Zeller even says that they are obviously composed to suit the Life by Philostratus. We do not think that this opinion can be held by any one who attentively compares the letters with the biography; and we think it probable that the letters, whether genuine or not, were composed before the work of Philostratus, and hence form our earliest and best authority respecting Apollonius.
The question arises, Had Philostratus in the biography any idea of attacking
Christianity by setting up a rival to Christ? Hierocles, at the end of the 3rd cent.,
was the first person who actually applied the work of Philostratus to this purpose,
as is said expressly by Eusebius, who replied to him. The Deists of the 18th cent.,
both in France and England, used them thus; but whereas Hierocles would admit the
miracles both of Christ and of Apollonius,
The central aim of his biography is to set forth, not merely wise precepts in the abstract, but an example of supreme wisdom for humanity to imitate. It is not implied by this that Philostratus considered Apollonius as entirely and necessarily unique among men; but it is implied that he considered him as more than a mere teacher of doctrine, as a pattern to men in his own person, as one in whom wisdom and truth were incorporate. He wished men to honour Apollonius himself, and not merely to study or believe certain truths delivered by Apollonius. This cannot, we think, be doubted by any one who reflects on the whole tone of the book. Apollonius is called "divine"; his disciples stand in an altogether different relation to him from that in which the disciples of Socrates stand to Socrates; they do not argue with him as equals with an equal; they follow him, listen to him, are rebuked by him. His miracles, again, do not result from his being in possession of any secret communicable to other men, but arise from his own nature and wisdom. Such a character must remind us, however different in some respects, of the Christ of the Gospels. But was any character like this, or approaching to this, drawn by any heathen writer before Christ? We think not. Philosophy and magic, the search after knowledge and the search after power, were familiar to men who had never heard of Christianity; but this ideal is different from either, and from both of them united. Those who affirm that Philostratus never thought of the Christian history in his work, say that he intended Apollonius as a rival to Pythagoras. But by whom was Pythagoras portrayed as this superhuman ideal? Not certainly by any writer of the centuries before Christ. Even Plutarch (Numa, c. viii.) does not set him up as an ideal exemplar. Is it possible that the age of Caracalla and Severus, so eclectic, so traditional, so unoriginal, can of its own mere motion have gone off into this new and unheard-of line?—unheard of, that is, unless, as we must, we suppose it to have been borrowed from Christianity. The Christians were not then by any means an unknown sect; so well known were they that Alexander Severus (with a singular parallelism to the supposed conduct of Philostratus) placed Christ with Abraham, Orpheus, and Apollonius himself, among his household gods. Secondly, the resemblance to the Gospel histories is in particular instances very broad indeed. The miraculous birth of Proteus, and the circumstances attending it; the healing of demoniacal possessions (was the idea of such possessions in any way familiar to the Greeks?); the raising of the dead; the appearance of Apollonius to two of his disciples after his deliverance from Domitian; his ascent to heaven, and appearance after his death, these are points of similarity that cannot be evaded: and, taken together with the central idea of the book, they seem to imply that Philostratus consciously borrowed from the Gospels. It should be noticed that the very striking resemblances between the biography of Apollonius and the Gospels are resemblances in externals; the inner spirit is entirely different: in the one we find the self-contained philosophic spirit, striking even amid all the rhetoric and tawdry marvels with which Philostratus has dressed it; in the other, the spirit of the insufficiency of self.
Those who wish to examine the whole question respecting Apollonius should consult Baur, op. cit.; Kayser's Philostratus; Zeller's Philosophie der Griechen; and the writers noticed above.
Apostolic Fathers. Definition of the Term.—The adjective
Apostolicus (ἀποστολικός)
is used to denote either morally or doctrinally accordance with the Apostles, or
historically connexion with the Apostles. In this latter sense it is especially
applied to churches founded directly by Apostles, or to persons associated with
and taught by Apostles. The former are Apostolicae ecclesiae;
the latter Apostolici viri, or
Apostolici simply. See especially Tertull. de Praescr. 32, "ut
primus ille episcopus aliquem ex apostolis vel apostolicis viris, qui tamen cum
apostolis perseveravit, habuerit auctorem et antecessorem. Hoc enim modo ecclesiae
apostolicae census suos deferunt sicut Smyrnaeorum ecclesia Polycarpum ab Joanne
collocatum refert, sicut Romanorum Clementem a Petro ordinatum itidem," with
the whole context. Cf. also de Praescr. 20, 21; adv. Marc. i. 21,
v. 2; de Carn. Chr. 2; de Pudic. 21. Hence among the Evangelists,
while St. Matthew and St. John are Apostoli, St. Mark
and St. Luke are Apostolici (adv. Marc. iv.
2). In accordance with this usage the term Apostolic Fathers is confined
to those who are known, or may reasonably be presumed, to have associated with and
derived their teaching directly from some Apostle. In its widest range it will include
Barnabas, Hermas, Clemens, Ignatius, Polycarp, Papias, and the writer of the epistle
to Diognetus. Some of these fail to satisfy the conditions which alone entitle to
a place among the works of the Apostolic Fathers. Thus the "Shepherd" of Hermas
has been placed in this category, because it was supposed to have been written by
the person of this name mentioned by St. Paul (
All the genuine writings of these three Apostolic Fathers are epistolary in form, modelled more or less after the pattern of the Canonical Epistles, especially those of St. Paul, and called forth by pressing temporary needs. In no case is any literary motive prominent. A famous teacher writes in the name of the community over which he presides to quell the dissensions of a distant but friendly church. An aged disciple on his way to martyrdom pours out a few parting words of exhortation to the Christian brotherhoods with whom he is brought in contact during his journey. A bishop of a leading church, having occasion to send a parcel to another brotherhood at a distance, takes the opportunity of writing, in answer to their solicitations, a few plain words of advice and instruction. Such is the simple account of the letters of Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp respectively.
The same form is preserved in the Ep. of Barnabas and the letter to Diognetus. But the spirit is somewhat different. They are rather treatises clothed in an epistolary dress, the aim of the one being polemical, of the other apologetic. Herein they resemble Hebrews more than the Epp. of St. Paul.
"The Apostolic Fathers," says de Pressensé, "are not great writers, but great characters" (Trois Premiers Siècles, ii. 384). Their style is loose; there is a want of arrangement in the topics, and an absence of system in their teaching. On the one hand they present a marked contrast to the depth and clearness of conception with which the several N.T. writers place before us different aspects of the Gospel, and by which their title to a special inspiration is established. On the other, they lack the scientific spirit which distinguished the Fathers of the 4th and 5th cents., and which enabled them to formulate the doctrines of the faith as a bulwark against unbridled speculation. But though they are deficient in distinctness of conception and power of exposition, "this inferiority" to the later Fathers "is amply compensated by a certain naïveté and simplicity which forms the charm of their letters. If they have not the precision of the scientific spirit, they are free from its narrowness." There is a breadth of moral sympathy, an earnest sense of personal responsibility, a fervour of Christian devotion, which is the noblest testimony to the influence of the Gospel on characters obviously very diverse, and which will always command for their writings a respect to which their literary merits could lay no claim. The gentleness and serenity of Clement, whose whole spirit is absorbed in contemplating the harmonies of nature and of grace; the fiery zeal of Ignatius, in whom the one overmastering desire of martyrdom has crushed all human passion; the unbroken constancy of Polycarp, whose protracted life is spent in maintaining the faith once delivered to the saints,—these are lessons which can never become antiquated or lose their value.
Their Relation to the Apostolic Teaching and to the Canonical Scriptures.—Of the respective provinces of the Apostolic Fathers, we may say that Clement co-ordinates the different elements of Christian teaching as left by the Apostles; and Ignatius consolidates the structure of ecclesiastical polity, as sketched out by them; while for Polycarp, whose active career was just beginning as theirs ended, and who lived on for more than half a century after their deaths, was reserved the task of handing down unimpaired to a later generation the Apostolic doctrine and order thus co-ordinated and consolidated by his elder contemporaries—a task for which he was eminently fitted by his passive and receptive character.
The writings of these three Fathers lie well
But when we turn to the other writings for which a place among the Apostolic Fathers has been claimed, the case is different. Though the writers are all apparently within the pale of the church, yet there is a tendency to that one-sided exaggeration—either in the direction of Judaisms or the opposite—which stands on the very verge of heresy. In the Ep. of Barnabas and in the letter to Diognetus, the repulsion from Judaism is so violent, that one step further would have carried the writers into Gnostic or Marcionite dualism. On the other hand, in the Shepherd of Hermas, and possibly in the Expositions of Papias (for in this instance the inferences drawn from a few scanty fragments must be precarious), the sympathy with the Old Dispensation is unduly strong, and the distinctive features of the Gospel are darkened by the shadow of the Law thus projected upon them. In Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp, both extremes are avoided.
For the relation of these writers to the Canonical Scriptures the reader is referred
to the thorough investigation in Westcott's Hist. of the Canon, pp. 19–55.
It will be sufficient here to state the more important results: (1) The Apostolic
Fathers do not, as a rule, quote by name the canonical writings of the N.T. But
(2), though (with exceptions) the books of the N.T. are not quoted by name, fragments
of most of the canonical Epistles lie embedded in the writings of these Fathers,
whose language is thoroughly leavened with the Apostolic diction. In like manner
the facts of the Gospel history are referred to, and the words of our Lord given,
though for the most part not as direct quotations. For (3) there is no decisive
evidence that these Fathers recognized a Canon of the N.T., as a distinctly defined
body of writings; though Barnabas once introduces our Lord's words as recorded in
The standard work on the Apostolic Fathers is by the writer of the above article, the late bp. Lightfoot. His work on the principal subject, in five 8vo volumes, includes Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp. But after his death a single vol. was pub. containing revised texts of all the Apostolic Fathers, with short introductions and Eng. translations.
Apostolici, one of the names adopted by an ascetic sect in Phrygia, Cilicia, and Pamphylia. Their leading principle seems to have been the rejection of private property. They are also said to have resembled Tatian, the Encratites, and the "Cathari" (Novatianists), in that they refused to admit offenders to communion, and condemned marriage. They appealed chiefly to the apocryphal Acts of Andrew and of Thomas. They entitled themselves Apotactici, i.e. "Renuntiants." What little is recorded about them, beyond the name, we owe to Epiphanius (Haer. lxi. 506–513), who apparently knew them only by vague oral report. Their place in his treatise would naturally assign them to the 3rd cent.; and they evidently had not ceased to exist in the 4th. "Encratites, Saccophori, and Apotactites," described together as "an offshoot of the Marcionites," are associated with Novatianists by Basil in a letter answering queries from Amphilochius of Iconium (cxcix. can. 47; cf. clxxxviii. can. 1), written in 375, when Epiphanius had begun and not completed his work. A law of Theodosius against the Manicheans in 381 (Cod. Theod. XVI. v. 7; cf. 11 an. 383) alleges that some of these heretics endeavoured to evade the existing severe legislation by calling themselves "Encratites, Apotactites, Hydroparastatae, or Saccophori." Any true historical connexion, however, between the Apostolici and either the Marcionists or the Manicheans is highly improbable.
Apphianus, or Appianus, or Amphianus, M., a son of rich parents at "Pagae" (probably Araxas) in Lycia, educated in the schools of Berytus, who being not twenty years old interrupted the governor at Caesarea when sacrificing, by an exhortation to desist from idolatry, and was, after horrible tortures—e.g. by his feet being wrapped in a tunica molesta of flax steeped in oil and set on fire—finally martyred by drowning, April 11, 306 (Eus. de Mart. Palaest. iv.; Syriac Acta, in Assemani, Act. Mart. ii. 189 seq.).
Aquila (Ἀκύλας), the author of a
translation of the O.T. into Greek, which was held in much esteem by the Jews and
was reproduced by Origen in the third column of the Hexapla, seems to have belonged
to the earlier half of 2nd cent. Little is known regarding his personal history
beyond the fact that he was, like the Aquila associated with St. Paul, a native
of Pontus, and probably, according to the more definite tradition, of Sinope. We
learn also from Irenaeus, in whom we find the earliest mention of him (adv. Haer.
iii. 24), that he was a proselyte to the Jewish faith—a statement confirmed by Eusebius
(Demonst. Evang. vii. 1: προσήλυτος δὲ ὁ Ἀκύλας
ἦν οὐ φύσει Ἰουδαῖος), Jerome (Ep. ad Pammach. Opp. iv. 2, p. 255),
and other Fathers, as well as by the Jerusalem Talmud (Megill. f. 71, c.
3; Kiddush. 59, c. 1, where there can be little doubt that the Akilas referred
to is to be identified with Aquila).
The object of Aquila was to furnish a translation on which the Jews could rely
as a more accurate rendering of the Hebrew than that of the Septuagint, which not
only was in many instances loose and incorrect from the first, but had also in the
course of four centuries undergone change and corruption. With this view he made
his version strictly literal, striving to provide a Greek equivalent for every Hebrew
word and particle, in frequent disregard of the rules of grammar and of idiom, and
with the result of often rendering his meaning hardly intelligible to those who
were not acquainted with Hebrew (as in
Several scholars of eminence have recently maintained that Aquila is to be identified not only with the Akilas of the Talmud, but also with Onkelos, whose name is associated with the well-known Targum on the Pentateuch; holding that the latter is merely an altered form of the name, and that the Chaldee version came to receive what is now its ordinary designation from its being drawn up on the model, or after the manner, of that of Aquila. The arguments in support of this view, which appear to have great weight, are set forth with much clearness and force by Mr. Deutsch in his article on "Versions, Ancient, (Targum)," in Smith's D. B. iii. 1642–1645.
The fragments of the version of Aquila—first collected by Morinus for the Sixtine edition of the Septuagint, Rome, 1587, and subsequently by Drusius, in his Veterum interp. Graec. in V. T. Fragmenta, Arnb. 1622—are more fully given in the edition of the Hexapla by Montfaucon, Paris 1714, and its abridgment by Bahrdt, 1769–1770. A most complete and valuable edition is that by Mr. Frederick Field: Oxf. 1867–1870 (see Field, Hexapla [1875], xvi–xxvii). The chief questions connected with Aquila are discussed by Montfaucon, and by Hody (de Bibliorum Textibus Originalibus, Oxf. 1705).
Archelaus, supposed bp. of Carchar (perhaps Carrhoe Harrom in Mesopotamia). A work is attributed to him called Acta Disputationis Archel. Ep. Mesop. et Manetis haeresiarchae. It is extant in a Latin translation from a Greek text, but some think the Greek is derived from a Syriac original. The author was probably (cf. Phot. Cod. 85) a certain Hegemonius. The disputation and Archelaus himself seem to be fictitious; but the work affords valuable information respecting the Manichean system (cf. Bardenhewer, 1908, pp. 208–269).
Arethas, bp. of Caesarea in Cappadocia, and Andreas, an earlier archbp. of the same see, are so intimately associated as commentators on the Book of Revelation, and so little known otherwise, that they may most fitly be noticed together. We have no direct information regarding either, beyond the bare fact of their common connexion with the see of Caesarea. The dates at which they flourished can only be inferred approximately, and somewhat vaguely, from incidental notices of persons or of events in their writings. The question has been most fully discussed by Rettig (Die Zeugnisse des Andreas und Arethas . . . in the Theol. Studien and Kritiken for 1831, pp. 734 seq.); and his conclusions have been very generally accepted. He has shewn by enumerating the succession of bishops in Caesarea that the last 30 or 40 years of the 5th cent. may be assigned to Andreas and Arethas; and the absence of any reference to later events favours the belief that the work was prepared towards the close of the 5th, or in the earlier part of the 6th, cent.
The commentary of Andreas on the Apocalypse (entitled
Ἐρμηνεία εἰς τὴν Ἀποκάλυψιν) seems to have
been the earliest systematic exposition of the book in the Greek church. The statement
of R. Simon, Fabricius, Rosenmüller, and others, that the work belongs to the class
of Catenae, is not borne out either by its form or by the language of the Preface,
which simply means that he made use of the materials which he found in the early
writers whom he names, and occasionally quoted their expressions (παῤ
ὧν ἡμεῖς πολλὰς λαβόντες ἀφορμάς . . . καθὼς ἔν τισι τόποις χρήσεις τούτων παρεθέμεθα).
He wrote, in compliance with the urgent request of persons who had a greater opinion
of his judgment than he had himself, "to unfold the meaning of the Apocalypse, and
to make the suitable application of its predictions to the times that followed it"
(ἀναπτύξαι τὴν . . . Ἀποκάλυψιν, καὶ τοῖς μετὰ τὴν
αὐτῆς ὀπτασίαν χρόνοις ἐφαρμόσαι τὰ προφητευθέντα). His method rests on the
distinction of a threefold sense in Scripture—the literal or outward historical
(τὸ γράμμα καὶ ἡ κατ᾿ αἴσθησιν ἱστορία), the
tropological or moral (ἡ τροπολογία ἐξ αἰσθητῶν ἐπὶ
τὰ νοητὰ ὁδηγοῦσα τὸν ἀναγινώσκοντα), and the mystical or speculative (ἡ
τῶν μελλόντων καὶ ὑψηλοτέρων ἀναγωγὴ καὶ θεωρία); the expositor of the Revelation
is chiefly concerned with the latter. He divided the text into twenty-four
λόγοι corresponding to the four-and-twenty
elders, and 72 κεφάλαια, according to the threefold
distinction of body, soul, and spirit (24 x 3 = 72). The exposition contains not
a little that is of value, but it is full of the fanciful interpretations to which
the method gave rise. The paucity of MSS. of the Apocalypse renders the text which
accompanies the commentary of great importance to criticism; and Bengel was of opinion
that the
The work of Arethas, again, professes to be a compilation. It is no mere reproduction of the work of his predecessor, although it incorporates a large portion of the contents of that work, occasionally abridging or modifying the language of Andreas, and often specifying with more precision the sources of his quotations. But it contains much derived from other sources, or contributed by Arethas himself.
The commentary of Andreas was first printed in the form of an imperfect and inaccurate Latin version by Peltanus in 1574. The Greek text was first edited by Sylburg from a collation of three MSS. in 1596, along with a reprint of the Latin version. It has been several times reissued in connexion with the works of Chrysostom. The Greek text of Arethas is presented in its fullest and best form by Cramer (in his Catenae Gk. Patrum in N. T., Oxf. 1840); whose valuable additions, furnished chiefly by the Codex Baroccianus, exhibit the text in a shape so different from that previously printed as to make the latter often appear a mere abridgment.
Arinthaeus, a general under Valens, with whom St. Basil corresponds, and from whom he seeks protection for a friend in difficulty (Ep. 179). On his death Basil writes a letter of consolation to his widow, in which he dwells on his remarkable endowments, his striking personal beauty and strength, as well as his lofty character and renown. Like many others in that age, Arinthaeus, though a devout Christian and a protector of the Church, deferred his baptism till at the point of death (Ep. 269). He was consul in the year 372, and must have died before Basil (A.D. 379). If the story told by Theodoret (H. E. iv. 30) be true, that he was present and seconded the rebuke administered to Valens by the general Trajan in 378 for his persecution of the Catholics, his death cannot have preceded his friend's by many months. For his military achievements see Tillemont, Empereurs, v. 100.
Aristides, of Athens; mentioned by Eusebius as having presented to the emperor Hadrian an Apology for the Christians (Hist. Eccl. iv. c. 3). Jerome also (de Vir. Ill. c. 20, and Ep. 83, ad Magnum) mentions him as an Athenian philosopher and a disciple of Christ; and says that his Apology, containing the principles of the faith, was well known. But it was lost until, in 1878, the Mechitarists published part of an Armenian translation, the genuineness of which was vindicated by Harnack in Texte and Untersuch. i. 1, 2. But in 1891 J. Rendel Harris and J. Armitage Robinson (now Dean of Westminster) published in Texts and Studies, I. i., a complete Syrian translation from the Codex Sinait. Syr. 16, and shewed that the greater part of the Apology was found in Greek in the legend of Barlaam and Josaphat. These texts have been carefully discussed, especially by Seeberg (in Zahn's Forschungen, V. p. 159, and in an edition published at Erlangen 1894), and it is not yet agreed whether the Syrian or the Greek represents the original. It seems clear that the Apology was presented, not to Hadrian, but to Antoninus Pius. The main subject of the Apology, which, in the legend, is supposed to be addressed by Barlaam to Josaphat, is that the Christians alone possess the true knowledge of God. The emperor is invited to consider the conceptions of God among the various races of mankind, Barbarians and Greeks, Jews and Christians; it is then shewn how the Christians express their belief in their lives, and an attractive sketch of Christian life is given. The Apology has points of contact with the Preaching of Peter, with the Shepherd, with the Didaché, with Justin Martyr, and particularly with the Ep. to Diognetus. Mention is made of the Incarnation of the Son of God through a Hebrew maiden and of Christ's return to judgment. The Apology is thus of an interesting and original character. Two other fragments exist in Armenian which are ascribed to Aristides, a homily on the cry of the Robber and the answer of the Crucified, and a passage from "a letter to all philosophers," but their genuineness is doubtful, and F. C. Conybeare, in the Guardian, 1894 (July 18), has shewn that in the 5th and 7th cents. literary frauds were often connected with the name of Aristides and other names of old Christian literature.
Aristion, one of the "elders" from whom Papias professed to have derived traditional information (Eus. H. E. iii. 39), and described by him as a personal follower of our Lord. Beyond this, there is no trustworthy information about him. The Roman Martyrology (p. 102, Ven. 1630), apparently referring to the description just quoted, states on the authority of Papias that he was one of the seventy-two disciples of Christ. It commemorates his martyrdom at Salamis in Cyprus on Feb. 22, the same day as that of Papias at Pergamus. Cotelerius conjectures that he may be the Aristo who is given as the first bp. of Smyrna (Apost. Const. vii. 45; Harnack, Altchr. Lit. i. 64; Conybeare, in Expositor, 1893).
Aristo Pellaeus, the supposed author of a lost dialogue between Papiscus
and Jason, quoted, without his name, by Origen (cont. Celsus, iv. 52) and
referred to by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. iv. c. 6, pp. 145, 146); by Moses Chorenensis,
in a history of Armenia (bk. ii. c. 57); and by Maximus, in his notes on the work
de Mystica Theol., ascribed to Dionysius the Areopagite (c. i. p. 17, ed.
Corderii) in these words, "I have also read the expression 'seven heavens' in the
dialogue of Papiscus and Jason, composed by Aristo of Pella, which Clemens of Alexandria
in the 6th book of his Hypotyposes says was written by St. Luke." This testimony
is the only one connecting the name of Aristo with the dialogue, and though doubt
has been thrown on its trustworthiness by its strange assertion that Clement attributed
the work to St. Luke, Maximus is far less likely to be in error when simply giving
the name of an author than when repeating another's words. Jason, a Jewish Christian,
argues so conclusively that
We cannot fix the date of this dialogue, except that it must have been written before the time of Celsus, i.e. before the middle of the 2nd cent.; and, if Aristo be its author, we see from Eusebius (l.c.) that he lived after the destruction of Jerusalem. It is referred to in a pseudo-Cyprianic Ep. Hartd. Opp. Cypr. iii. p. 119. If Maximus's information be correct, Clement's belief that St. Luke was the writer of the Dialogue shews at least that it must have been commonly assigned to a very early date (Routh, Rel. Sac. i. 91–109; Harnack, Alt. Chr. Lit. i. 92 95–97).
Arius (Αρειος) the heresiarch was born in Africa—the locality is disputed—in A.D. 256. In his early days he was a pupil of Lucian of Antioch, a celebrated Christian teacher, and a martyr for the faith. By some Arius is said to have derived his heresy from Lucian (see Lucianus, 12). This statement is made in a letter written by Alexander, bp. of Alexandria, to bp. Alexander of Constantinople. The object of the letter is to complain of the errors Arius was then diffusing. The writer says of Lucian that he lived for many years out of communion with three bishops (Theod. Eccl. Hist. i. 4). But the charge is somewhat vague in itself; it is unsupported by other authority, and Alexander's language, like that of most controversialists in past days, is not a little violent. Moreover, Lucian is not stated, even by Alexander himself, to have fallen into the heresy afterwards promulgated by Arius, but is accused generally—rather ad invidiam, it would seem—of heretical tendencies. The question of the exact nature of the relation between the Father and the Son had been raised some 50 years before the Nicene controversy arose. But the discussion of it at that time had been insufficient and unsatisfying. So far as the earlier controversy could be said to have been decided, it was decided in favour of the opinions afterwards held by Arius. But so unsatisfactory was that settlement that the reopening of the question sooner or later was practically unavoidable, especially in an atmosphere so intellectual as that of Alexandria. The reason of the deposition of Paul of Samosata in A.D. 269 was his agreement with those who had used the word ὁμοούσιος to express the relation of the Father and the Son. The expression was at that time thought to have a Sabellian tendency, though, as events shewed, this was on account of its scope not having been satisfactorily defined. In the discussion which then arose on the question, Dionysius, bp. of Alexandria, had used much the same language as Arius afterwards held, and a correspondence is extant in which Dionysius of Rome blames his brother of Alexandria for using such language. Dionysius of Alexandria withdrew, or perhaps rather explained (see Athan. de Decret. Syn. Nic. c. 25), the expressions complained of, and posterity has been inclined to blame him for vacillation. Whether this accusation be just or not, it is quite clear that the position in which a question of such supreme importance was left by the action of Dionysius could only postpone the controversy, and that its resumption was therefore only a question of time. For the synod of Antioch which condemned Paul of Samosata had expressed its disapproval of the word ὁμοούσιος in one sense. The bp. (Alexander) of Alexandria (c. 320) undertook its defence in another.
The character of Arius has been severely assailed by his opponents. Alexander, bp. of Alexandria, in a letter to Alexander of Constantinople, describes it in very unfavourable terms. But in those days it was customary to mingle personal attacks with religious controversies. Arius appears to have been a man of ascetic character, pure morals, and decided convictions. It has been stated that his action was largely the result of jealousy on account of his having been a candidate for the patriarchal throne of Alexandria, when Alexander was elected to it. But the best early authorities are doubtful on the point. He had no doubt a disproportionate number of female supporters, but there seems no ground for the insinuation of Alexander of Alexandria, in the above-mentioned letter, that these women were of loose morals. There appears, however, more foundation for the charge that Arius allowed the songs or odes contained in the book called Thaleia—which he wrote after his first condemnation, in order to popularize his doctrine—to be set to tunes which had gross and infamous associations. Nor can he be acquitted of something like a personal canvass of the Christian population in and around Alexandria in order to further his views.
The patriarch of Alexandria has also been the subject of adverse criticism for
his action against his subordinate. He too, like his predecessor Dionysius, has
been charged with vacillation in his treatment of Arius. Yet it is difficult to
see how he could have acted otherwise than he did. The question, as we have seen,
had been left unsettled two generations previously, or, if in any sense it could
be said to have been settled, it had been settled in favour of the opponents of
the Homoousion. Therefore Alexander allowed the controversy to go on until he felt
that it was becoming dangerous to the peace of the church. Then he called a council
of bishops (about 100 in number), and sought their advice. They decided against
Arius. Alexander then delayed no longer. He acted with resolution as well as promptitude,
deposed Arius from his office, and repelled both him and his supporters from communion.
Then he wrote (the letters are extant) to Alexander of Constantinople and Eusebius
of Nicomedia (where the emperor was then residing), detailing the errors into which
Arius had fallen, and complaining of the danger to the Christian church arising
from his heresy. It is clear, from Arius's own letter (also extant) to Eusebius
of Nicomedia, that Alexander's charges against Arius were in no way unfair. The
question, as the event has shewn, was a vital one, and plainly called for an authoritative
decision. Arius taught: (1) that the Logos and the Father were not of the
same οὐσία (essence); (2) that the Son
was a created being (κτίσμα or
ποίημα); and (3) that though He was the
creator of the worlds, and must therefore have existed before them
Arius was obviously perplexed by this doctrine, for he complains of it in his letter to the Nicomedian Eusebius, who, like himself (see above), had studied under Lucian, in the words, ἀειγεννής ἐστίν; ἀγεννητογενής ἐστίν. It is unquestionably to be lamented that so much stress should have been laid in the controversy on words which, when used, not popularly, but in metaphysical discussions, had a tendency to confound the eternal generation of the Son with the purely physical process of the generation of men and animals. The latter is a single act, performed at a definite moment in time. The former is a mysterious, eternal process, for ever going on. Had the defenders of the Nicene doctrine made more general use of the term communication of Being, or Essence, they would have made it clearer that they were referring to a continual and unchangeable relation between the First and Second Persons in the Trinity, which bore a very slight analogy indeed to the process which calls inferior creatures into existence. Moreover, Arius contended that the Son was unchangeable (ἄτρεπτος). But what he thus gave with the one hand he appears to have taken away with the other. For so far as we can understand his language—on a subject which even Athanasius seems to have admitted to have been beyond his power thoroughly to comprehend—he taught that the Logos was changeable in Essence, but not in Will. The best authorities consider that he was driven to this concession by the force of circumstances. [See art. Arius, Followers of.] He was doubtless confirmed in his attitude by his fear of falling into Sabellianism [Sabellius], which practically represented the Logos as a sensuous emanation of the Godhead for the purpose of carrying out the work of salvation, or else as a purely subjective human conception of certain aspects of the Divine Being—not as an eternal distinction subsisting objectively in the Godhead itself. Arius, while opposing the Sabellian view, was unable to see that his own view had a dangerous tendency to bring back Gnosticism, with its long catalogue of aeons. Macedonius, who had to a certain extent imbibed the opinions of Arius, certainly regarded the Son and the Spirit in much the same light in which the Gnostic teachers regarded their aeons. Yet Arius undoubtedly derived some support from the dangerous language of Origen, who had ventured to represent the Logos as a δεύτερος (or δευτερεύων) θεός. Origen (see his de Principiis, I. ii. 6, 12) had also made use of expressions which favoured Arius's statement that the Logos was of a different substance to the Father, and that He owed His existence to the Father's will. But it is not sufficiently remembered that the speculations of Origen should be regarded as pioneer work in theology, and that they were often hazarded in order to stimulate further inquiry rather than to enable men to dispense with it. This explains why, in the Arian, as well as other controversies, the great authority of Origen is so frequently invoked by both sides.
The Christian church had by this time become so powerful a force in the Roman world that Constantine, now sole emperor, found himself unable to keep aloof from the controversy. He was the less able to do so in that he had himself been brought up under Christian influences. [Constantine.] He therefore sent the venerable Hosius, bp. of Cordova, a man who had suffered cruelly on behalf of his faith, on a mission to Egypt, with instructions to put an end, if possible, to the controversy. But as it continued to rage, Constantine took a step hitherto unprecedented in Roman history. Republican Rome of course had her free institutions, and the Christian church had been accustomed to determine matters of faith and practice in her local assemblies. But anything like a council of delegates, summoned from all parts of the empire, had been hitherto unknown. Such an assembly Constantine determined to call together. All the secular dioceses into which the empire had been for some time divided, Britain only excepted, sent one or more representatives to the council. The majority of the bishops came from the East, but there was, nevertheless, an imposing display of men of various races and languages. Sylvester of Rome, himself too aged to be present, sent two presbyters as his delegates. The object of the council, it must be remembered, was not to pronounce what the church ought to believe, but to ascertain as far as possible what had been taught from the beginning. It was indeed a remarkable gathering. There was not only as good a representation of race and nationality as was possible under the circumstances, but the ability and intellect of the church were also well represented. There was Eusebius of Nicomedia, the astute politician and man of the world. There was also the renowned Eusebius of Caesarea, a sound theologian, and perhaps the most well-informed, careful, impartial, and trustworthy ecclesiastical historian the church has ever possessed. Alexander, patriarch of Alexandria, was also a man of mark. And, young as he was, the great Athanasius was already a host in himself, from his clearness of insight into the deepest mysteries of our religion. And beside these there were men present who manifested the power of faith—the brave "confessors," as they were called, whose faces and limbs bore evident traces of the sufferings they had undergone for their Master. Nor could any one object that it was a packed assembly. The emperor did his best to secure an honest selection and an honest decision.
The council met (325) at Nicaea, in Bithynia,
That the apparent unanimity of the council (Secundus and Theonas of Lower Egypt
being the only dissentients) covered a considerable amount of divergent opinion
is indisputable. Doubts of the wisdom of employing a term which had been rejected
at an important council as savouring of Sabellianism weighed on the minds of many
who had submitted. Eusebius of Caesarea has been charged by many later writers as
having coquetted with Arianism. But his moderate attitude throughout the period
which followed proves that his objections to the decision, which he allowed his
love of peace to overrule, were more owing to the dread of possible consequences
than to the decision in itself. Though a man of ability, learning, and honesty,
he was timorous withal, and desirous to stand well with the powers that be. And
his allusion to the proceedings at Nicaea in the letter just mentioned shews that
his apprehensions were not altogether unreasonable. For he remarks how it was elicited
after considerable discussion at the council that the term
ὁμοούσιον was not intended to signify that
the Son formed an actual portion (μέρος)
of the Father. That would have been Sabellianism pure and simple, a danger against
which it was necessary to guard. And much of the dissension to which the adoption
of the creed of Nicaea led was
It must be confessed that the Nicene settlement, though necessary in itself and satisfactory in the end, was at least premature. The controversy recommenced as soon as the decrees were promulgated. When Alexander died at Alexandria in 327, the election of Athanasius in his place was only secured in the face of violent opposition from the Arianizing faction. Soon after, Eusebius of Nicomedia was reinstated in his see, after having written a diplomatic letter to the emperor. Arius, who had taken refuge in Palestine, was also soon permitted to return, after having made a somewhat disingenuous recantation. So astute a politician as the Nicomedian Eusebius was not long before he regained his influence with the emperor, and then began a series of intrigues which led to a complete reversal of the position of the contending parties. Eustathius of Antioch, one of the staunchest adherents of Athanasius, was the first victim. The question of heterodoxy was skilfully kept in the background, and a number of false and odious personal charges were trumped up against him by men and women of abandoned lives. If Theodoret is to be trusted, one of the women aforesaid, when seized by a serious illness, retracted her accusation in a remarkably sensational manner. But the other historians (Socrates and Sozomen) are reticent about the nature of the charges, and only tell us that Eustathius had been unfortunate enough to get involved in a controversy with Eusebius Pamphili (of Caesarea). Eustathius was at once ejected from his see, and was regarded by the emperor as having been the cause of the riot his expulsion excited among the people, with whom Eustathius was a favourite. Marcellus of Ancyra was the next victim. He had all along been the friend and champion of Athanasius. But unfortunately he was not at home in the thorny paths of metaphysical theology, and found it impossible to defend the Nicene decisions without falling into Sabellianism. There was no need, therefore, for the Arianizers to bring personal charges against him. Accordingly few, if any such, were brought. He was charged, and quite fairly, with Sabellianism. On this point Eusebius Pamphili came safely to the front, and wrote strongly against Marcellus, while the latter sturdily defended himself. The actual condemnation of Marcellus was deferred till 336, and in the meantime Eusebius of Nicomedia had commenced proceedings against the only rival he really dreaded, Athanasius himself. He had, as we have seen, contrived the restoration of Arius to the emperor's favour by inducing the latter to write an insincere retractation, and when the emperor, deceived by this manœuvre, laid his commands on Athanasius to readmit Arius to communion, Athanasius, naturally, pleaded reasons of conscience against doing so. Then the storm burst forth in all its fulness. The accusations of treason against the emperor and the insinuations that the patriarch wished to set up an empire of his own against or above the supreme authority of the divine Augustus had certainly some effect on the mind of Constantine. Charges were made of sacrilege, tyranny, magic, mutilation, murder, of immorality (as some allege), and, worst of all in the emperor's eyes, of raising funds for treasonable objects. They were investigated (if the scenes of violence and passion which took place can be termed an investigation) at a synod of 150 bishops at Tyre (335).
The triumphant vindication of himself by Athanasius at that council, the dramatic
scenes with which that vindication, according to some historians, was accompanied,
and the equally dramatic appeal from his accusers to Constantine himself in the
streets of Constantinople (which all the accounts describe as having taken place),
belong rather to the history of Athanasius than of Arius. [Athanasius.]
Suffice it to say that the bold and decisive action, backed by innocence, of the
great archbishop only succeeded in deferring his fall. The synod of Tyre had already
issued a condemnation while he was on his way to Constantinople in order to appeal
to the emperor. The emperor, for the moment, was struck and touched by the appeal
and by the commanding personality of Athanasius. But Eusebius proved ultimately
to be master of the situation. With consummate dexterity the wily tactician, with
the aid of Theognis and Maris, his old associates, as well as of the arch-intriguers
Ursacius and Valens, of whom we shall hear so much in the next article, contrived
that the old charges of ecclesiastical offences should be dropped, and that fresh
charges of interference with the secular affairs of the empire should be substituted
for them. Accordingly, Athanasius was now charged with detaining the corn which
was ordered to be sent from Egypt to Constantinople. The artifice succeeded. Constantine
was weary of the strife. His only object had been the settlement of the question.
The shape which that settlement took was to him a secondary matter. He had, as he
himself tells us (see his letters to Alexander and Arius in the Life of Constantine
by Eusebius Pamphili), a strong objection to idle and word-splitting discussions,
private or public, and considered them unnecessary and unprofitable. The measures
he had been persuaded to take at Nicaea had not produced the effect which he had
expected from them. So, like other despots in a similar position, he turned fiercely
Bibliography.—(1) Ancient. The writings of Athanasius generally, especially his de Incarnatione Verbi Dei and de Decretis Synodi Nicenae; the Vita Constantini of Eusebius Pamphili; and the ecclesiastical histories of Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret. Of these the first is the best, though the documents cited at length by Theodoret are valuable. English translations of these authors, save of quite recent date, are by no means implicitly to be trusted, especially as to metaphysical terms. The ecclesiastical history of Philostorgius, which would give us the Arian point of view, is unfortunately only known to us through a hostile epitome by Photius, patriarch of Constantinople in 9th cent.
(2) Of comparatively modern works the church histories of Neander and Gieseler contain very valuable information, as does also Dorner's learned and impartial treatise On the Person of Christ. Bp. Martensen's History of Christian Dogmatics is also valuable; Gibbon's Decline and Fall is useful in giving us the secular view of the period. Bp. Kaye's Council of Nicaea will be found worth reading. De Broglie's L’Eglise et l’Empire romain au IV e siècle is full of information. Newman's Arians of the Fourth Century is marred by some prejudices and prepossessions. Dean Stanley's account of the Nicene council in his Eastern Church will be found more picturesque than accurate. Prof. Gwatkin's Studies of Arianism is, as its title implies, rather a series of sketches than a detailed history, but contains a vast amount of original research, illuminated by flashes of insight into the characters and motives of the principal actors in the controversy, and gives an exhaustive bibliography. His Arian Controversy is a brief summary for popular use. There is a valuable article in Texts and Studies, vol. vii. (1901), by Mr. Bethune Baker on "The Meaning of Homoousios in the Constantinopolitan Creed." His Introduction to the Early Hist. of Christian Doctrine (1903) will be found useful, as will the art. "Arianism" in Hastings's Encycl. of Religion and Ethics, i. (1908). Harnack, Hist. of Dogma (Eng. trans. 1894–1899), gives the modern German view.
Arius, Followers of. After the deaths of Arius and Constantine we enter
on a tangled web of controversy which lasted from
A.D. 336 to 381, when the question
was finally decided by the acceptance of the Nicene Creed at the council of Constantinople.
This period of confusion is due to the change of conditions under which the contest
was carried on. For a time the division of the empire between three Augusti contributed
an additional element of uncertainty to the conflict. Yet when the deaths of the
younger Constantine and his brother Constans left the whole empire for eleven years
in the hands of Constantius, matters were scarcely less involved. Constantius, though
by no means devoid of ability, as his success in maintaining his undivided authority
against such rebellions as those of Magnentius and Vetranio proves, was far inferior
to his father in clearness of vision and breadth of aim. The great Constantine himself
was not altogether inaccessible to flattery and family influences. His sister Constantia
is credited with having prevailed upon him to allow Eusebius of Nicomedia and Arius
to return from exile. But her influence was still more strongly felt in the next
reign, and after the death of the astute and able Eusebius of Nicomedia, mere intriguers,
such as Ursacius and Valens, and even the worthless eunuchs about the court, were
able to persuade the emperor into unreasonable and tortuous courses, of which jealousy
of the great Athanasius formed in reality the secret motive. Amid all the distractions
of the time, three main stages may be marked in the progress of the controversy.
The first consisted of the six years between the death of Constantine and the council
of Sardica (343). During this period the attitude of all the various parties save
those who adhered to the Nicene symbol is most perplexing, and
The first important step in the history of the controversy after the death of
Arius was the return of Athanasius to his diocese (337) permitted by Constantine
II., in whose division of the empire Egypt lay. But he was not suffered to remain
long unmolested. In 340 Constantine II. died, and Eusebius of Nicomedia, the ablest
of Athanasius's antagonists, contrived to get himself removed to Constantinople
after the death of the bishop, Alexander. His proximity to the emperor secured to
him the leading influence in affairs ecclesiastical. The orthodox party had elected
Paul as their bishop, but Eusebius contrived to get this election annulled, and
to secure the vacant post for himself. He "left no stone unturned," as the historian
Socrates puts it, to overthrow one whom he had long regarded as a rival. A council
was assembled at Antioch (338–339) in which the old charges were revived against
Athanasius, and which confirmed his sentence of deposition from his see. Athanasius
was expelled in the spring of 339; and after a third Eusebius (afterwards
bp. of Emesa), a man of principle and character, had declined to take his place,
one Gregory was appointed, who speedily became unpopular in consequence of his violence
and cruelty. Eusebius Pamphili of Caesarea, who would undoubtedly, had he survived,
have been a moderating force, died about this time, and was succeeded by Acacius,
who played a prominent part in the subsequent proceedings, but lacked the special
knowledge of Church history, as well as the experience and judgment, of his celebrated
predecessor. Athanasius fled to Rome, and thus brought its bishop Julius on the
scene. Julius acted with spirit and discretion. He summoned a synod of 50 bishops
of the West, who annulled the deposition of Athanasius, and acquitted him of all
the charges against him. He further transmitted to Antioch a strong remonstrance
against the inconsistency and unfairness of the proceedings at the council held
there. The Eastern bishops, however, were not to be deterred from their course by
his representations. At the council held at the dedication (encaenia)
of a church at Antioch in 341, the sentence on Athanasius was confirmed, and after
the rejection of a creed of distinctly Arian tendencies, a new creed, either composed
by Lucian the Martyr or by his disciple Asterius, was brought forward as a substitute
for the symbol of Nicaea. It rejected the expression
ὁμοούσιον, but it as emphatically rejected
Arianism by declaring the Son to be unchangeable and unalterable, and by adding
that He was "the Image of the essence, the power, the will, and the glory of the
Father." But Eusebius had not thrown over the symbol of Nicaea for such a halting
substitute as this. On the other hand, Athanasius did not fail to point out that
the language of the creed of Lucian was not more that of Scripture than was the
language of the creed of Nicaea. The court party, whose object was simply to produce
a formula which would, as they thought, meet the emperor's views by putting a stop
to controversy, endeavoured to force another creed on the council, but in vain.
This additional creed was a compromise pure and simple, enshrining no truth, although
in form corresponding as nearly to the Nicene formula as possible. Its supporters
then put the document into the hands of Constans, emperor of the West, who had demanded
the assembling of another general council. The West had been roused by the proceedings
at Antioch, and Constantius, now engaged in a war with Persia, dared not refuse.
The able leader of the dissentients, however, Eusebius of Nicomedia, was now dead,
and the leadership had fallen into the hands of Ursacius and Valens, who were mere
opportunists. To their dismay and that of their party, it was settled that the council
should be held at Sardica, in Dacia, just within the limits of the Western empire.
Thither, in 343, the deputies repaired. But the courtiers perceived that there was
no chance whatever of forcing their views upon a phalanx consisting, as it is now
thought, of about 100 Western bishops devoted to the decisions of Nicaea. So they
left Sardica in haste, and betook themselves to Philippopolis, a city just across
the Eastern border. There, after declaring that the decrees of one council cannot
be revised by another, they began inconsistently to revise the decrees of former
councils, and to hurl charges against the venerated Fathers of the West, Hosius
and Julius. The Westerns at Sardica, meanwhile, had once more acquitted Athanasius
and his allies, and had rejected the Eastern formulae, as leaning to the Gnostic
doctrine of successive emanations from the
Peace was thus restored for the moment, but it endured only so long as Constantius was occupied with foreign war and intestine strife. It is noteworthy that the restless intriguers, Ursacius and Valens, found it prudent just at present to repair to Rome and make friends with Julius and the West. Socrates (H. E. ii. 37) remarks on their disposition to identify themselves with the strongest side. But permanent peace was impossible until the questions at issue had been fully threshed out. As soon as Constans (350) was dead, and Magnentius, the usurper, defeated and slain (353), the strife recommenced. For ten years Athanasius had remained undisturbed at Alexandria, but premonitory signs of the eruption which was soon to burst forth had long been discernible. On the one hand the Easterns were beginning to substitute the semi-Arian doctrine of the likeness (ὁμοιούσιος) of the Son to the Father for the vaguer conception of the more moderate Arians of the earlier period. On the other hand, the unlikeness of the Son to the Father was more boldly and defiantly pressed by the holders of that doctrine, and by degrees a sect, which almost reduced Christ to the level of a mere man, appeared on the scene. The chief exponents of this doctrine were Aetius and EUZOIUS. The Anomoeans now began to separate themselves more definitely from the orthodox. All this was not without its effect on Constantius, whose sole object, like that of most politicians, was to avoid dissensions. When the tide turned, Ursacius and Valens were ready, as usual, with suggestions. But he could not at once take the steps they urged. New wars confronted him, and the attitude of the West was decidedly disquieting. The Western church had found a new champion in Hilary of Poictiers (Hilarius Pictavensis), whose ability, learning, and high character were recognized by his own contemporaries. Constantius shewed his sense of his abilities by exiling him, as well as Liberius, bp. of Rome, who had succeeded Julius (355). Early in 356 the imperial troops burst into the cathedral at Alexandria to seize Athanasius, who was at prayer with his flock. It was night, and Athanasius almost miraculously escaped in the tumult, and remained secreted for some time. From his undiscovered retreat he issued numerous letters and treatises, by which he kept up the courage of his adherents. His Arian successor, one George, did not venture to set foot in Alexandria till a year after the departure of Athanasius, and his atrocious cruelties soon made him hated as well as feared by the populace.
Meanwhile the court intriguers resumed their activity. Sirmium, in Slavonia,
between the Save and the Drave, now takes the place of Antioch in the matter of
creed-making. A creed had already been issued thence in 351 against Sabellianism.
In the latter part of 357 the emperor was in residence there, and Ursacius and Valens
naturally took the opportunity of renewing their mischievous activity. A second
creed was promulgated there, in which the difference between the Father and the
Son was strongly insisted upon; the Father and the Son were declared to be two Persons
(πρόσωπα), and the use of the words
οὐσία and ὑπόστασις,
as applied to God's nature, was condemned, as not warranted by Scripture. The intriguers
no doubt imagined that, as the supporters of the Nicene formula were in exile, they
could give no further trouble, and that the line of least resistance would be to
come to an arrangement with the Arian (Anomoean) party. But events proved them utterly
wrong. The result was just the opposite: to convert the moderates into a distinctly
semi-Arian party, laying especial stress on the likeness of the Son's essence
(ὁμοιούσιον) to that of the Father, instead
of minimizing the likeness, as the Homoeans had done. The Homoiousians thus began
to lean to the orthodox side, while the Homoeans inclined more and more to those
who denied even the likeness of the Son's essence to that of the Father. Hilary
now (359) intervened with his de Synodis, in which he reviewed the action
of previous councils, and defended the Nicene Creed, yet in such a way as he thought
best calculated to win back the semi-Arians (or Homoiousians) to the orthodox camp.
This treatise marks the stage in the controversy in which semi-Arianism began definitely
to separate itself from its doubtful allies, and to draw towards union with the
orthodox party. Hilary, it may be added, admits the force of some semi-Arian objections
to the word ὁμοούσιον, and suggests certain
express limitations of its meaning. Two other creeds of considerable length, one
of them provided with innumerable anathemas, were drawn up at Sirmium. The last
of these, commonly known as the dated creed (359), was ridiculed by Athanasius
for
We now enter upon the last stage of the controversy. It is marked by the first attempt to make a distinction between οὐσία and ὑπόστασις—terms which had hitherto been regarded as synonymous—and to use the former as indicating the nature which is common to beings of the same order, while the latter was used to express the diversities between these possessors of a common nature. The word οὐσία was used to indicate the Divine Nature, while ὑπόστασις was henceforth used by the Greeks of the Persons in the Trinity. (It should, however, be observed that substantia remained the Latin equivalent of οὐσία.) The first to press this use of language was Basil of Ancyra, at a council he had called to protest against the proceedings at Sirmium. He defends the new use of the word ὑπόστασις in an able minute he issued, criticizing the proceedings at Sirmium, by pointing out that a word was needed—and it must be neither οὐσία nor ἀρχή—to denote the underlying and definitely existing (ὑπαρχούσας) distinctions (ἰδιότητας) of the Persons (προσώπων); and he acutely remarks that if οὐσία was a term not to be found in Scripture, the Godhead was indicated there by the words ὁ ὤν. In the end, this new and more careful use of words completely revolutionized the situation. Henceforth the semi-Arians as a body not only laboured for an understanding with the orthodox, but also drew still more markedly apart from the Homoeans and Anomoeans. The calling of a new council in the same year at Rimini (Ariminum) in Italy brought these new tendencies very plainly to light. Constantius, finding it impossible to lay down a common basis for action between the East and the West, commanded the Eastern bishops to meet at Seleucia in Cilicia, a mountain fortress near the sea. Sozomen tells us that the reason for calling this council was the growing influence of Anomoeanism through the influence of Aetius. The Western bishops, who numbered more than 200, had no scruples in the matter. They boldly deposed Ursacius and Valens, who had been sent to bring them to submission, and as boldly reaffirmed the Nicene symbol, and they sent a deputation of 20 bishops to the emperor to defend their action. He was, however, (or pretended to be) too busy to see them. The Easterns were still inclined to hesitate. The semi-Arian majority desired to accept the Nicene Creed, with the omission of the obnoxious ὁμοούσιον. The Homoeans, under the leadership of Acacius of Caesarea in Cappadocia, condemned the expressions ὁμοούσιον and ὁμοιούσιον, but anathematized the expression ἀνόμοιον. "The Acacian [Homoean] party" (Socr. H. E. ii. 40) "affirmed that the Son was like the Father as respected His will only, and not in His substance or essence." And they tendered yet another creed in accordance with these views, which the council rejected, and deposed those who had tendered it. Among those who were present at this council were men so diverse as the hated tyrant George of Alexandria, and Hilary of Poictiers, still exiled from his diocese. Meanwhile, Ursacius and Valens were engaged in the congenial task of endeavouring to persuade the deputies from Ariminum to sign yet another creed at Niké in Thrace, in the hope, if some authorities are to be trusted, of making the world believe, from the similarity of names, that it was the renowned document promulgated at the Nicene council. But this was surely an impossibility. The Nicene symbol was far too well known to the Christian world. Athanasius now intervened from his retreat, and wrote his famous treatise de Synodis, in which he reviewed the creeds and acts of the various councils. But he assumed no non-possumus attitude. He had even seemed inclined, for a moment, to admit the orthodoxy of the expression ὁμοιούσιον. But in this treatise he points out (c. 41) that though brass is like gold, tin like iron, and the dog like the wolf, yet they are of different natures, and no one could call the wolf the offspring of the dog. Nevertheless, he still endeavours to bridge over the gulf between himself and the semi-Arians.
These two councils were the final turning-point of the controversy. It had clearly
appeared that, whenever the Nicene definitions had been rejected, Anomoeanism, which
was Arianism in a more definite philosophical shape, came once more to the front,
and this fact was increasingly seen to point to the Nicene symbol as the only safe
way out of the difficulty. Henceforth the secular authority might retard, but it
could not prevent, the victory of Athanasius and his followers. From this moment
(see Socr. H. E. ii. 22) the Western churches definitely renounced communion
with those of the East. The episode of Meletius of Antioch (not to be confounded
with Meletius of Egypt) shewed plainly which way events were tending. He had been
elected patriarch of Antioch by the Homoean party. But in his inaugural speech he
frankly confessed his Nicene leanings, and when a busy archdeacon rushed up and
closed his mouth, he continued by gestures to affirm what he had previously affirmed
by his voice. Meletius was promptly banished, but before the year (361) was over
Constantius was dead. The action of his successor Julian, who had renounced Christianity,
gave a still further impulse to the policy of conciliation. As between heathenism
and Christianity, impartiality cannot certainly be predicated of him. But he was
impartial enough in his hostility to Christians of all shades of opinion. This threw
them, for the time, into one another's arms. True, when the external pressure was
removed, the suspicions and jealousies, as is commonly the case, broke out afresh.
But none the less had an impulse been given towards union which henceforth never
ceased to be felt. The oppressor George had been expelled from Alexandria by a rising
of the populace as early as 358. In 361, on his return to Alexandria, he was seized
and murdered by his exasperated flock. The edict of Julian (361) permitting the
return of the exiles left the way open to Athanasius to rejoin his people. He at
once (362) summoned a council, in which Macedonianism [Macedonius],
an offshoot from Arianism which applied the same line of argument to the Holy Spirit
which had previously been applied to the Son, was condemned as well as Arianism.
But Athanasius was wise and liberal enough to make overtures to the semi-Arians.
Three men almost worthy to stand on a level with Athanasius himself had appeared
among the Eastern bishops—men who were capable of negotiating on equal terms with
that great and prescient theologian. These were Basil,
afterwards bp. of Caesarea in Cappadocia, his brother Gregory,
bp. of Nyssa, and the brilliant orator, poet, and thinker Gregory
of Nazianus, who was the intimate
friend of both. These men had some opinions in common with the less extreme members
of the semi-Arian party, and were therefore quite ready to resume the work of conciliation
which, as we have seen, had been attempted by Basil of Ancyra. Athanasius, on his
part, was ready to accept the distinction mentioned above between
οὐσία and ὑπόστασις,
which had not been recognized at Nicaea. Before the death of Jovian (364), Acacias
of Caesarea, who cannot be acquitted of being an unworthy intriguer or at best a
time-server, came forward to make his peace by accepting the Nicene formula. On
the death of Jovian the empire was divided between Valentinian and Valens, the former
taking the West, the latter the East, under his charge. Valentinian, as a man unacquainted
with theology, was naturally influenced by the general opinion in the West, which
had remained decisively Nicene. Valens as naturally fell under the influence of
the Eastern bishops, and the time was not yet ripe for their acceptance of the Nicene
decision. The Anomoeans were still a powerful party, and so determined were they
to enforce their views that they persecuted not only the orthodox but the semi-Arians
and Macedonians. When the semi-Arians, with the permission of Valentinian, held
a council at Lampsacus in 364, its decisions were set aside by Valens, whose hand
had already been heavy on the Homoousians, and who now exiled the semi-Arian bishops.
Four years later he dealt equally harshly with the Macedonians, who were terrified
into imploring the help of the orthodox West, and endeavoured to secure it by promising
Liberius that they would receive the Nicene Creed. But the latter replied in a letter
in which he declared that the faith depended on the acceptance of the words hypostasis
(in the sense in which it is used in the Nicene formula) and homoöusios. On the
other hand, the dissensions which broke out between Eudoxius,
patriarch of Antioch and afterwards of Constantinople and his Arian (or Anomoean)
allies, drove both him and Valens into the arms of the Homoeans, in whose possession
most of the churches were. But the affairs of the empire fell into confusion in
the incompetent hands of Valens, and the influence of the Arian and Homoean parties
was steadily waning. Athanasius died in 373, after a noteworthy attempt to cast
his shield over his faithful supporter and friend Marcellus. The result was that
Marcellus was acquitted, but his school disappeared with him (he died in 371), and
the way lay clear for the conciliatory action of the three great Eastern leaders
already mentioned. There was no theologian in Christendom who could withstand them.
Among their opponents no concert reigned, but only confusion; their ascendancy was
founded on court intrigue and imperial violence. Sozomen (H. E. vi. 6) tells
us how Valentinian, while he stedfastly clung to orthodoxy, studiously refrained
from harassing those opposed to it, and notes with disapproval the different course
taken by Valens. The cause of genuine, practical Christianity suffered seriously
under these divisions, intrigues, and acts of violence, and men of earnest and even
indifferent minds were longing for peace. When Theodosius succeeded Valens in 379
(Valentinian was already dead) there was no force strong enough among the heretical
factions to resist the coalition between the semi-Arians and the Nicenes. The West
was united in support of the latter, the strength and patience of the divided East
were exhausted. A council of 150 bishops—all Easterns—assembled at Constantinople,
and the weary 56 years of conflict and confusion terminated in the acceptance of
the symbol
The bibliography of this period is much the same as has been given in art. Arius, only that the Life of Constantine, by Eusebius Pamphili, is of course no longer available. The de Synodis of Athanasius passes in review the various councils and their creeds, from the Encaenia at Antioch to the councils of Ariminum and Seleucia. Various monographs connected with the history of this period will be found mentioned by Prof. Gwatkin in his Studies of Arianism, if the student wishes to go more deeply into the subject than is possible here.
Arnobius, an eminent Latin apologist for Christianity. The records of his life are meagre and somewhat uncertain; consisting in a few brief notices by St. Jerome, and another by Trithemius, aided by his own few incidental allusions to himself.
The outbreak of the last great persecution (303–313) found Arnobius a professor
of rhetoric at Sicca, in Africa. His reputation was high, and his pupils numerous
and distinguished; among them was LACTANTIUS.
Arnobius was a sincere pagan; versed in schemes of philosophy; but none the less
an unhesitating and even abject idolator. He was, moreover, active as a lecturer
in attacks upon Christianity. The sight, however, of
The title of Arnobius's work usually appears as Disputationes adversus Gentes; occasionally, adv. Nationes. It is divided into seven books of unequal length. The first two are devoted to the defence of Christianity, the remainder to the exposure of paganism.
Of God, he speaks in the noblest and fullest language of adoration. His existence is assumed (i. 33) as a postulate in the argument. He is the First Cause; the Father and Lord of things; foundation of all; author of only good; unborn; omnipresent; infinite, incorporeal; passionless; shrouded in light; to be known only as the Ineffable (see especially i. 31). Arnobius hesitates, however, over the details of creation; thinking apparently that alike the human soul and the lower animals—insects and reptiles—are the work of some intermediate creator (ii. 36, 47).
Of the Lord Jesus Christ he uses the most glowing language. As a man He is the supreme philosopher and teacher, both of nature and religion. But He is also God: "Deus re certâ: Deus, homo tamen natus; Deus interiorum potentiarum; Deus sublimis; radice ex intimâ; ab incognitis regnis; sospitator, ab omnium principe missus"; His pontificium is to give salvation to the soul; He is the only path to light; His followers alone are saved; He is stronger than fate. Some doubt may, perhaps, be thrown over the extent of these ascriptions of deity by the vague language with which Arnobius speaks of the gods (see below). But with every deduction they are magnificent, and at least lie in the direction of the fullest orthodoxy. The allusions to the incarnation, life, and death of the Redeemer are numerous. The first is somewhat vaguely described as the assumption of a man to the self, the God; its motive was the presentation of the God to human senses, and the general performance of Christ's mission. His resurrection and the subsequent appearances are insisted upon; it is asserted (apparently) that He still appears to the faithful. To the Second Advent there is at most only a doubtful allusion (i. 39). (See generally, i. 36, 65 ; ii. 60.)
On the origin of the Soul he is far more speculative than is his wont. Its sin, imperfection, and inborn infirmity (he holds) forbid the belief that it comes direct from the Supreme Cause. It cannot for the like reasons be immortal (i.e. absolutely and per se); it outlives the body, but depends wholly on the gift of God for eternal duration. After death there awaits the evil a second death, a Gehenna of unquenchable fire, in which gradually they are consumed and annihilated (see especially ii. 15–54). The resurrection of the flesh is emphatically asserted, but in somewhat obscure terms (ii. 13).
Of the existence of gods he speaks with much ambiguity. The actual objects of heathen worship he concludes from the nature of their mythology and ritual to be real but evil beings. But he nowhere denies that there exist also dii boni; only he views them (if existent) as mere reflexes of the Supreme Nature, and as in no sense distinct objects of worship and prayer. In worshipping the Supreme (he argues), we worship by implication—if to be worshipped they are—such gods as are gods indeed.
On the nature and efficacy of prayer he uses perplexing language. His belief apparently is that in the present life all externals are fixed by an immovable destiny (vii. 10); that prayer is useful only as a means of divine communion; but he yet describes the prayers of the Christian church as petitions for peace and pardon for all classes of mankind; the emperor, the magistrate, the armies, etc. (iv. 36). Prayer is regarded as (in some sense not specified) efficacious for the dead (l.c.). Arnobius asserts the "freedom of the will"; God calls man "non vi sed gratiâ" (ii. 64).
In the latter books his arguments against heathen sacrifices are so managed as logically to exclude altogether the sacrifices both of the Jewish temple and of the Cross. Of idol-worship and incense he speaks in terms which prove that he can have known nothing of images, or incense, or a local presence, in the conventicula of the Christians.
Of the Holy Scriptures Arnobius appears to have known very little. He
makes some acute remarks (i. 58) on the rude style of the evangelists, but only
one text
Critical opinions on the merits of Arnobius have been very various. St. Jerome's
verdict varies between praises of his libri luculentissimi
To the whole of this verdict we subscribe. Arnobius presents as a man a mind and character combining much ardour with much common sense. His sincerity is eminently manifest. He has apprehended to a degree nowhere and never common the great fact of human ignorance. As a writer, he appears as the practised and facile, but not very fanciful, rhetorician of his time and country; and is even a master and model of that peculiar style of a declining age which consists in a subtle medium between the dictions of poetry and of prose.
As a storehouse of old Latinity and of allusions to points of antiquity—to heathen mythology and ceremonial; to law, education, and amusements—his work is of the greatest interest and importance.
The following editions of Arnobius may be mentioned:—1816, Leipz., J. C. Orellius (excellent for a full and learned commentary); Halle, 1844, ed. G. F. Hildebrand; Paris, 1844, Migne's Patr. Lat.; Reifferscheid, Vienna, 1875 (Corpus Script. Eccl. Lat. iv.). For an Eng. trans. see Ante-Nicene Lib. (T. & T. Clark).
Arnobius, Junior, a presbyter, or possibly bp., of Gaul; presumed, from internal evidence of his writings, to have lived at least as late as A.D. 460.
The only external notices seem to be those of Venerable Bede, who praises his Commentary on the Psalms, and of Alcuin, who favourably alludes to his Altercation with Serapion in a letter addressed to Flavius Merius, and in the sixth book of his treatise Contra Felicem Urgelitanum. The internal evidence is based upon the Commentarium in Psalmos, the Notes on some passages of the Gospels, and the Altercatio cum Serapione. The Commentary and Altercation may both be found in the Bibliotheca Patrum Maxima (tom. viii.), Lyons, 1677; but the contents render it very difficult to believe that the same person was author of both.
The Commentary on the Psalms is avowed by its author, who dedicates it
to Leontius, bp. of Arles, and to Rusticus, bp. of Narbonne. The comments are devout,
practical, and pointed, but brief and uncritical, interpreting everything as referring
to Christ and the church. They are, however, accused of a semi-Pelagian tendency;
and a very learned writer, whose Hist. Eccl. appeared c. 1686, Natalis
Alexander, invites special attention to remarks of Arnobius upon Pss. l. ciii. cviii.
and cxxvi. (in the Heb.; in A.V., li. civ. etc.). But Nat. Alexander was a Jansenist;
and anti-Jansenist writers, such as the Bollandists, might maintain that the majority
were capable of an orthodox interpretation. It must, however, be allowed that the
author of the Commentary is anti-Augustinian; as on
The Altercatio cum Serapione is a dialogue, represented as having been held between Arnobius and Serapion. Serapion by turns plays the part of a Sabellian, an Arian, and a Pelagian, and is gradually driven from each position. Considerable learning is displayed and a clear apprehension of the points at issue, combined with much real ingenuity of argument. The circumstance of Arnobius being the chief speaker does not of course prove that the authorship is his, any more than the position of Socrates in certain of the Platonic dialogues would prove that Socrates wrote them. Moreover, just as we cannot make Socrates responsible for all that Plato has put into his mouth, so neither can Arnobius junior be justly credited with the tenets here ascribed to him by some unknown author. Both the style and tone of the Altercation seem different from that of the Commentary; and though there is in both works a consentient rejection of the errors condemned in the first four general councils, yet it is hardly possible that an author of semi-Pelagian leanings, who had stigmatized predestinarian doctrine as a heresy, should declare, as Arnobius is made to do towards the conclusion of the Altercatio cum Serapione, that he "accepts and defends the dicta of St. Augustine concerning Pelagianism, as if they were the most hallowed writings of the Apostles."
The Notes on some passages of the Gospels, which seem really to belong to Arnobius junior, are given in the edition of his works by Laurence de la Barre (Paris, 1639). But for a new view of the authorship of these works see G. Morin in Revue Bénédictine (1903). He thinks that the author of the Adnotationes, the Altercatio, and the Predestinatus is probably an Illyrian, who lived in Rome. Of the events of our author's life we are wholly ignorant.
Arsacius, the intruding archbp. of Constantinople, after the violent expulsion
of Chrysostom (A.D. 404). He was the
brother of Nectarius, Chrysostom's predecessor, and had served as archpresbyter
under Chrysostom (Photius C. 59). In earlier life his brother had selected him for
the bishopric of Tarsus, and had attributed his refusal to an ambitious design of
becoming his successor at Constantinople. On this, Palladius asserts, he swore voluntarily
that he would never accept the see of Constantinople (Pallad. c. xi.). After he
had passed his 80th year, the success of the base intrigue of Eudoxia and Theophilus
against Chrysostom opened an unexpected way for his elevation to the archiepiscopal
throne. Eudoxia and the party now triumphant wanted for their new archbishop a facile
tool, under whose authority they might shelter the violence of their proceedings.
Such an instrument they had in Arsacius. Moreover, his hostility to Chrysostom had
been sufficiently testified at the synod of the Oak, when he appeared as a witness
against him and vehemently pressed his condemnation.
Arsenius, called "the Great," one of the most famous of the monks of Egypt. He was of high Roman family; born probably in 354. He was deeply read in Greek literature. About 383, Theodosius the Great being desirous of finding a suitable instructor for his sons Arcadius and Honorius, the elder of whom was then about six years old, Arsenius was recommended to him, it is said, by the Roman bishop, and in this way came into the service of the best of the Christian Caesars. The time that Arsenius spent at the court came to an end when he was forty years old, in 394. A thoughtful and high-souled Roman Christian living under the ascendancy of Rufinus might not unnaturally be impelled towards monastic seclusion by sheer disgust and despair as to the prospects of so-called Christian society. He gave up his charge, in obedience, as he said, to a voice which bade him "fly from men, if he would be safe."
Arsenius, arriving at the monastic wilderness of Scetis, begged the clergy there to put him in the way of salvation by making him a monk. They took him to abbot John Colobus (the Dwarfish), who invited them to a meal: Arsenius was kept standing while they sat; a biscuit was flung at him, which he ate in a kneeling posture. "He will make a monk," said John; and Arsenius stayed with him until he had learned enough of the monastic life from John's teaching, and then established himself as a hermit in Scetis, where he continued forty years. His love of solitude became intense; the inward voice had seemed to bid him "be silent, be quiet," if he would keep innocency. One visitor he even drove away with stones; he discouraged the visits of Theophilus the archbp.; and when a high-born Roman lady visited him during one of his occasional sojourns outside the desert, her request to be remembered in his prayers was met by the brusque expression of a hope that he might be able to forget her. Whenever he came into a church he hid himself behind a pillar; he even shrank at times from his brother hermits, remarking that the ten thousands of angels had but one will, but men had many. But with all his sternness, which was coupled with more than the usual monastic austerities, Arsenius could be cordial, and even tender. His humility was worthy of a follower of Anthony. He was heard to cry aloud in his cell, "Forsake me not, O God! I have done no good in Thy sight, but, in Thy goodness, grant me to make a beginning." A very famous saying of his referred to faults of the tongue: "often have I been sorry for having spoken—never for having been silent." The Exhortation to Monks, ascribed to him (Combefis, Gr. Patr. Auctarium, i. 301; Galland, Biblioth. vii. 427), exhibits the results of deep spiritual experience. It warns the monk not to forget that his great work is not the cleansing of the outer life, but of the inner man: spiritual sins, not carnal only, have to be conquered; many a good action has, through the tempter's sublety, become the door to unexpected evil; many who have thought their battle with sin accomplished have relapsed through the perilous hearing of other men's sin: "we must keep guard all round."
In 434 Arsenius left Scetis, driven forth by an irruption of the Mazici. He stayed at Troe, near Memphis, until 444; then spent three years at the little island (not the city) of Canopus; returned to Troe for the two remaining years of his long monastic life. The Greek church honours him as "our Father, Arsenius the Great," on May 8; the Latin, on July 19.
Artemon, Artemonites, belong to that class of ante-Nicene Monarchians,
or Anti-trinitarians, who saw in Christ a mere man filled with divine power. Of
Artemon, or Artemas, we know very little. He taught in Rome at the end of the 2nd
and beginning of the 3rd cent., and was excommunicated by pope Zephyrinus (202–217),
who, as we learn from the Philosophumena of Hippolytus, favoured the opposite
error of Patripassianism. He declared the doctrine of the divinity of Christ to
be an innovation dating from the time of Zephyrinus, the successor of Victor, and
a relapse into heathen polytheism. He asserted that Christ was a mere man, but born
of a virgin, and superior in virtue to the prophets. The Artemonites were charged
Asterius (1), a bp. of Arabia (called bp. of Petra, Tomus ad Antioch. § 10). He accompanied the Eusebians to the council of Sardica, but separated himself from them along with bp. Arius or Macarius (who by some confusion is also called bp. of Petra), complaining of the violent treatment to which the deputies had been subjected, with the view of driving them into supporting the Eusebian faction (Theod. ii. 8). The Eusebians soon had their revenge, and the two bishops were banished to Upper Libya, where they endured much suffering (Athan. Hist. Arian. § 18; Apol. § 48). On the promulgation of the edict of Julian, recalling all the banished bishops, Asterius returned, and (A.D. 362) took part in the important council summoned by the newly restored Athanasius at Alexandria, for the purpose of promoting union between the orthodox and those who, without embracing the errors of Arius, had held communion with the Arian party. One of the chief subjects that came before this synod was the unhappy schism at Antioch between the Eustathians and the Meletians. [Luciferus (1); Meletius; Paulinus (6).] On the singular fact that the name of Asterius, together with that of Eusebius of Vercelli, is found among those to whom this letter is addressed, as well as among those by whom it was written, of which it is difficult to give a satisfactory explanation, cf. Tillemont, Mém. viii. p. 707; Baronius, Ann. sub. ann. 362, § 219.
Asterius (2), bp. of Amasea in Pontus, a contemporary of St. Chrysostom. He himself tells us that his teacher was a certain Scythian (i.e. Goth), who, having been sold in his youth to a citizen of Antioch, a schoolmaster, had made marvellous progress under his owner's instructions, and won himself a great name among Greeks and Romans (Phot. Bibl. 271, p. 1500). Beyond this not a single incident in his life is recorded. His date, however, is fixed by allusions to contemporary events in his Homilies. He speaks of the apostasy of Julian as having happened within his memory (Aster. Or. 3, p. 56, ed. Combefis); and in his sermon on the Festival of the Calends (Or. 4, p. 76) he mentions the consulate and fall of Eutropius as an event of the preceding year. This sermon therefore must have been delivered on New Year's Day, 400. Elsewhere he spoke of himself as a man of very advanced age (Phot. Amphil. 125 [312]).
The extant works of Asterius consist almost solely of sermons or homilies. Of these we possess twenty-two perfect; twelve on various subjects included in the edition of Combefis (Paris, 1648); eight on the Psalms, of which one is found among the works of St. Chrysostom, and the remaining seven were published by Cotelier, Mon. Eccl. Graec. ii. (Paris, 1688); and two again on other subjects, which are published among the works of Gregory Nyssen, but must be assigned to Asterius on the authority of Photius. Besides these Photius (Bibl. 271) gives extracts from several others. In addition to these homilies, a Life of his predecessor, St. Basil of Amasea, printed in the Acta Sanctorum, April 26, is ascribed to him. A complete collection of his works will be found in Migne's Patr. Gk. xl.; a complete list in Fabric. Bibl. Gk. x. 513 seq. ed. Harles. An account of their contents is given by Tillemont, x. 409 seq.
Asterius was a student of Demosthenes (Or. 11, p. 207), and himself no mean orator. His best sermons (for they are somewhat uneven) display no inconsiderable skill in rhetoric, great power of expression, and great earnestness of moral conviction; and some passages are even strikingly eloquent. His orthodoxy was unquestioned. Photius (Amphil. l.c.) contrasts him with his Arian namesake, as stanch in the faith, devoting himself to the care of his flock, and setting an example of a virtuous and godly life. His authority was quoted with great respect in later ages, more especially during the Iconoclastic controversy at the second council of Nicaea, when with a play on his name he was referred to as "a bright star (astrum) illumining the minds of all" (Labbe, Conc. viii. 1385, 1387, ed. Coleti). Bardenhewer (1908) refers to a Syllogehistorica on Asterius by V. de Buck in Acta SS. Oct. (Paris, 1883), xiii. 330–332.
Athanasius, St., archbp. of Alexandria. The life of Athanasius divides itself naturally into seven sections, respectively terminated by (1) his consecration; (2) his first exile; (3) his second exile; (4) his second return; (5) his third exile; (6) his fourth exile; (7) his death.
(1) He was born at Alexandria, and had but scanty private means (Apol. c.
Ar. 51; Socr. iv. 13). We must date his birth c. 296; not earlier, because
he had no personal remembrance of the persecution under Maximian in 303 (Hist.
Ar. 64), and was comparatively a young man when consecrated bishop, soon after
the Nicene council; not later, because he received some theological instruction
from persons who suffered in the persecution under Maximian II. in 311 (de Incarn.
56), and the first two of his treatises appear to have been written before 319.
There can be no reason to doubt that Athanasius became an inmate of bp. Alexander's
house, as his companion and secretary (Soz. ii. 17). The position involved great
advantages. The place held by Alexander as "successor of St. Mark," and occupant
of "the Evangelical throne," was second in the Christian hierarchy: we may call
the bps. of Alexandria in the 4th cent., for convenience' sake, archbishops or patriarchs,
although the former name was then very rarely applied to them, and the latter not
at all, and they were frequently designated, though not in contradistinction to
all other prelates, by the title of Papas (pope), or "dear father."
The two essays of Athanasius, Against the Gentiles and On the Incarnation, which form one complete work addressed to a convert from heathenism, cannot be dated later than the end of 318; for they make no reference to the Arian controversy which broke out in 319. Dorner, in his work On the Person of Christ, has given a résumé of their argument on the threefold subject of God, man, and the Incarnate Word; and Möhler calls the book on the Incarnation "the first attempt that had been made to present Christianity and the chief circumstances of the life of Jesus Christ under a scientific aspect. By the sure tact of his noble and Christian nature, everything is referred to the Person of the Redeemer: everything rests upon Him: He appears throughout." The young author seems to have been ordained deacon about this time, and placed in the position of chief among the Alexandrian deacons. Among the clergy who joined the archbishop in calling on Arius to retract, and who afterwards assented to his deposition, was the young archdeacon of Alexandria (see the Benedictine Athanasius, i. 396 seq.). In this spirit he attended Alexander to the Nicene council in 325.
In that assembly he is represented by Gregory of Nazianzum (Orat. 21) as "foremost among those who were in attendance on bishops," and as "doing his utmost to stay the plague." His writings may assure us of the argument which he would maintain: that the real Divinity of the Saviour was (i) asserted in many places of Scripture, (ii) involved in the notion of His unique Sonship, (iii) required by the Divine economy of redemption, and (iv) attested by the immemorial consciousness of the church. And although, as he himself informs us, the council would willingly have confined themselves to purely Scriptural terms (de Decr. 19) if their legitimate sense could have been bonâ fide admitted; although too he was far from imagining that any form or expression of human thought would adequately represent a Divine mystery; yet his convictions went thoroughly with the adoption of the term "Homoousion" or "co-essential," explained, as it was, in a sense which made it simply equivalent to "truly Son of God," and proposed as a test of adherence to the Scriptural Christology. And if we are to understand his mind at the close of the council, we must say that he regarded its proceedings as something done, in fact, "for the rightful honour of Jesus." Nothing was to him more certain than that Jesus was, in the full force of the words, God Incarnate; that Arianism was essentially a denial, and the "Homoousion" the now authenticated symbol, of His claim on men's absolute devotion; and that it was infinitely worth while to go through any amount of work or suffering in defence of such a truth, and in the cause of such a Master.
More work was near at hand, and suffering was not far off. A solemn and touching incident of Alexander's last moments is connected with the history of Athanasius, who was then absent from Alexandria. The dying man, while his clergy stood around him, called for Athanasius. One of those present, also bearing that name, answered, but was not noticed by the archbishop, who again repeated the name, and added, "You think to escape—but it cannot be." Some time appears to have elapsed between his death and the assembling of the Egyptian bishops to consecrate a successor. An encyclical letter of these same Egyptian prelates proclaimed to all Christendom, some years later, that a majority of them had elected Athanasius in the presence, and amid the applause, of the whole Alexandrian laity, who for nights and days persevered in demanding him as "the good, pious, ascetic Christian," who would prove a "genuine bishop," and prayed aloud to Christ for the fulfilment of their desire (Apol. c. Ar. 6). It was granted; and then, in the words of Gregory, "by the suffrages of the whole people, and not by those vile methods, afterwards prevalent, of force and bloodshed, but in a manner apostolic and spiritual, was Athanasius elevated to the throne of Mark," some time after the beginning of May in 326, and very probably on June 8.
(2) From his Consecration (326) to his First Exile (336).—At the outset of his archiepiscopate is to be placed the organization of the church in Ethiopia or Abyssinia by his consecration of Frumentius as bp. of Axum. [Edesius.] Another event of these comparatively quiet times was Athanasius's visitation of the Thebaid, a region where much trouble was being caused by the Arians, and by the Meletians, who resisted his earnest efforts to repress their separatist tendency.
Now began the troubles from which the Arians never suffered Athanasius to rest
till the last hour of his life. It was probably in 330 that he had his first severe
experience of their hatred. After the Nicene council, Constantine had become a zealot
for orthodoxy, and Eusebius of Nicomedia had been exiled. But Eusebius had procured
his recall by orthodox professions; it may have been by his means that Arius himself
was recalled, perhaps in Nov. 330. Eusebius now entered
A darker plot followed. John Arcaph persuaded a Meletian bishop, named Arsenius, to go into hiding. A rumour was then spread that he had been murdered, and dismembered for purposes of magic, by Athanasius, in proof of which the Meletians exhibited a dead man's hand (Apol. 63, 42; Socr. i. 27; Soz. ii. 25; Theod. i. 30). The emperor was persuaded to think it a case for inquiry. Athanasius received a summons to appear at Antioch and stand his trial. At first he disdained to take any steps, but afterwards sent a deacon to search for the missing Arsenius. The deacon ascertained that Arsenius was concealed in a monastery at Ptemencyrcis, on the eastern side of the Nile. Before he could arrive there the superior sent off Arsenius, but was himself arrested by the deacon, and obliged to confess "that Arsenius was alive." At Tyre Arsenius was discovered. Constantine stopped the proceedings at Antioch on hearing of this exposure, and sent Athanasius a letter, to be read frequently in public, in which the Meletians were warned that any fresh offences would be dealt with by the emperor in person, and according to the civil law (Apol. 9, 68).
The slandered archbishop had now a breathing-time. Arcaph himself "came into the church," announced to Constantine his reconciliation with Athanasius, and received a gracious reply; while Arsenius sent to his "blessed pope" a formal renunciation of schism, and a promise of canonical obedience (Apol. 66, 17, 70, 69, 8, 27).
But the faction had not repented. Eusebius persuaded Constantine that such grave
scandals as the recent charges ought to be examined in a council; and that Caesarea
would be the fitting place. There a council met in 334 (see Tillemont, Ath.
a. 15; cf. Festal. Epp. index, for
A.D. 334). Athanasius, expecting no justice from a synod held under such
circumstances, persisted, Sozomen says (ii. 25), "for thirty months" in his refusal
to attend. Being at last peremptorily ordered by Constantine to attend a council
which was to meet at Tyre, he obeyed, in the summer of 335 and was attended by about
fifty of his suffragans. Athanasius saw at once that his enemies were dominant;
the presiding bishop, Flacillus of Antioch, was one of an Arian succession. Some
of the charges Athanasius at once confuted; as to others he demanded time. Incredible
as it may seem, the dead man's hand was again exhibited. Athanasius led forward
a man with downcast face, closely muffled; then, bidding him raise his head, looked
round and asked, "Is not this Arsenius?" The identity was undeniable. He drew from
behind the cloak first one hand, and then, after a pause, the other; and remarked
with triumphant irony, "I suppose no one thinks that God has given to any man
Athanasius, regarding the proceedings of the council of Tyre as already vitiated (Apol. 82), resolved, without waiting for the judgment of such an assembly, "to make a bold and dangerous experiment, whether the throne was inaccessible to the voice of truth." Attended by five of his suffragans, he took the first vessel for Constantinople, and suddenly presented himself in the middle of the road when the emperor was riding into the city. Constantine, on learning who he was, and what was his errand, tried to pass him by in silence; but Athanasius firmly stood his ground. "Either summon a lawful council, or give me opportunity of meeting my accusers in your presence." The request was conceded. The bishops of the council, after receiving their commissioners' report, had by a majority condemned Athanasius, and then pronounced Arius orthodox on the ground of a doctrinal statement made five years earlier, when they were startled by an imperial letter expressing suspicion of their motives, and summoning them to Constantinople. Many of them, in alarm, fled homewards; but the two Eusebii, Theognis, Patrophilus, Valens, and Ursacius repaired to court, and, saying nothing of "the chalice," or the report of the commission, presented a new charge, like the former quasi-political ones—that Athanasius had talked of distressing Constantinople by preventing the sailing of Alexandrian corn-ships. "How could I, a private person, and poor, do anything of the kind?" asked Athanasius. Eusebius of Nicomedia answered by affirming with an oath that Athanasius was rich and powerful, and able to do anything. The emperor cut short Athanasius's defence with a show of indignation; and, perhaps not from real belief in the charge, but by way of getting rid of the case and silencing the archbishop's enemies in his own interest, banished him to the distant city of Trier or Trèves, the seat of government of his eldest son Constantine, who received the exile with much kindness, in Feb. 336.
(3) From his First Exile (336) to his Second (340).—His life at Trèves, including nearly two years and a half, was an interval of rest, much needed and doubtless invigorating, between the storms of the past and those of the future. He had now to "stand and wait"—a new experience for him. He was "abundantly supplied with all necessaries" (Constantine II. in Apol. 87); he had the friendship of Maximin, the orthodox bp. of Trèves, afterwards canonized; he had with him some Egyptian "brethren," and kept up a correspondence with his friends at home, although at the risk of having his letters seized.
For more than a year Constantine's death produced no change in Athanasius's position; but at length, on June 17, 338, Constantine II., who in the partition of the empire had a certain precedency over his brothers Constantius and Constans, the sovereigns of the East and of Italy, wrote from Trèves to the Catholics of Alexandria, announcing that he had resolved, in fulfilment of an intention of his father, to send back Athanasius, of whose character he expressed high admiration (Apol. 87). In this he appears to have presumed his brother's consent, and to have then taken Athanasius with him to Viminacium, an important town of Moesia Superior, on the high-road to Constantinople. Here the three emperors had a meeting, and all concurred in the restoration of Athanasius, who, after passing through Constantinople, saw Constantius a second time, at a farther point on his homeward journey, at Caesarea in Cappadocia (Apol. ad Const. 5; Hist. Ar. 8). His arrival at Alexandria, in Nov. 338, was hailed by popular rejoicing: the churches resounded with thanksgivings, and the clergy "thought it the happiest day of their lives." But his enemies bestirred themselves, and "did not shrink from long journeys" in order to press on the emperors new charges against him—that he had misappropriated the corn granted by the late emperor for charitable purposes in Egypt and Libya, and that the day of his return had been signalized by bloodshed. Constantius wrote to him in anger, assuming the truth of the former charge; but Athanasius was successful in disproving both. However, Constantius—who was so soon to be "his scourge and torment" (Hooker, v. 42, 2)—fell more and more under the influence of his great enemy Eusebius, now transferred from Nicomedia to the see of Constantinople, which had been forcibly vacated by the second expulsion of the orthodox Paul. The Eusebians now resumed a project which had been found impracticable while Constantine lived; this was to place on "the Evangelical throne" an Arian named Pistus, who had been a priest under Alexander, had been deposed by him for adhering to Arius, and had been consecrated, as it seems (Apol. 24), by a notorious Arian bishop named Secundus. It was argued that Athanasius had offended against all ecclesiastical principles by resuming his see in defiance of the Tyrian sentence, and by virtue of mere secular authority. The charge did not come well from a party which had leaned so much on the court and the State; but it must be allowed that Athanasius's return had given some colour to the objection, although he doubtless held that the assembly at Tyre had forfeited all moral right to be respected as a council. By way of harassing Athanasius, the Eusebians, apparently about this time, made Ischyras a bishop, after obtaining an order in the name of the emperor that a church should be built for him—an order which failed to procure him a congregation (Apol. 12, 85).
The Eusebians now applied to the West in behalf of their nominee Pistus. Three
clergy appeared as their envoys before Julius, bp. of
Early in 340 a new announcement disquieted the Alexandrian church. It was notified in a formal edict of the prefect that not Pistus, but a Cappadocian named Gregory, was coming from the court to be installed as bishop (Encycl. 2). This, says Athanasius, was considered an unheard-of wrong. The churches were more thronged than ever; the people, in great excitement, and with passionate outcries, called the magistrates and the whole city to witness that this attack on their legitimate bishop proceeded from the mere wantonness of Arian hatred. Gregory, they knew, was an Arian, and therefore acceptable to the Eusebian party: he was a fellow-countryman of Philagrius. Philagrius attacked the church of St. Quirinus, and encouraged a mob of the lowest townspeople and of savage peasants to perpetrate atrocious cruelties and profanations. Athanasius was residing in the precincts of the church of St. Theonas: he knew that he was specially aimed at, and, in hope of preventing further outrage, he withdrew from the city to a place of concealment in the neighbourhood, where he busied himself in preparing an encyclic to give an account of these horrors. This was on March 19. Four days later Gregory is said to have "entered the city as bishop." Athanasius, after hastily completing and dispatching his encyclic, sailed for Rome in the Easter season of 340, some weeks after Constantine II. had been slain during his invasion of Italy.
(4) From his Second Exile (340) to his Second Return (346).—After Julius had welcomed Athanasius, he sent two presbyters, Elpidius and Philoxenus, in the early summer of 340, to repeat his invitation to the Eusebian prelates, to fix definitely the next December as the time of the proposed council, and Rome as the place. Athanasius received much kindness from the emperor's aunt, Eutropion, and from many others (Ap. ad Const. 417; cf. Fest. Ep. 13). He had with him two Egyptian monks. Their presence in the city, and Athanasius's enthusiasm for Anthony and other types of monastic saintliness, made a strong impression on the Roman church society, and abated the prejudices there existing against the very name of monk, and the disgust at a rude and strange exterior. In fact, Athanasius's three years (340–343) at Rome had two great historic results. (a) The Latin church, which became his "scholar" as well as his "loyal partisan," was confirmed by the spell of his master-mind "in its adhesion to orthodoxy, although it did not imbibe from him the theological spirit"; and (b) when Gibbon says that "Athanasius introduced into Rome the knowledge and practice of the monastic life," he records the origination of a vast European movement, and represents the great Alexandrian exile as the spiritual ancestor of Benedict, of Bernard, and of the countless founders and reformers of "religious" communities in the West.
Meantime Elpidius and Philoxenus had discharged their errand. The Eusebians at
Antioch, finding that Athanasius was at Rome, and that the council to which they
were invited would be a free ecclesiastical assembly, detained the Roman legates
beyond the time specified, and then dismissed them with the excuse that Constantius
was occupied with his Persian war. At the same time they stimulated Philagrius and
Gregory to new severities. Orthodox bishops were scourged and imprisoned; Potammon
never recovered from his stripes; Sarapammon, another confessor-bishop, was exiled
(Hist. Ar. 12). The letters of Alexandrians to Athanasius, consolatory as
proofs of their affection, gave mournful accounts of torture and robbery, of hatred
towards himself shewn in persecution of his aunt, of countenance shewn to Gregory
by the "duke" Balacius; and some of these troubles were in his mind when, early
in 341, he wrote "from Rome" his Festal Letter for the year. That year had begun
without any such settlement of his case as had been hoped for at Rome. December
had passed, and no council could be held, for the Eusebians had not arrived. January
came, and at last the legates returned, the unwilling bearers of a letter so offensive
that Julius "resolved to keep it to himself, in the hope that some Eusebians" would
even yet arrive (Apol. 24) and render the public reading of it unnecessary.
No one came. On the contrary, the Eusebians resolved to take advantage of the approaching
dedication of a new cathedral at Antioch, "the Golden Church," in order to hold
a council there. Accordingly, ninety-seven bishops, many of whom were rather negatively
than positively heterodox, assembled on this occasion, apparently in Aug. 341. Constantius
was present. The sentence passed against Athanasius at Tyre was affirmed; several
canons were passed; and three creeds were framed, in language partly vague and general,
partly all but reaching the Nicene standard (cf. Newman, Arians, c. 4, s.
1; cf. Athan. Treatises, i. 105 seq.). This business necessarily lasted some
time; and no information as to this council had reached Rome when, in Nov. 341,
Athanasius having now been waiting at Rome for eighteen months (Apol. 29),
Julius assembled the long-delayed council, consisting of more than fifty bishops,
in the church of the presbyter Vito. Athanasius's case was fully examined; Athanasius
was formally pronounced innocent; his right to brotherly treatment and church communion—admitted
from the first by the Roman bishop—was solemnly recognized by the Italian council.
The year 342 is not eventful in his history. Constans had shewn himself friendly
to Athanasius, who at his request had sent him from Alexandria some bound copies
of the Scriptures (Ap. ad Const. 4).
Athanasius remained at Rome until the summer of 343, when, "in the fourth year" from his arrival, he received a letter from Constans, by which he was ordered to meet him at Milan (Ap. ad Const. 3, 4). Surprised at the summons, he inquired as to its probable cause, and learned that some bishops had been urging Constans to propose to Constantius the assembling of a new council, at which East and West might be represented. On arriving at the great capital of Northern Italy, which was to be so memorably associated with the struggle between the church and Arianism, he was admitted, with Protasius, bp. of Milan, behind the veil of the audience-chamber, and received with "much kindness" by Constans, who told him that he had already written to his brother, "requesting that a council might be held." Athanasius left Milan immediately afterwards, being desired by Constans to come into Gaul, in order to meet Hosius, the venerated bp. of Cordova, and accompany him to the council, which both sovereigns had now agreed to assemble on the frontier line of their empires, at the Moesian city of Sardica. And there, about the end of 343, some 170 prelates met, a small majority being Westerns.
It soon appeared that united action was impossible. The majority, ignoring the councils of Tyre and Antioch, and treating the whole case as open, could not but regard Athanasius as innocent, or, at least, as not yet proved guilty; and he "joined them in celebrating the Divine mysteries" (Hil. Fragm. iii. 14). The Eusebian minority, on reaching Sardica, had simply announced their arrival, and then shut themselves up in the lodgings provided for them at the palace, and refused to join their brethren until the persons whom they denounced as convicted men should be deprived of seats in the council. The answer was, that the council was prepared to go into all the cases which could be submitted to it: each party would be free to implead the other. The Eusebian bishops, although urged to confront their adversaries, withdrew from Sardica and established themselves as a council at Philippopolis within the Eastern empire, renewed the sentences against Athanasius, put forth new ones against Julius, Hosius, and others, drew up an encyclic, and adopted a creed (Apol. 36, 45, 48; Hist. Ar. 15, 16, 44; Hil. de Syn. 34; Fragm. 3). The prelates at Sardica proceeded with their inquiry, recognized the innocence of Athanasius, and excommunicated eleven Eusebian bishops, as men who "separated the Son from the Father, and so merited separation from the Catholic church." They enacted several canons, including the famous one providing for a reference, in certain circumstances, to "Julius, bp. of Rome," in "honour of Peter's memory," so that he might make arrangements for the rehearing of a prelate's cause. It need hardly be added that they would have no creed but the Nicene. They wrote letters of sympathy to the suffragans of Athanasius and the churchmen of Alexandria, urging the faithful "to contend earnestly for the sound faith and the innocence of Athanasius."
The bold line taken at Sardica provoked the advisers of Constantius to fresh
severities; and the Alexandrian magistrates received orders to behead Athanasius,
or certain of his clergy expressly named, if they should come near the city. Athanasius,
still kept under the emperor's ban, had gone from Sardica to Naissus, and thence,
at the invitation of Constans, to Aquileia. There, in company with the bp. Fortunatian,
he was admitted to more than one audience; and whenever Constans mentioned Constantius,
he replied in terms respectful towards the latter. Constans peremptorily, and even
with a threat of civil war, urged his brother to reinstate Athanasius (Socr. ii.
22). The death of Gregory, about Feb. 345 (Hist. Ar. 21), gave Constantius
an occasion for yielding the point. He therefore wrote to Athanasius, affecting
to be solicitous of the Western emperor's assent to an act of his own free clemency.
He wrote two other letters (Apol. 51; Hist. Ar. 22), and employed
six "counts" to write encouragingly to the exile; and Athanasius, after receiving
these letters at Aquileia, made up his mind, at last, to act on those assurances;
but not until Constantius could tell Constans that he had been "expecting Athanasius
for a year." Invited by Constans to Trèves, Athanasius made a diversion on his journey
in order to see Rome again; it was some six years since he had been cordially welcomed
by Julius, who now poured forth his generous heart in a letter of congratulation
for the Alexandrian church, one of the most beautiful documents in the whole Athanasian
series. Julius dwelt on the well-tried worth of Athanasius, on his own happiness
in gaining such a friend, on the steady faith which the Alexandrians had exhibited,
on the rapture with which they would celebrate his return; and concluded by invoking
for his "beloved brethren" the blessings "which eye had not seen, nor ear heard."
From Antioch Athanasius proceeded to Jerusalem, where an orthodox council met to do him honour, and to congratulate his church. And now he had but to return home and enjoy the welcome which that church was eager to give. This he did, according to the Festal Index, on Oct. 21 (Paophi 24), 346. We see in Gregory Nazianzen's panegyric a picture of the vast mass of population, distributed into its several classes, and streaming forth, "like another Nile," to meet him at some distance from Alexandria; the faces gazing from every eminence at the well-known form, the ears strained to catch his accents, the voices rising in emulous plaudits, the hands clapping, the air fragrant with incense, the city festal with banquets and blazing with illuminations—all that made this return of Athanasius in after-times the standard for any splendid popular display.
(5) From his Second Return (346) to his Third Exile (356).—His
19th Festal Letter, for 347, begins with a thanksgiving for having been "brought
from distant lands." The Egyptian prelates, in council, received the decrees of
Sardica. More than 400 bishops of different countries, including Britain, were now
in communion with Athanasius; he had a multitude of their "letters of peace" to
answer. Many persons in Egypt who had sided with the Arians came by night to him
with their excuses: it was a time "of deep and wondrous peace" (Hist. Ar.
25), which lasted for a few years. Valens and Ursacius had already, it seems, anathematized
Arianism before a council at Milan; but they deemed it expedient to do more. In
347 they appeared at Rome, and presented to Julius a humble apologetic letter, having
already written in a different strain to Athanasius, announcing that they were "at
peace with him."
In the Lent of 354 the Alexandrian churches were so crowded that some persons
suffered severely, and the people urged Athanasius to allow the Easter services
to be held in a large church which was still unfinished, called the Caesarean. The
case was peculiar (Ap. ad Const. 15; Epiph. Haer. 69, 2): the church
was being built on ground belonging to the emperor; to use it prematurely, without
his leave, might be deemed a civil offence; to use it before dedication, an ecclesiastical
impropriety. Athanasius tried to persuade the people to put up with the existing
inconvenience: they answered, they would rather keep Easter in the open country.
Under these circumstances he gave way. The Arianizers were habitually courtiers,
and ready, on occasion, to be formalists likewise; and this using of the undedicated
imperial church was one of several charges now urged at court against their adversary,
and dealt with in his Apology to Constantius; the others being that he had
stimulated Constans to quarrel with his brother, had corresponded with Magnentius,
and that he had not come to Italy on receiving the letter brought by Montanus. A
letter which Athanasius wrote before the Easter of this year, or perhaps of 355,
is particularly interesting; he seeks to recall Dracontius, a monk who had been
elected to a bishopric, and had weakly fled from his new duties. The earnestness,
good sense, and affectionateness of this letter are very characteristic of Athanasius.
He dwells repeatedly on the parable of the Talents, reminds Dracontius of solemn
obligations, and warns him against imagining the monastic life to be the one sphere
of Christian self-denial.
For, in the spring of 355, he would hear of the success of Constantius in terrorizing the great majority of a large council at Milan, which had been summoned at the urgent desire of Liberius. A few faithful men, such as Eusebius of Vercelli, Lucifer of Caliaris, Dionysius of Milan, after a momentary weakness, and Maximus of Naples, who was suffering at the time from illness, alone refused to condemn Athanasius (Hist. Ar. 32–34); and in standing out against the incurable tyrannousness of Caesarism, as thus exhibited, must have felt themselves to be contending both for civil justice and for Nicene orthodoxy.
That some coup d’état was meditated against Athanasius must have been evident, not only from the emperor's passionate eagerness to have him condemned, and from the really brutal persecution which began to rage throughout the empire against those who adhered to his communion (Hist. Ar. 31), but from the appearance at Alexandria, in July or Aug. 355, of an imperial notary, named Diogenes, who, though he brought no express orders, and had no interview with Athanasius, used every effort to get him out of the city. Failing in this, he departed in Dec.; and on Jan. 5, 356 Syrianus, a general, with another notary named Hilarius, entered Alexandria. The Arian party exulted in their approaching triumph; Athanasius asked Syrianus if he had brought any letter from the Emperor. He said he had not. The archbishop referred him to the guarantee of security which he had himself received; and the presbyters, the laity, and the majority of all the inhabitants supported him in demanding that no change should be made without a new imperial letter—the rather that they themselves were preparing to send a deputation to Constantius. The prefect of Egypt and the provost of Alexandria were present at this interview; and Syrianus, at last, promised "by the life of the emperor" that he would comply with the demand. This was on Jan. 18; and for more than three weeks all was quiet. But about midnight on Thursday, Feb. 8, when Athanasius was at a night-long vigil service in St. Theonas's church, preparatory to the Friday service, Syrianus, with Hilarius, and Gorgonius, the head of the police force, beset the church with a large body of soldiers. "I sat down," says Athanasius, "on my throne" (which would be at the extreme end of the church), "and desired the deacon to read the Psalm" (our 136th), "and the people to respond, For His mercy endureth for ever, and then all to depart home." This majestic "act of faith" was hardly finished, when the doors were forced, and the soldiers rushed in with a fierce shout, clashing their arms, discharging their arrows, and brandishing their swords in the light of the church lamps. Some of the people in the nave had already departed, others were trampled down or mortally injured; others cried to the archbishop to escape. "I said I would not do so until they had all got away safe. So I stood up, and called for prayer, and desired all to go out before me . . . and when the greater part had gone, the monks who were there, and certain of the clergy, came up to me and carried me away." And then, he adds, he passed through the mass of his enemies unobserved, thanking God that he had been able to secure in the first instance his people's safety, and afterwards his own. As on a former occasion, he deemed it his duty to accept an opportunity of escape, especially when the sacrifice of his life would have been ruinous to the cause of the church in Egypt (see Augustine, Ep. 228, 10); and he therefore concealed himself in the country, "hiding himself," as the Arian History, c. 48, employs the prophet's words, "for a little moment, until the indignation should be overpast."
(6) From his Third to his Fourth Exile (356–362).—On leaving Alexandria,
Athanasius at first thought of appealing in person to Constantius,
Then it was that Athanasius, accepting the position of a proscribed man who must
needs live as a fugitive, "turned back again," as he says, "towards the desert,"
and sought for welcome and shelter amid the innumerable monastic cells. Anthony
had died at the beginning of the year, desiring that a worn-out sheepskin cloak
(the monk's usual upper dress), which when new had been the gift of Athanasius,
might be returned to him (Vit. Ant. 91). As Athanasius appears to have made
secret visits to Alexandria, he probably spent some time among the recluses of Lower
Egypt, but he also doubtless visited what Villemain calls "the pathless solitudes
which surround Upper Egypt, and the monasteries and hermitages of the Thebaid."
A veil of mystery was thus drawn over his life; and the interest was heightened
by the romantic incidents naturally following from the Government's attempts to
track and seize him. When comparatively undisturbed, he would still be full of activities,
ecclesiastical and theological. Athanasius made those six years of seclusion available
for literary work of the most substantial kind, both controversial and historical.
The books which he now began to pour forth were apparently written in cottages or
caves, where he sat, like any monk, on a mat of palm-leaves, with a bundle of papyrus
beside him, amid the intense light and stillness of the desert (Kingsley's Hermits,
p. 130, 19). He finished his Apology to Constantius, a work which he had
for some time in hand, and which he still hoped to be able, in better days, to deliver
in the emperor's presence. He met the taunts of "cowardice" directed against him
by the Arians with an Apology for his Flight. To the same period belong the
Letter to the Monks, with the Arian History (not now extant as a whole),
which it introduces (and as to which it is difficult to resist the impression that
part of it, at least, was written under Athanasius's supervision, by some friend
or secretary); a Letter to Serapion, bp. of Thmuis, giving an account of
the death of Arius, the details of which he had learned from his presbyter Macarius,
while he himself was resident at Trèves; and, above all, the great Orations
or Discourses against the Arians. These last have been described by Montfaucon
as "the sources whence arguments have been borrowed by all who have since written
in behalf of the Divinity of the Word." The first discourse is occupied with an
exposition of the greatness of the question at issue; with proofs of the Son's eternity
and uncreatedness, with discussion of objections, and with comments on texts alleged
in support of Arianism (i.e.
The general aspect of church affairs was very unhopeful. At Constantinople an Arian persecution had again set in. But the defection of Hosius in 357, and Liberius in 358, after hard pressure and cruel usage, from the steadfastness which Athanasius had so much admired, must have wounded him to the heart. Yet he speaks of them with characteristic and most generous tenderness, and with full recognition of the trials under which they had given way (Hist. Ar. 45, 41; Apol. 89; de Fugâ, 5). In 359 the general body of Western bishops, at the council of Ariminum, were partly harassed and partly cheated into adopting an equivocal but really Arian confession, which was also adopted at the beginning of 360 by the legates of the Eastern council of Seleucia. An account of the earlier proceedings of these two councils was drawn up, in the form of a letter, by Athanasius, who, on the ground of a few words in the opening of this Letter on the Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia, has been thought by Tillemont and Gibbon to have been present at any rate at the latter place. The treatise is remarkable for his considerateness towards those of the semi-Arians whose objections to the Nicene Creed were rather verbal than real, while the second creed of Sirmium had driven them into open hostility to the Arians properly so-called, which they had expressed in their council of Ancyra in 358. Athanasius, then expressly naming their leader, Basil of Ancyra, welcomes them as brothers who mean essentially what churchmen mean. He will not for the present urge the Homoousion upon them. He is sure that in time they will accept it, as securing that doctrine of Christ's essential Sonship which their own symbol "Homoiousion" could not adequately guard (de Syn. 41). But while exhibiting this large-minded patience and forbearance he is careful to contrast the long series of Arian creeds with the one invariable standard of the orthodox; the only refuge from restless variations will be found in a frank adoption of the creed of Nicaea (ib. 32; cf. ad Afros, 9).
On Nov. 30 the accession of Julian was formally proclaimed at Alexandria. The Pagans, in high exultation, thought that their time was come for taking vengeance on the Arian bishop, whom they had once before tumultuously expelled for oppressive and violent conduct. They rose in irresistible force, threw George into prison, and on Dec. 24 barbarously murdered him. The Arians set up one Lucius in his place; but Julian, as if to shew his supercilious contempt for the disputes of "Galileans," or his detestation of the memory of Constantius, permitted all the bishops whom his predecessor had exiled to return; and Athanasius, taking advantage of this edict; reappeared in Alexandria, to the joy of his people, Feb. 22, 362.
One of his first acts was to hold a council at Alexandria for the settlement of several pressing questions. (a) Many bishops deeply regretted their concessions at Ariminum in 359: how were they to be treated? (b) It had become urgently necessary to give some advice to Paulinus and his flock at Antioch, with a view to healing the existing schism there. (c) A dispute which had arisen as to the word "hypostasis" had to be settled. (4) A correct view as to the Incarnation and the Person of Christ had to be established. The work before the council was that of harmonizing and reconciling. A synodal letter, or "Tome," addressed "to the Antiochenes" (i.e. to Paulinus and his flock), and composed by Athanasius, is one of the noblest documents that ever emanated from a council. But it came too late to establish peace at Antioch. Lucifer of Caliaris had taken upon him to consecrate Paulinus as the legitimate bp. of Antioch, and so perpetuated the division which his wiser brethren had hoped to heal.
The pagans of Alexandria had been rebuked by Julian for the murder of George, but he lent a ready ear to their denunciations of Athanasius as a man whose influence would destroy their religion. Julian assured them that he had never intended Athanasius to resume "what is called the episcopal throne"; and peremptorily commanded him to leave Alexandria; the imperial edict was communicated to Athanasius on Oct. 23 (=Paophi 27, Fest. Ind., Fragm. Maff.). The faithful gathered around him weeping. "Be of good heart," he said; "it is but a cloud; it will soon pass." He instantly embarked to go up the Nile. But Julian's implied orders were not forgotten; some Government agents pursued his vessel. They met a boat coming down the river, and asked for news of Athanasius. "He is not far off," was the reply. The boat was his own—he himself, perhaps, the speaker (Theod. iii. 9). His facilities of information had given him warning of the peril, and his presence of mind had baffled it. He sailed on towards Alexandria, but concealed himself at Chaereu, the first station from the capital, then proceeded to Memphis, where he wrote his Festal Letter for 363, and then made his way to the Thebaid.
(7) From his Fourth Exile to his Death (362–373). It was probably about
this time, shortly before Easter, 363, that Athanasius was met, while approaching
Hermopolis, by Theodore of Tabenne, the banks of the Nile being thronged by bishops,
clergy, and monks. Night apparently favoured this demonstration; Athanasius, having
disembarked, mounted an ass which Theodore led, and pursued his way amid a vast
body of monks bearing lanterns and torches, and chanting psalms. He stayed some
time at Hermopolis and Antinoe, for the purpose of preaching;
"The cloud had passed," and Athanasius returned by night to Alexandria. After his arrival, which was kept secret, he received a letter from the new emperor Jovian, desiring him to resume his functions, and to draw up a statement of the Catholic faith. Athanasius at once assembled a council, and framed a synodal letter, in which the Nicene Creed was embodied, its Scripturalness asserted, and the great majority of Churches (including the British) referred to as professing it: Arianism was condemned, semi-Arianism pronounced inadequate, the Homoousion explained as expressive of Christ's real Sonship, the co-equality of the Holy Spirit maintained in terms which partly anticipate the language of the Creed of Constantinople. On Sept. 5 Athanasius sailed to Antioch, bearing this letter. He was most graciously received, while the rival bp. Lucius and his companions were rebuffed with some humour and some impatience by the blunt soldier-prince, who, however, during his brief reign, shewed himself as tolerant as he was orthodox. The general prospects of the church must now have seemed brighter than at any time since 330. Liberius was known to have made a full declaration of orthodoxy; and many Western bishops, responding to the appeals of Eusebius and Hilary of Poictiers, had eagerly renounced the Ariminian Creed and professed the Nicene. But the local troubles of Antioch were distressing; and Athanasius, seeing no other solution, recognized their bishop Paulinus as the true head of the Antiochene church, on his appending to his signature of the Tome a full and orthodox declaration, which, according to Epiphanius (Haer. 77, 20), Athanasius himself had framed.
Having written his Festal Letter for 364 at Antioch, Athanasius reached home,
apparently, on Feb. 13, a few days before Jovian's death. Valentinian I. succeeded,
and soon afterwards assigned the East to his brother Valens. The Alexandrian church
was not at first a sufferer by this change of monarchs; and 364–365 may be the probable
date for the publication of the Life of Anthony, which Athanasius addressed
"to the monks abroad," i.e. those in Italy and Gaul. But, ere long, his troubles
to some extent reappeared. According to the Egyptian documents, it was the spring
of 365 when Valens issued an order for the expulsion of all bishops who, having
been expelled under Constantius, had been recalled under Julian, and thereby announced
that he meant to follow the Arian policy of Constantius. On May 5 this order reached
Alexandria, and caused a popular ferment, only quieted on June 8 by the prefect's
promise to refer the case of Athanasius to the emperor. If we may combine his statement
with Sozomen's (who, however, places these events in a subsequent year), we should
suppose that the prefect was but biding his time; and on the night of Oct. 5, Athanasius,
having doubtless been forewarned, left his abode in the precinct of St. Dionysius's
church, and took refuge in a country house near the New River. For four months the
archbishop's concealment lasted, until an imperial notary came to the country house
with a great multitude, and led Athanasius back into his church, Feb. 1 (Mechir
7), 366. His quiet was not again seriously disturbed, and Athanasius was free to
devote himself to his proper work, whether of writing or of administration. His
Festal Letter for 367 contained a list of the books of Scripture which, so far as
regards the New Testament, agrees precisely with our own (see, too, de Decr.
18). The canonical books are described as "the fountains of salvation, through which
alone" (a mode of speaking very usual with Athanasius) "is the teaching of religion
transmitted"; a second class of books is mentioned, as "read" in church for religious
edification ; the name "apocryphal" is reserved for a third class to which heretics
have assigned a fictitious dignity (Westcott, On the Canon, pp. 487, 520).
To this period has been assigned the comment on doctrinal texts which is called
a treatise On the Incarnation and against the Arians; but its entire genuineness
may be reasonably doubted. In or about 369 he held a council at Alexandria, in order
to receive letters from a Roman council held under Damasus, the successor of Liberius,
and also from other Western prelates, excommunicating Ursacius and Valens, and enforcing
the authority of the Nicene Creed. Hereupon Athanasius, in a synodal letter addressed
To the Africans, i.e. to those of the Carthaginian territory, contrasts the
"ten or more" synodical formulas of Arianism with the Nicene Creed, gives some account
of its formation, and exposes the futile attempt of its present adversaries to claim
authority for the later, as distinct from the earlier, proceedings of the Ariminian
council. It appears that on Sept. 22, 369, Athanasius, who had in May 368 begun
to rebuild the Caesarean church, laid the foundations of another church, afterwards
called by his own name (Fest. Ind.). We find him excommunicating a cruel
and licentious governor in Libya, and signifying the act by circular letters. One
of these was sent to Basil, who had just become exarch, or archbp., of Caesarea
in Cappadocia, and had received, perhaps at that time, from Athanasius, a formal
notification of the proceedings of the council of 362 (Ep. 204). Basil immediately
announced to his own people the sentence pronounced in Egypt; the strong sense of
church unity made such a step both regular and natural, and he wrote to assure Athanasius
that the offender would be regarded by the faithful at Caesarea as utterly alien
from Christian fellowship (Ep. 60). This led to a correspondence, carried
on actively in 371. Basil, who had troubles of all kinds weighing upon his spirit,
sought aid in regard to one of them—the unhappy schism of Antioch (Ep.
Athanasius was far from tolerating, in these latter years of his life, any theories
which seemed definitely heterodox respecting what may be called the human side of
the Incarnation. If, in his Letter to Adelphius, he condemned a certain class
of Arians, and vindicated against their cavils the adoration paid to Christ's Manhood,
that is, to His one Person Incarnate; if, in his Letter to Maximus, he denounced
those who spoke of the man Christ as simply a saint with whom the Word had become
associated; he was also, in his Letter to Epictetus, bp. of Corinth—a tract
called forth by a communication from Epictetus—most earnest against some who, while
"glorying in the Nicene confession, represented Christ's body as not truly human,
but formed out of the essence of Godhead." This was, in fact, the second proposition
of the heresy called Apollinarian; the first being that which had attracted the
attention of the council of 362, and had been disclaimed by those whom the council
could examine—as to the non-existence, in Christ, of a rational soul, the Word being
supposed to supply its place. These views had grown out of an unbalanced eagerness
to exalt the Saviour's dignity: but the great upholders of Nicene faith saw that
they were incompatible with His Manhood and His Headship, that they virtually brought
back Docetism, and that one of them, at any rate, involved a debased conception
of Deity. In the next year, 372, he combated both these propositions with "the keenness
and richness of thought which distinguish his writings generally" (see Newman,
Church of the Fathers, p. 162; Praef. ed. Benson, ii. 7) in two books
entitled Against Apollinaris. These books are remarkable for the masterly
distinctness with which the one Christ is set forth as "perfect God and perfect
Man" (i. 16): if words occur in ii. 10 which seem at first sight to favour Monothelitism,
the context shews their meaning to be that the Divine will in Christ was dominant
over the human; if in the next chapter the phrase "God suffered through the flesh"
is called unscriptural, the whole argument shews that he is contending against the
passibility of the Saviour's Godhead. Inexact as might be some of his phrases, the
general purport of his teaching on this great subject is unmistakable; it is, as
he says in Orat. iii. 41, that Christ was "very God in the flesh, and very
Flesh in the Word." In truth, these later treatises, like the great Discourses,
exclude by anticipation both the forms of heresy, in reference to the Person and
Natures of Christ, which troubled the church in the next three centuries (see especially
i. 11, ii. 10). Athanasius, in the fruits of his work, was "in truth the Immortal"
(Christ. Remembr. xxxvii. 206): he was continually "planting trees under
which men of a later age might sit." It might indeed be said that he "waxed old
in his work" (
But the time of work for him came to an end in the spring of 373. The discussions about the year of his death may be considered as practically closed; the Festal Index, although its chronology is sometimes faulty, may be considered as confirming the date of 373 given in the Maffeian Fragment, supported by other ancient authorities, and accepted by various writers. The exact day, we may believe, was Thursday, May 2, on which day of the month Athanasius is venerated in the Western church. He had sat on the Alexandrian throne, as his great successor Cyril says in a letter to the monks of Egypt, "forty-six complete years"; had he lived a few weeks longer, the years of his episcopate would have been forty-seven. Having recommended Peter, one of his presbyters, for election in his place, he died tranquilly in his own house, "after many struggles," as Rufinus says (ii. 3), "and after his endurance had won many a crown," amid troubles which Tillemont ventures to call a continual martyrdom.
Such was the career of Athanasius the Great, as he began to be called in the next generation. Four points, perhaps, ought especially to dwell in our remembrance: (a) the deep religiousness which illuminated all his studies and controversies by a sense of his relations as a Christian to his Redeemer; (b) the persistency, so remarkable in one whose natural temperament was acutely sensitive; (c) the combination of gifts, "firmness with discretion and discrimination," as Newman expresses it, which enabled him, while never turning aside from his great object, to be, as Gregory Nazianzen applies the apostolic phrase, "all things to all men"; and in close connexion with this, (d) the affectionateness which made him so tender as a friend, and so active as a peacemaker—which won for him such enthusiastic loyalty, and endowed the great theologian and church ruler with the powers peculiar to a truly lovable man. That he was not flawless, that his words could be somewhat too sharp in controversy, or somewhat unreal in addressing a despot, that he was not always charitable in his interpretation of his adversaries' conduct, or that his casuistry, on one occasion, seems to have lacked the healthy severity of St. Augustine's—this may be, and has been, admitted; but it is not extravagant to pronounce his name the greatest in the church's post-apostolic history.
In 1698 appeared the great Benedictine ed. of his works, enriched by the Life
from the pen of Montfaucon, who in 1707 published, in one of the volumes of his
Nova Patrum et Scriptorum Graecorum Collectio, additional remains collected
by his industry. The work
A few English translations of some of Athanasius's works had appeared before the publication of any part of the "Library of the Fathers." But the volume of Historical Tracts of St. Athanasius, and the two volumes of Treatises in Controversy with the Arians, published in that series at Oxford in 1843–1844, under Dr. Newman's editorship, must (whatever exceptions may be taken to a few passages in the notes) be always ranked among the richest treasures of English Patristic literature. These translations have been reprinted and revised in what is now the best collection in English of Athanasius's chief works, with a very valuable introduction, life, and illustrative notes by Dr. A. Robertson, bp. of Exeter, in the Post-Nicene Fathers ed. by Dr. Schaff and Dr. Wace. The Orations against Arius, with an account of the life of Athanasius by W. Bright, are pub. by the Clarendon Press, as also his Historical Writings according to the Benedictine text, with intro. by W. Bright. A cheap popular Life of Athanasius by R. W. Bush is pub. by S.P.C.K. in their Fathers for Eng. Readers; and a cheap trans. of the Orations in "A. and M. Theol. Lib." (Griffith).
Athanasius (1), bp. of Anagastus in Cilicia Secunda and metropolitan, a disciple of St. Lucian of Antioch (Philost. H. E. iii. 15), reckoned by Arius, in his letter to Eusebius Nicom., among the bishops who coincided with him in doctrine (Theod. H. E. i. 5). The great Athanasius (de Synod. p. 886) accuses him of having, previous to the council of Nicaea, written blasphemies equal to those of Arius, of which he gives a specimen. He is said by Le Quien, on the authority of the Lib. Synod. Graec., to have supported Arius at the council of Nicaea. Philostorgius (H. E. iii. 15) tells us that when Aetius was expelled from his master's house, after his unlucky victory in argument, Athanasius received him and read the Gospels with him.
Athanasius (2), an Arian bp. who succeeded Philip in the see of Scythopolis, c. 372. He is charged by Epiphanius with pushing his Arian tenets to the most audacious impiety, asserting that the Son and Holy Spirit were creatures, and had nothing in common with the Divine nature (Epiph. Haer. lxxiii. c. 37, p. 885).
Athanasius (3), bp. of Perrha, a see dependent on the Syrian Hierapolis; present at the council of Ephesus, 431, supporting Cyril of Alexandria. Grave accusations, brought against him by his clergy, led him to resign his see. Through the intervention on his behalf of Proclus of Constantinople and Cyril of Alexandria, Domnus II., patriarch of Antioch, summoned a council to consider the matter. Athanasius, refusing to appear, was unanimously condemned by default and deposed from his bishopric, to which Sabinianus was consecrated. After "the Robber Synod" of Ephesus, A.D. 449, had made Dioscorus of Alexandria the temporary ruler of the Eastern church, Sabinianus was in his turn deposed, and Athanasius reinstated at Perrha. Sabinianus appealed to the council of Chalcedon, A.D. 451, where both he and his rival signed as bp. of Perrha. His case was fully heard, and it was determined that the original charges against him should be investigated by Maximus at Antioch. We are in complete ignorance of the issue of this investigation. (Labbe, Conc, iv. 717–754; Liberatus Diac. in Breviario. Labbe, v. 762; Cave, Hist. Lit. i. 479; Christ. Lupus, ii.)
Athanasius (4), bp. of Ancyra in N. Galatia (A.D. 360–369). His father, who bore the same name, was a man of high family and great learning, and had held important offices in the State (ἐθνῶν καὶ πόλεων ἀρχὰς διευθύναντος); but was reputed harsh and unfatherly to his children. This rumour, reaching St. Basil's ears, led him to write a friendly remonstrance, and hence arose a correspondence of which one letter is preserved (Ep. 24). The son Athanasius was raised to the see of Ancyra by the Arian Acacius of Caesarea, through whose influence his predecessor Basilius had been deposed at a synod held at Constantinople A.D. 360 (Soz. iv. 25; Philost. v. 1). But notwithstanding this inauspicious beginning, he gave unquestionable proofs of his orthodoxy by taking an active part in the Synod of Tyana (A.D. 367), at which the Nicene symbol was accepted (Soz. vi. 12). By St. Basil he is commended as "a bulwark of orthodoxy" (Ep. 25), and Gregory Nyssen praises him as "valuing the truth above everything" (c. Eunom. i. ii. 292). Owing to some misunderstanding, however, Athanasius had spoken in very severe terms of St. Basil, misled, as Basil conjectures, by the fact that some heretical writings had been fathered upon him; and the bp. of Caesarea sends an affectionate letter of remonstrance (Ep. 25), in which he speaks of Athanasius in the highest terms. At his death Basil writes a letter of condolence to the church of Ancyra, on the loss of one who was truly "a pillar and foundation of the church" (Ep. 29). This seems to have happened A.D. 368 or 369 (see Garnier, Basil. Op. iii. p. lxxvii. seq.).
Athenagoras.—I. Life.—There is scarcely one catalogue of the ancient
writers of the church wherein we find mention of Athenagoras or his works. He is
not noticed by Eusebius, Jerome, Photius, or Suidas. But in a fragment of the book
of Methodius, bp. of Tyre (3rd cent.), de Resurrectione Animarum against
Origen, there is an unmistakable quotation from the Apology (c. 24, p. 27
B) with the name of Athenagoras appended.
This fragment is given by Epiphanius (Haer. 64, c. 21) and Photius (Cod.
224, 234). Scanty as this information is, it yet assures us of the existence of
the Apology in the 3rd cent. and its ascription to Athenagoras. Much more
is told us by Philippus Sidetes, deacon of Chrysostom (5th cent.), in a fragment
preserved by Nicephorus Callistus (Dodwell, Diss. in Irenaeum, 429) to this
effect: "Athenagoras was the first head of the school at Alexandria, flourishing
in the times of Hadrian and Antoninus, to whom also he addressed his Apology
for the Christians; a man who embraced Christianity while wearing the garb of
a philosopher, and presiding over the academic school. He, before Celsus, was bent
on writing against the Christians; and, studying
II. Genuine Works.—These are, (1) the Apology; (2) the Treatise on the Resurrection of the Dead.
(1) Apology. Genuineness.—The testimonies to this work are the inscription which it bears, and the quotation by Methodius given above. Some indeed have supposed that when Jerome speaks of an apology delivered by Justin Martyr to Marcus Antoninus Verus and Lucius Aurelius Commodus, he refers (since these obtained the empire after Justin's death) to the Apology of Athenagoras and attributes it to Justin; but it appears that he intends Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus (Mosheim, Dissert. ad Hist. Eccles. pertinent. i. 279), to whom Justin's Lesser Apology was given (vid. Prolegomena to Maranus's Justin, pt. iii. c. 8, § 4, pp. 93 sqq.). Attempts to prove the work in question to be that of Justin (vid. Le Moyne, Varia sacra, ii. 171), or of a later author (vid. Semler, Introduction to Baumgarten's Theolog. Streitigkeiten, ii. 70 note) have alike failed. There is nothing whatever in the writings of Athenagoras unsuitable to their assigned age; and Athenagoras's name was not sufficiently known to have been selected for the author of a supposititious book.
Date.—This is a difficult question; some have taken the Commodus of the inscription for Lucius Aelius Aurelius Verus (d. 169), son-in-law and brother of Marcus Antoninus. But Lucius Aelius Aurelius Commodus, Antoninus's son and successor, must be intended; for Verus dropped the name of Commodus after obtaining, a share in the government, and could never have been called Sarmaticus; for Sarmatia was not conquered till after his death. Mommsen, following Tentzel, but without MS. authority, would read Γερμανικοῖς for Ἀρμενιακοῖς. As little right had Commodus to the title of "philosopher." Athenagoras may have only intended to include the son in the honours of the father. At all events, the illustration (at c. 18, p. 17 D) of the Divine government, taken from that of the two emperors, father and son, seems conclusive. We have also allusions to the profound peace of the empire, appropriate only between A.D. 176, when Avidius Crassus's insurrection was crushed, and A.D. 178, when the outbreak of the Marcomannic wars occurred. The Apology cannot well have been of later date than A.D. 177, since in that year arose the fearful persecution of the Christians of Vienne and Lyons, upon the accusations brought by their slaves; whereas in c. 35, p. 38 B, Athenagoras declares that no slaves of Christians had ever charged their masters with the crimes popularly imputed to them; nor is there any allusion whatever to this persecution, which would hardly have been passed over in silence. We therefore conclude that the Apology was written between the end of A.D. 176 and that of A.D. 177.
Analysis.—The Apology consists of categorical answers to the three charges usually brought against the Christians, of (a) atheism, (b) incest, and (c) cannibalism. (a) They worship one God, and can give a reason why. The philosophers have held like views; Polytheism and its worship are absurd, modern, and the work of demons. (b) Incest is most contrary to their pure and even ascetic life. (c) They are even more humane than the heathen, condemning abortion, infanticide, and gladiatorial games as murder.
(2) Treatise on the Resurrection. Genuineness
Analysis.—The work consists of two parts: (i) The removal of the objections (1) that God wants the power (2) or the will to raise the dead. (1) He does not want the power to do it, either through ignorance or weakness—as Athenagoras proves from the works of creation; defending his positions against the philosophic objections, that the bodies of men after dissolution come to form part of other bodies; and that things broken cannot be restored to their former state. (2) God wants not the will to raise the dead—for it is neither unjust to the raised men, nor to other beings; nor unworthy of Him—which is shewn from the works of creation. (ii) Arguments for the Resurrection. (1) The final cause of man's creation, to be a perpetual beholder of the Divine wisdom. (2) Man's nature, which requires perpetuity of existence in order to attain the true end of rational life. (3) The necessity of the Divine judgment upon men in body and soul, (a) from the Providence, (b) from the justice of God. (4) The ultimate end of man's being, not attainable on earth.
III. Athenagoras as a Writer.—To most of the apologists Athenagoras is decidedly superior. Elegant, free from superfluity of language, forcible in style, he rises occasionally into great power of description, and his reasoning is remarkable for clearness and cogency; e.g. his answer to the heathen argument, that not the idols, but the gods represented, are really honoured. His treatment of the Resurrection is for the most part admirable. Even where the defective science of the day led him into error, e.g. in answering the question, apparently so difficult, as to the assimilation of the materials of one human body into another the line taken is one that shews no little thought and ability; and his whole writings indicate a philosophic mind, which amply justifies the title given to him in the inscription of his two works.
His style, however, is not unfrequently somewhat obscured by difficult elliptic or parenthetical passages, and anacolutha (for examples of which see the Apology, c. 1, p. 2 C; c. 20, p. 19 B; c. 22, p. 23 B; and de Resurr. c. 18, p. 60 D). Among his peculiar words and phrases, Clarisse notices his use of ἄγειν in the sense of ducere, to think, and τὰ ἐπισυμβεβηκότα Θεῷ for the attributes of God.
IV. His Philosophy.—Mosheim represents Athenagoras as having been the first of the Eclectics. It is far more true to say that he shared in the eclecticism which then pervaded all philosophy. That he had been a Platonist appears, on the whole, from his continual reference to Plato and the thoroughly Platonic view which on many points pervades his works. We easily recognize this view in his language about matter and the souls, angels, natures sensible and intelligible, and the contemplation of God as the end of man's being; and also in that referring to the Son of God as the Logos and Creator (except that this is not at all peculiar to Athenagoras), more especially in his calling the Word "idea (or archetype) and energy" in the work of Creation. He also appears to allude slightly to the doctrine of reminiscences (de Resurr. c. 14, p. 55 A). The Platonism of Athenagoras was modified, however, by the prevailing eclecticism (cf. e.g. the Peripatetic doctrine of the mean, so alien to Plato, Resurr. c. 21, p. 64 B), and still more, of course, by his reception of Christianity, which necessitated the abandonment of such views as the unoriginated nature of the soul. With all this agrees excellently so much of Philippus Sidetes's account as connects Athenagoras with the Academics; whose Platonism was precisely such as is here described. Allusions to the other philosophers are abundant; e.g. to Aristotle and the Peripatetics, Apol. c. 6, p. 7 A; c. 16, p. 15 D; to the Stoics, ib. c. 6, p. 7 B; to the Cyrenaics and Epicureans, Resurr. c. 19, p. 62 B. We see from Apol. c. 7, p. 8 A, that he regarded the Gentile philosophers as possessing some measure of Divine light in their minds, but unable thereby to come to the full knowledge of God, because this could only be obtained by revelation, which they never sought.
V. Theology, etc.—Athenagoras's proof of the Divine unity rests on the propositions, expressed or implied, that God is perfect, self-existent, uncompounded; the Creator, Sustainer, and Ruler of the universe. Were there more gods than one, they could not co-exist and co-work as a community of beings similar to each other, in the same sphere; for things self-existent and eternal cannot be like a number of creatures formed all on one pattern, but must be eternally distinct and unlike. They could not be parts of one whole, for God has no parts. There could be no place for another God in connexion with this universe, for the Creator is over and around His own works. Another God, confined to some other universe of his own, could not concern us; and so would be but a finite being.
The Son of God.—In God, since He is an
The Holy Ghost is said to be the Spirit Who spoke by the prophets, and an Emanation from God (Apol. c. 10, p. 10 D), flowing forth and returning as a ray from the sun. It has hence been much disputed whether Athenagoras believed the Blessed Spirit to be a distinct Person, or not. His expressions greatly resemble those used by some whom Justin condemns for their denial of the personality of the Son: "They say that this virtue is indivisible and inseparable from the Father, as the sunlight on earth is indivisible and inseparable from the sun in the heavens" (Dial. c. Tryph. c. 128, p. 358 B). But it must be remembered that the apologists present the actings and offices of the three Blessed Persons of the Godhead in creation, etc., rather than Their eternal subsistence; and of necessity do this in a form intelligible to a heathen mind, yet so as not to be confounded with polytheism. It is not doubted that Athenagoras held the personality of the Father, but with "God the Father, and God the Son" (Apol. c. 10, p. 11 A) he joins as third, the Holy Spirit; so also c. 12, p. 62 D, and again c. 24, p. 26 D. That two Divine Persons and an impersonal emanation should be thus enumerated together by so philosophic a writer as Athenagoras is not conceivable. The angels, too—indubitably personal beings—are mentioned as holding a place after the Trinity, in Christian theology (c. 10); and it is worthy of notice that, in the passage cited above from Justin, angels as well as the Word are described by the persons whom that writer is condemning as temporary appearances; as if it were the Sadducees, or some similar Jewish sect, of which he is speaking. We are, therefore, decidedly of opinion that the personality of the Holy Spirit is held by Athenagoras; cf. however, Clarisse.
Man he holds to be composed of body and soul, the latter immortal, with spiritual powers of its own (Apol. c. 27, p. 31 A); but assigns the rational judgment not to the soul alone, but to the whole compound being, man; perhaps implying that in the actings and expression of thought both the mind and the bodily organs share. Hence he shews that the soul without the body is imperfect; that only when embodied can man be justly judged, or render to God perfect service, in a heavenly life. The sin and misery of man are described, in the Platonic manner, as entanglement with matter (Apol. c. 27, p. 30 C), and missing the true aim of his existence (Resurr. c. 25, p. 68 B); which is said to be the state of the majority, a prevalence of evil which he connects with the influence of the demons, i.e. of fallen angels, or their offspring by human wives, a view common with the apologists. The evil angels he regards as having fallen by misuse of free will, as did also man; cf. Apol. c. 25, p. 29 B. Of infants he remarks (Resurr. 614, p. 55 D) that they need no judgment, inasmuch as they have done neither good nor evil. The nature of the scheme of redemption is not treated of by Athenagoras.
VI. Was Athenagoras a Montanist?—This idea was suggested by Tillemont, who founds it upon two points in the opinions of Athenagoras, his account of prophecy, and his absolute condemnation of second marriages. In the Apology, c. 9, p. 9 D, Athenagoras's view of inspiration is thus given: "who" (i.e. the prophets) "rapt in mind out of themselves by the impulse of the Spirit of God, uttered the things with which they were inspired; the Spirit using them as if a flute player were breathing into his flute." With this has been compared the language of Montanus (Epiphanius Panar. Haer. 48, c. 4, p. 405), where the prophet is said to be as a lyre, the Spirit like the plectrum. So Tertullian, Against Marcion, c. 22. Yet similar language is found in Justin (Dial. c. Tryph. c. 115, p. 343 A); and Athenagoras may only mean that the prophet was carried beyond himself by the Holy Spirit, and that the words uttered were not his own. The severe condemnation of second marriage, in the works of Athenagoras, is doubtless a point of contact with the Montanists; but the same view is very common with the Greek Fathers (vid. Hefele's Beiträge, vol. i. lect. 2). Moreover, of the authority and office of the Paraclete, in the sense attributed to Montanus, there is no trace in the writings of Athenagoras.
VII. Quotations of Scripture, Early Writers, etc.—The inspiration of Scripture is strongly stated by Athenagoras, e.g. Apol. c. 9, p. 9 D. He is seldom careful to quote exactly, so that it is not always certain what version is employed; probably the Septuagint throughout. From the N.T. he often quotes or borrows phrases, without mentioning whence they come. It is treated as authoritative amongst Christians; its maxims being used shewing their discipline and practice (vid. Lardner, Credibility; Clarisse, Athenag. § 55).
It has been disputed whether Athenagoras refers to other Christian writers, especially
the Apology of Justin Martyr, which some consider him to have made the foundation
of his own. Certainly the resemblance between them seems too great to be the result
of accident alone. Both Justin and Athenagoras urged that Christians were unconvicted
of any crime, that the mere name does not deserve punishment, and that they were
no more Atheists than the poets and the philosophers; and both, in a similar manner,
shew the unworthiness of sacrificial worship. They give very much the same view
of the Christian way of life; and both lay great stress on chastity, and on the
confining of marriage to its sole end, the begetting of children. Nearly the same
account of the fall of the angels is found in both: the same books are quoted, often
the same passages; by both the very same phrases are occasionally employed. This
correspondence is especially seen between
VIII. Editions.—A good ed. of Athenagoras is that of Otto (Jena, 1857); its text is based on the three earliest MSS. (viz. the Cod. Paris. CDLI., Cod. Paris. CLXXIV., and Cod. Argentoratensis), with which the rest have been collated, some for the first time; the most recent is by E. Schwartz, Leipz. 1891 (Texte und Untersuchungen, iv. 2). There is an Eng. trans. in the Ante-Nicene Fathers.
IX. Spurious Works.—From a careless expression of Gesner, in reference to the books of Antoninus, Περὶ τῶν εἰς ἐαντόν, a notion arose of the existence, amongst Gesner's books, of a work by Athenagoras with the above title; an idea which, though wholly erroneous, was entertained by Scultatus, and at one time by Tentzel, with some others.
About the close of the 16th cent. there appeared a French romance, entitled Du vray et parfait Amour, purporting to be a work of Athenagoras, trans. by M. Fumée, Seigneur de S. Geuillac. Its many anachronisms and whole character prove it, however, the work of some later author, probably Fumée himself. Certainly no Greek original has ever been produced.
The following may be consulted: Clarisse, Comm. in Athen.; Hefele, Beiträge; Möhler, Patrol.; J. Donaldson, Hist. Christ. Lit.; L. Arnould, de Apol. Athen. (Paris, 1898).
Atticus, archbp. of Constantinople, succeeding Arsacius in March 406. He died Oct. 10, 426. Born at Sebaste in Armenia, he early embraced a monastic life, and received his education from some Macedonian monks near that place. Removing to Constantinople, he adopted the orthodox faith, was ordained presbyter, and soon became known as a rising man. He proved himself one of Chrysostom's most bitter adversaries. If not, as Palladius asserts (c. xi.), the architect of the whole cabal, he certainly took a very leading part in carrying it into execution. The organization of the synod of the Oak owed much to his practical skill (Phot. Cod. 59). The expulsion of Chrysostom took place June 10, 404. His successor, the aged Arsacius, died Nov. 5, 405. Four months of intrigue ended in the selection of Atticus.
Vigorous measures were at once adopted by Atticus in conjunction with the other members of the triumvirate to which the Eastern church had been subjected, Theophilus of Alexandria, and Porphyry of Antioch, to crush the adherents of Chrysostom. An imperial rescript was obtained imposing the severest penalties on all who dared to reject the communion of the patriarchs. A large number of the bishops of the East persevered in the refusal, and suffered a cruel persecution; while even the inferior clergy and laity were compelled to keep themselves in concealment, or to fly the country. The small minority of Eastern bishops who for peace's sake deserted Chrysostom's cause were made to feel the guilt of having once supported it, being compelled to leave their sees and take other dioceses in the inhospitable regions of Thrace, where they might be more under Atticus's eye and hand (Socr. vii. 36; Niceph. xiii. 30; Pallad. c. xx.).
Unity seemed hardly nearer when the death of Chrysostom (Sept. 14, 407) removed the original ground of the schism. A large proportion of the Christian population of Constantinople still refused communion with the usurper, and continued to hold their religious assemblies, more numerously attended than the churches, in the open air in the suburbs of the city (Niceph. xiv. 23, 27), until Chrysostom's name took its place on the registers and in the public prayers of the church of Constantinople.
Atticus's endeavours were vigorously directed to the maintenance and enlargement of the authority of the see of Constantinople. He obtained a rescript from Theodosius subjecting to it the whole of Illyria and the "Provincia Orientalis." This gave great offence to pope Boniface and the emperor Honorius, and the decree was never put into execution. Another rescript declaring his right to decide on and approve of the election of all the bishops of the province was more effectual. Silvanus was named by him bp. of Philippolis, and afterwards removed to Troas. He asserted the right to ordain in Bithynia, and put it in practice at Nicaea, A.D. 425, a year before he died (Socr. vii. 25, 28, 37).
He also displayed great vigour in combating and repressing heresy. He wrote to the bishops of Pamphylia and to Amphilochius of Iconium, calling on them to drive out the Messalians (Phot. c. 52). The zeal and energy he displayed against the Pelagians are highly commended by pope Celestine, who goes so far as to style him "a true successor of St. Chrysostom" (Labbe, Conc. iii. 353, 361, 365, 1073; cf. S. Prosper. p. 549; S. Leo. Ep. cvi.; Theod. Ep. cv.). His writings were quoted as those of an orthodox teacher by the councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon (Labbe, iii. 518, iv. 831).
Atticus was more an actor than a writer; and of what he did publish little remains. A treatise On Virginity, combating by anticipation the errors of Nestorius, addressed to Pulcheria and her sisters, is mentioned by Marcellinus, Chron. sub ann. 416, and Gennadius, de Scrip. Eccl. c. 52.
Socrates, who is a partial witness, attributes to him a sweet and winning disposition which caused him to be regarded with much affection. Those who thought with him found in him a warm friend and supporter. Towards his theological adversaries he at first shewed great severity, and after they submitted, changed his behaviour and won them by gentleness (Socr. vii. 41; Soz. viii. 27).
Attila, king and general of the Huns. For the facts of his life and his
personal and moral characteristics see D. of G. and R. Biogr. It comes within
our scope only to note his influence upon Christendom; though, throughout, it is
difficult to separate legend from history. The rapid series of events between the
Hunnish attack on the Eastern empire in 441 and the battle of Châlons in 451 has
been compared to a deluge of rain which sweeps a
Portents in sky and earth announced to the inhabitants of Gaul that the year
450 was the opening of a terrible epoch (Idat. Chron. ann. 450) Servatius,
bp. of Tongres, visiting Rome to consult St. Peter and St. Paul, was informed that
Gaul would be entirely devastated by the Huns, but that he himself would die in
peace before the devastation came (Paul. Diac. ap. Bouquet, Rec. i. p. 649).
Attila, strengthened by an alliance with Genseric, king of the Vandals (Jorn.
Reb. Get. 36), had two pretexts for his attack—his claim to the hand of Honoria,
and the vindication of the rights of an elder son of a Frank prince against his
brother, whom Aetius had given possession of their paternal territory (Prisc.
Exc. Leg. p. 40). Theodoric, king of the Goths, whose alliance was sought by
both Attila and Valentinian, inclined to the side of order, and the Hun, who now
took the rôle of chastising his rebellious subjects, the Visigoths, marched
with five, or perhaps seven, hundred thousand warriors, including many Franks, Burgundians,
and Thuringians (Sid. Apoll. Paneg. Avit. v. 324), to the banks of the Rhine,
which he crossed near Coblenz. He installed himself at Trèves, the Roman metropolis
of Gaul, which was pillaged. After one fruitless attempt, he entered Metz on Easter
Eve, April 8, slaughtered indiscriminately priests and people, except the bishop,
and reduced the city to ashes, all the churches perishing except the oratory of
St. Stephen (Paul. Diac. ap. Bouquet, Rec. i. p. 650). Rheims, deserted by
its inhabitants, was easily reduced, and a Hun struck off the head of its bishop,
Nicacius, while he was precenting the words "Quicken me according to Thy word" (
Undoubtedly the great and distinguishing feature of the war in the eyes of 5th-cent. Christians would be the threefold repulse of Attila, "the scourge of God"; from Orleans by St. Agnan, from Troyes by St. Loup, and, above all, from Rome by St. Leo; so signal a triumph was it of the church's spiritual weapons over the hosts who were held to symbolize the powers of darkness and of Antichrist. It was the final and conclusive answer to the few heathen who still referred all the misfortunes of the empire to the desertion of the ancient polytheism. For a discussion of the various national legends that have clustered around Attila, "the hammer of the world," see D. C. B. (4-vol. ed.), s.v. The leading authorities for his life are in Gibbon's Roman Empire (ed. Smith), iv. 191 (notes). See also his Life by Am. Thierry, 1855.
Augustinus, Aurelius.
A. EARLY LIFE.—§§ 1, 2, Name, Materials for biography; § 3. Early life; § 4. Manicheism; § 5. Philosophical period; § 6. Conversion; § 7. Early Christian life: (a) as layman, (b) as presbyter.
B. EPISCOPATE.—§
8. Donatism: (a) Origin, (b) Early history, (c) Augustine and
the schism; § 9. Paganism and the de Civitate Dei; § 10. Pelagianism:
(a) Origin, (b) Zosimus and Julian, (c) The semi-Pelagians,
(d) Doctrinal
C. INFLUENCE.—§ 14. Writings; § 15. Asceticism and the "Rule": The Church and property; § 16. Intellectual influence: (a) Philosophic Theism, (b) Ecclesiasticism, (c) Predestinarianism; § 17. Bibliography.
A. EARLY LIFE.—§ 1. Name.—Orosius, Hist. adv. Pagan. I. 4; Prosper, Car. de Ingrat. i. 3, and Chron. ad ann. 430; Claudian Mamert. de Stat. An. ii. 10; Bede, Vit. St. Cuthb., give the name as above. The name Aurelius is not given by Possidius, nor is it ever used by Augustine himself nor by any of his correspondents. But the Benedictine editors find it in the earliest MS. titles of his works, and it is probably authentic.
§ 2. Materials for Biography.—These are exceptionally ample. For his first thirty-three years we have, in the Confessions, the most perfect of religious autobiographies (see below, § 8, ad init.). The word "Confessions" includes not only the idea of self-accusation, but also that of thanksgiving (see IX. vi. confiteor tibi dona tua, and the use of confiteor in the Vulgate Psalter). For his career as a Christian and a bishop, we possess an admirably simple and graphic life by his pupil and friend Possidius, bp. of Calamis. The writings and correspondence of Augustine himself copiously supplement the narrative. The Benedictine editors have worked up the whole of the material into a very accurate biography in eight books. It fills 513 columns of the Patr. Lat., and leaves little to be added by others. (See below, § 17.)
§ 3. Birth and Early Years (354–373).—Augustine was born at Thagaste in Numidia Proconsularis, on Nov. 13, 354 (for evidence as to this date, see Bened. Life in Patr. Lat. I. 118). His father Patricius, a jovial, sensual, passionate man, and till near the end of his life a heathen, was one of the curiales of the town, but without large means. His mother Monnica was a Christian by parentage, conviction, and character. Augustine acknowledged (de Vit. Beat. i. 6) that he owed his all to her; conversely we can trace to her anxious care for her son's spiritual well-being a distinct deepening of her own character (see Conf. II. iii. sub fin.; IX. viii. ix.). >From his mother he received the elements of Christian teaching, and, as he tells us, a devotion to the very name of Jesus Christ which his later spiritual wanderings never wholly extinguished, and which forbade him to find satisfaction in any writings which lacked it (Conf. III. iv. 3). As a child he had a severe illness, and demanded baptism. His mother had agreed to allow it; but when he recovered, in accordance with the then prevailing dread of post-baptismal sin, she put off his baptism to riper years. Augustine was one of several children (we read of his brother Navigius, Conf. IX. xi., de Beat. Vit. i. 6; a sister, Ep. 2114; nieces, Possid. xxvi.; nephew Patricius and nieces, Serm. 3563, see Bened. Life, I. i. 4). He early shewed signs of pre-eminent ability, and his parents, both of whom entertained the ordinary parental ambitions, found means to send him to school at the neighbouring town of Madaura. Here, though he found the study of Greek distasteful, he made good progress; in fact it became clear that he was ripe for the higher schools of Carthage, and he was withdrawn from Madaura. The difficulty of providing the means for his studies at the more expensive and distant capital kept him at home for a year (369–370). He laments bitterly the company he kept and the habits into which he fell at this period. The boyish freak of robbing a pear-tree with his companions weighed heavily on his mind in later years (Conf. II. iv. ix.). He tells us, however, with shame, that in order not to be outdone by his companions he boasted of licentious acts which he had not committed. This may modify our natural inferences from the self-accusing language of the Confessions.
At last, aided by their wealthy and benevolent neighbour Romanianus, his parents were able to send him to Carthage. Here, at the age of sixteen, Augustine began his "university" life; as a student of Rhetoric. Again he speaks with an agony of remorse of his life as a student. It is certain that he contracted an irregular union, and in 372 he became the father of a son, Adeodatus. But he remained faithful to his mistress until the very eve of his conversion, and watched over his son's education and character. Eventually father and son were baptized together (see below, § 6; also cf. Conf. VI. xv. 25). We must infer that his life was on the whole above the average level of student life in Carthage. He tells us that the "best set" among them were given to brutal horse-play, directed especially against shy freshmen; but although he associated with these "eversores," he took no part in their wild doings.
In 371 his father had died, but, aided once more by the kindness of Romanianus, Monnica was able still to keep her son at Carthage. Ambition for social success, and for a future career at the bar, rather than any deeper motive, led him to pursue his studies with ardour. But in his nineteenth year, while reading Cicero's Hortensius, he became deeply impressed with the supreme value of Wisdom, as contrasted with the vain hopes and fleeting opinions of the world. From this time onward he is a restless seeker after Truth (Conf. III. iv.). His first impulse was toward the Scriptures, but their simplicity repelled him; "they seemed to me to be far inferior to the dignity of Tully."
§ 4. Manicheism (373–383).—A baffled inquirer, he was attracted by the
Manichean system, which appears to have been actively pushed in Africa at this period.
This is not the place for a description of Manicheism. From Augustine's many allusions
to its tenets, it appears to have been a strange medley of dualism and materialism,
asceticism and licence, theosophy and rationalism, free-thought and superstition.
What specially attracted Augustine appears to have been the high moral pretensions
of the sect, their criticism of Scripture difficulties, and their explanation
§ 5. Rome. Philosophy (383–386)—Mainly in disgust at the rough and disorderly students of Carthage (Conf. V. viii.), Augustine now migrated to Rome. With bitter self-reproach he tells us of the deceit by means of which he left his mother, who had followed him to Carthage, behind (Conf. V. viii.). At Rome, his host was a Manichean, Alypius and other Manichean friends surrounded him, and in a severe illness he received the greatest kindness from them all. But the students of Rome disappointed Augustine. They were less rude, but also less honest, than those of Carthage, especially in the matter of payment of their fees (Conf. V. xi.). Presently (about the summer of 384) Symmachus, the Praefectus Urbi, was commissioned by the Milanese to find them a professor of Rhetoric. Augustine, by the aid of his Manichean friends, obtained the post, and travelled, at the public expense, to Milan. Here he was attracted by the eloquence of Ambrose, then at the height of his fame, and soon made his acquaintance. "I began to love him, not at first as a teacher of the truth, which I despaired of finding in Thy Church, but as a fellow-creature who was kind to me." Contemptuous of the subject-matter of his sermons, Augustine listened to them as an interested professional critic. "I cared not to understand what he said, but only to hear how he said it."But it was impossible to keep form and substance wholly apart, and by degrees he began to realize that the case for Catholic Christianity was not wholly beneath discussion. This was especially the case with regard to the O.T., a principal target for Manichean ridicule. The allegorical method of exegesis by which Ambrose explained every difficulty struck away the substratum of literalism upon which Manichean objections were based. "For while I read those Scriptures in the letter, I was slain in the spirit." But though one main foundation of his Manicheism was thus giving way, the materialistic presuppositions remained. "Had I been able to conceive of a spiritual substance, all their devices would have been broken, but this as yet I found impossible." He remained in a state of suspense; his philosophic position was that of the "New Academy," one of pure negation. However, pending further light, he resumed the position he had occupied in boyhood of a catechumen in the Catholic church (Conf. V. xiv.). Alypius, who was in legal practice, had accompanied him to Milan, and presently their friend Nebridius joined them. Monnica, probably accompanied by his brother Navigius, soon followed her son to Milan (Conf. VI. ix.). The friends appear (Conf. VIII. viii.) to have hired a roomy house and garden. Augustine's worldly prospects seemed excellent, a career of official distinction was opening before him (Conf. VI, xii.); his mother, hoping that it would lead to his baptism, encouraged him in the selection of a wife. But two years had to pass before the lady was of age (Conf. VI. xiii.). Meanwhile his mistress was dismissed (ib. xv.), to his and her great grief, and Augustine took another.
Augustine was now thirty years of age. He had almost wholly shaken off Manicheism,
and was, as his mother saw, steadily gravitating towards the Catholic church. His
successful
§ 6. Conversion (386–387).—One day a Christian fellow-townsman, Pontitianus,
who held an appointment at court, called to visit Alypius. Observing with pleasure
a volume of St. Paul's Epistles, he went on to talk to his friends of the wonderful
history of the hermit Anthony, whose ascetic life had begun from hearing in church
a passage of the gospel (
§ 7. (a) Early Christian Life. Death of Monnica. Return to Africa.
Life as a Layman (387–391).—While waiting for baptism at Milan, Augustine had
written a short book, de Immortalitate Animae, and the first part, de
Grammatica, of a work on the "liberal arts": the latter, though included by
Possidius in his list of Augustine's literary remains, was early lost by him (Retr.
I. vi.). After the baptism, Augustine, with Alypius, and Evodius, a fellow-townsman,
converted before Augustine himself, who had joined him at Milan, set out for Africa,
with the intention of continuing their common life. But at Ostia, Monnica was seized
with fever, and died "in the fifty-sixth year of her age, and the thirty-third of
mine." Augustine's account of her life and character, and of his conversations with
her, shortly before her death, on Eternal Life, forms perhaps the most exquisite
and touching part of the Confessions (IX. viii.–xiii.). He prayed for her
soul, believing that what he prayed for was already performed. "Let none have power
to drag her away from Thy protection. . . . For she will not answer that she owes
nothing, lest she should be confuted and seized by the crafty accuser; but she will
answer that her debt has been forgiven by Him, to Whom none can give back the ransom
which He paid on our behalf, though He owed it not." Augustine now remained in Rome
till the autumn of 388 ("jam post Maximi tyranni mortem,"
c. lit. Petil. III. 30, cf. Retr. I. vii.–ix.). Of his life there,
the two books de Moribus Ecclesiae Catholicae et de Moribus Manichaeorum,
the de Quantitate Animae, and the first of his three books de Libero Arbitrio,
are the monument. From them we gather that he lived with Evodius a life of "abundant
leisure," entirely given to the studies begun at Cassiciacum. The book on the morals
of the Manicheans, founded on his former converse with them at Rome (see above,
§ 5), was reserved for completion and publication in Africa (xii. 26). At last Augustine
crossed with Alypius to Carthage (de Civ. XXII. viii.), and returned to Thagaste.
A work composed by him here, de Magistro (Conf. IX. vi.; Retr. I.
xii.), is in the form of a dialogue with Adeodatus, and Augustine assures us that
the substance of the words was really from the lips of his son at the age of sixteen,
i.e. not later than 388. The boy died young, full of piety and promise; we
do not know the date, but he was present at Monnica's death (Conf. IX. xi.),
and very probably lived to accompany his father to Africa. At Thagaste Augustine
and his friends lived on his paternal estate for nearly three years, a quiet, industrious,
and prayerful life. Nebridius (Ep. 5) condoles with him for having to give
so much time to the negotia civium; but evidently
there was plenty of leisure for study. We saw above (§ 6) that Augustine's studies
were, up to the present, philosophical rather than Biblical. His ordination found
him still but little versed in Scripture (Ep. 213). His continued correspondence
with Nebridius (Epp. 5–14) shews the continued predominance of philosophical
interest; the same may be said of the writings of the period, de Genesi adv.
Manichaeos, de Musica, de Magistro, de Vera Religione, and parts of the Liber
de Diversis Quaestionibus LXXXIII. The de Musica was a portion of the
above-named unfinished work on the "liberal arts": he wrote it at the request of
an African bishop. It is interesting as giving one side of Augustine's view of secular
culture, for which he claims, in the spirit of Plato, that if rightly used, it leads
up to God, the underlying Truth of all things. The other works of this period are
still pervaded with the Manichean controversy. This is the origin of the de Vera
Religione, one of Augustine's ablest works; years later (about 414) he refers
Evodius to it for the theistic argument (Ep. 162, 2). There is a difference
of opinion as to the exact time at which Augustine sold his father's estate, and
as to the monastic or lay character of the life at Thagaste. The Benedictine
Life (III. ii.-v.), maintaining that Augustine's settlement at Thagaste was
strictly monastic, accounts for the fact that he lived on his patrimony by supposing
that he did so as a tenant of the purchaser. Of this there is no evidence whatever.
The most probable inference from the crucial passage (Serm. 355, 2) combined
with the statements of Possidius, is briefly as follows:—Augustine and his friends
lived at his home in Thagaste, realizing approximately the ideal, formed already
at Milan (Conf. VI. xiv.), and partially realized at Cassiciacum, of a common
life of study and detachment from worldly cares. The tendency to a monastic
ideal was there, and as time went on, Augustine determined to sell his property,
and find a home more suitable for a monastery. Possibly the importunate demands
of his fellow-citizens upon his kindness (see above) made Thagaste itself unsuitable.
Hand in hand with the question of the place went the question of recruits. Augustine
travelled to different places in search of a suitable site—avoiding towns where
the see was vacant, for he knew that his growing fame might lead men to think of
him. Among other places, he came to Hippo (Bona), where he knew of a young
official whom he hoped to enlist for his monastery ("juvenis veni
ad istam civitatem, quaerebam ubi constituerem monasterium . . . veni ad istam civitatem
propter videndum amicum quem putabam lucrari me posse Deo
(b) Augustine a Presbyter of Hippo (391–395).—Augustine at the
time of his ordination as presbyter (he does not appear to have passed, as Ambrose
had formally done, through the diaconate) was a Christian Platonist. His temper
was absolutely Christian, his stock of ideas wholly Platonic. He had used the Bible
devotionally rather than worked at its theology. Fully conscious of this, he obtained
from his bishop a short period of leisure in order to master the minimum of Scriptural
knowledge necessary for the discharge of his office (Ep. 21). At Easter,
391, he was entrusted with the traditio symboli. His
addresses to the candidates for baptism on that occasion are still extant (Serm.
214–216). He was, in fact, soon full of work. His monastery, the first in Africa
(see below, § 15), became a training-school for clergy. Possidius tells us of ten
bishops who proceeded from it. Among the earliest were Alypius, who in 394 went
to Thagaste, and Evodius, to Uzala. Possidius himself became bp. of Calamus, but
appears to have spent much of his time at Hippo, which was only some forty miles
away. Moreover, the example of the monastic life spread rapidly (Ep. 24,
sub fin.); before Augustine died, there were at least three monasteries in
Hippo alone (Vit. Ben. III. v. 4). Of his life as a presbyter we know few
details. He corresponds with Aurelius, the new bp. of Carthage, with a view to putting
down the disorderly feasts over the tombs of the martyrs (Epp. 22, 29;
Conf. V. ii.). At the end of Aug. 392, he held a public discussion for two days
with Fortunatus, a Manichean presbyter, the notes of which remain. Possidius tells
us that as the result Fortunatus left Hippo and never returned. In 393 a general
council of African bishops met at Hippo, and Augustine preached to them de Fide
et Symbolo (one of his best-known shorter works); he also mentions (Retr.
I. 23) a stay at Carthage which must have been of some length, as it was there that
he held his epoch-marking discussions of difficulties in the Ep. to the Romans,
and at the request of his friends committed the results to writing (see below, §
10). We know that a council was held at Carthage in 394: possibly that may have
been the occasion of his presence. The Manichean controversy still claimed his energies.
In addition to the public discussions already referred to, he wrote at this time
the famous tract de Utilitate Credendi; another, de Duabus Animabus,
a tract against the Manichean Adimantus; and the imperfect work de Genesi
ad Literam, a work which he abandoned, as he felt his novice-hand unequal to
the task (Retr. I. xviii.; see below, § 14). A new task, imposed upon him
by his official responsibilities, was the controversy with the Donatists (see below,
§ 8). Early in his presbyterate he wrote to a neighbouring bishop of that sect to
remonstrate with him for rebaptizing (Ep. 23). He also composed, for popular
use, an acrostic song in refutation of the sect (about 394: Psalmus contra partem
Donati), and a tract, now lost, contra Epistolam Donati. To this period,
lastly, belong a group of exegetical works which shew a rapid advance in the command
of Holy Scripture, the fruit of systematic study: an exposition of the Sermon on
the Mount, a commentary on Galatians, some of the Quaestiones LXXXIII. (supra,
§ 7a), and the above-mentioned notes on Romans. He began a continuous commentary
on the Epistle, but only succeeded in completing the Salutation. The de Mendacio
(see Retr. I. xxvii.) was also written at this period, but its issue
was deferred till about 420, when the contra Mend. was also published (Retr.
II. Ix.). Generally speaking, the works of this transition period are remarkable
for the supersession of the philosophical form of the older works by Biblical, and
to a great extent Pauline, categories. The philosophical substratum of Platonism
remains, but Augustine is now a Biblical and ecclesiastical theologian. (For a detailed
analysis of the ideas distinctive of this and the preceding periods respectively,
see the masterly article of Loofs, mentioned at the end of this article, pp. 270–276.)
Lastly, it was as a presbyter that he completed his three books de Libero Arbitrio
(supra, § 7 a): they were directed against the Manichean theory of the
origin of evil (supra, § 4), and vindicate the moral responsibility of man
against the theory of a physical principle of evil. To the position taken up in
these books the Pelagians (infra, § 10) appealed, against Augustine's later
doctrine of irresistible grace. Augustine has no difficulty in shewing that he had
even at this early date refuted them by anticipation. But it was less easy to meet
the appeal of the so-called semi-Pelagians (see below, § 10 d), who were
on the side of the church against Pelagius, but demurred to positions taken up by
Augustine later in life. Of personal interest is Augustine's correspondence with
the saintly Paulinus of Nola, to whom he sent the books on Free Will. Paulinus had
heard of the growing fame of Augustine, and sought his acquaintance by letters addressed
to Alypius and to Augustine himself (Epp. 24–27, 30–32). Augustine at this
B. EPISCOPATE (from 395).—§ 8.
The Donatist Controversy. (a) Origin.—Valerius was old and
infirm, and had marked out Augustine as his successor. But he daily feared that
some other church might elect him as bishop, and that he would therefore be lost
to Hippo. So, with the eager consent of his flock, he took a step then almost without
precedent, and, unconsciously breaking the letter of the eighth canon of Nicaea,
induced Megalius of Calama, the "primae sedis Episcopus,"
i.e. bishop senior by consecration in Numidia, to consecrate Augustine as
his coadjutor with right of succession. Valerius had (Possid. viii.) privately gained
the consent of Aurelius, bp. of Carthage; Megalius made some personal objections,
which he subsequently withdrew (references in Vit. Ben. IV. i. 2). Valerius
did not long survive the fulfilment of his hopes and prayers; for nearly thirty-five
years Augustine was bp. of Hippo. His episcopate was occupied by grave controversies,
and productive of monumental works; but it was not eventful as regards Augustine's
personal history. It will be best, therefore, to deal with it, not by annalistic
narrative, but by considering in turn the great questions with which Augustine had
to deal. We have spoken sufficiently of the Manichean controversy. As a bishop (about
397–400) Augustine wrote against these heretics the tracts c. Ep. Fundamenti
and de Agone Christiano. The Confessions, written about this time,
give an insight into Augustine's personal experiences of Manicheism (see above,
§§ 2, 4). About 400 he refuted, in thirty-three short books, a treatise by his old
Manichean friend Faustus; at the end of 404 (Retr. II. viii., cf. Ep.
29) he held a public discussion with a Manichean named Felix, and as a result penned
the short tract de Natura Boni. Somewhat later he was brought into controversy
with the Manichean "auditor" Secundianus. Of his reply he says, "omnibus,
quae adversus illam pestem scribere potui, facile praepono." These are
writings drawn out by occasional contact with a controversy which Augustine had
outgrown. It was otherwise with the Donatist struggle, which pressed continually
upon him for the first twenty years of his episcopate. As we have seen, it claimed
some of his energy already as a presbyter. But it may fairly be called the one great
question of his earlier episcopate. According to Possidius, the Donatists were at
the time of Augustine's ordination a majority among the Christians of the African
provinces; at Hippo they were a very large majority, and terrorized the Catholics
by exclusive dealing (c. Duas Lit. Petil. II. 184). The schism had existed
since about 311, when Caecilianus was elected bp. of Carthage. Personal dislike
to the election found a pretext for denying its validity. Felix of Aptunga, his
consecrator, was alleged to have been a traditor—i.e.
to have given up the sacred books during persecution. This, it was argued, vitiated
his power to give valid Orders. For to communicate with an offender is to take part
in his offence; and Felix's offence, ipso facto, cut him off from the church.
Like Cyprian, the opponents of Caecilianus denied the validity of any sacrament
conferred outside the church. These two principles, then, were involved: firstly,
the old Cyprianic denial of the validity of sacraments conferred by heretical
(or schismatical) hands; secondly, the nullity of sacraments performed by unworthy
ministers: "oleum peccatoris non impinguet caput meum"
(
(b) Earlier History of Donatists.—It is not necessary here to detail
the phases through which the controversy had passed in the nearly three generations
which preceded the episcopate of Augustine, nor to unravel the intricate charges
and counter-charges which encumber the real principles at issue. The principal landmarks
in the question were: (1) The appeal to Constantine, apparently first made
by the Donatists, which resulted in the adverse decisions of the councils of Rome
(313) and Arles (314). (2) The consecration of Majorinus as bp. of Carthage
in opposition to Caecilianus (311). He died in 315, and was succeeded by Donatus,
a man of great energy, to whom the schism probably owes its name. (3) Imperial
persecution of the Donatists, first by Constantine in 316, and then, after an attempt
to bribe the Donatists into submission (340), a ruthless suppression by Constans
in 347. This was successful in producing temporary submission, but it intensified
the feeling of protest; moreover, the fanatical ferocity of the "Circumcellions,"
which Constantine's first persecuting edict had evoked, was smouldering in readiness
to break out again. (4) Return of the Donatists under Julian. In 361, agreeably
to his general policy of the restoration of ecclesiastical exiles, Julian repealed
his predecessor's measures against the Donatists, and during his short reign they
exercised a violent supremacy in Africa. (5) Optatus and Parmenian. Donatus
had died in exile, and was now succeeded by Parmenianus, an able and comparatively
moderate man. With him begins the first phase of the literary debate between
Donatists and Catholics. The opponent of Parmenianus was Optatus of Milevis, who
was still living after 384. His work on the Donatist schism is a rich mine of materials
for its history. It is to be noted that Parmenianus and Optatus both believe in
the visible unity of the church. But Parmenianus, insisting on the holiness
of the church, identifies it with the separatist body in Africa, while Optatus insists
upon the Catholicity of the church, and upon its Apostolicity as tested
by communion with the chair of St. Peter and with the seven churches of the Apocalypse.
(6) Disintegration of Donatism. This began to be apparent in the
Meanwhile the council of Hippo in 393 (supra, § 7 b) had, by judicious reforms and conciliatory provisions, paved the way back to the church for any Donatists who might be disillusioned by the inward breakdown of the sect. But its external position was still imposing. Edicts issued against the Donatists (since 373, Cod. Theod. XVI. vi.) by Valentinian and Gratian had had, owing to the state of the empire, but little effect. The edict of Theodosius against heretics (392, Cod. Theod. XVI. v.) was not enforced against them; in fact, from some time previous to the death of Theodosius in 395 till 398 the imperial writ did not run in the African provinces.
(c) Augustine and Donatism.—When Stilicho recovered Africa for Honorius from the usurper Gildo, Augustine had been a bishop seven years. He had preached, corresponded, and written actively against the Donatists, who had heard his sermons and read his tracts in great numbers. Their leaders had realized that they were now opposed by a champion of unexampled power, and endeavoured to keep their publications from falling into his hands. His earliest episcopal work, contra Partem Donati, is lost. But in 400 he wrote a reply to an old letter of Parmenianus, and the seven books de Bapt. c. Donat. In 401 and 402 he replied to a letter of Petilianus, the Donatist bp. of Cirta, and wrote his letter to the Catholics, de Unitate Ecclesiae, an important contribution to the controversy. In 403 the Catholic bishops in synod at Carthage agreed to propose a decisive conference; the Donatists declined, and in 404 the Catholic synod determined to ask for a revival of the imperial laws against the schism. From 405–409 the remedy of force was once more tried, with very partial success. In the latter year the Catholic synod petitioned Honorius to order a conference, and as the Donatists were now understood to agree, Marcellinus, a "tribune," was specially commissioned to arrange for the meeting. At the conference Augustine naturally played the principal part on the Catholic side. Marcellinus closed the proceedings by giving judgment in favour of the Catholics, and in 412 this was followed up by an imperial edict of drastic severity.
During this period Augustine wrote, in addition to twenty-one extant letters on the controversy, and four lost works, the following, which we still have: four books contra Cresconium; one de Unico Baptismo, the Breviculus Collationis (a report of the conference mentioned above), and a book contra Donatistas post Collationem. After 412, physical force had to some extent diminished the need for argument. A few more letters—an address to the people at Caesarea (Algiers), a public discussion with Emeritus, on Sept. 20, 418, two books contra Gaudentium (a Donatist bishop, c. 420),—are the remains of a waning controversy. For a fuller account of the history, and of the contents of some of Augustine's anti-Donatist writings, see art. Donatism, D. C. B. (4-vol. ed.).
It remains to gather up briefly the importance of the controversy in Augustine's
life and thought. So far as Donatism fell before argument, its fall was the work
of Augustine. But what was the reflex effect of the controversy upon Augustine himself?
Augustine was the first Christian writer who made the church, as such, the
subject of systematic thought. But this was not wholly the result of the Donatist
crisis. He fought Donatism in part with arguments which had been current for over
two generations of the controversy, and which we find less lucidly formulated in
Optatus, partly with conceptions which his own personal history and reflections
had impressed upon his mind before he came into the conflict. The utmost that can
justly be said—but that much is important—is that the Donatist conflict crystallized
ideas which needed a shock of the kind to bring them into clear shape and form.
It was beside the purpose to insist, as Cyprian had done, upon the episcopate, which
the Donatists possessed, or upon the unity of the church, which they claimed for
themselves. The question at issue went behind these points to the spiritual conditions
necessary to the saving efficacy of means of grace. This exists, argued Augustine,
only in the Catholic church. The baptism and orders of the Donatists were
valid sacramentally, but useless spiritually. In a sense, the Holy Spirit operates
in schismatical sacraments, so that a convert to the Catholic church will not be
re-baptized or re-ordained. But it is only in the Catholic church that the Spirit
operates, as the Spirit of peace and love. "Non autem habent
Dei caritatem qui ecclesiae non diligunt unitatem; ac per hoc recte intelligitur
dici non accipi nisi in Catholica Spiritus Sanctus" (de Bapt.
III. xvi.). Augustine formulates with a clearness not found in any previous writer
the distinction between what in later times was called the "gratis
gratis data," which confers status only (the
indelible "character" of a "baptizatus" or a priest), without
any necessary change in the moral or spiritual character; and "gratia
gratum faciens," which makes a man not only a member of the visible church,
but a real member of Christ, not merely a priest, but a good priest. This distinction
was hardly perceived by Cyprian (see Cypr. Epp. 65–67, esp. 66: "credere
quod indigni . . . sint qui ordinantur quid aliud est quam contendere quod non a
Deo. . . . sacerdotes ejus in ecclesia constituantur?"), who regarded a deposed
bishop as a mere layman with but "the empty name and shadow" of priesthood. The
recognition
§ 9. Augustine and the Heathen. Philosophy of History.—Augustine tells us (de Civ. Dei, XVIII. liii. 2) of an oracle current among the heathen, that the Christian religion would last 365 years, and then come to an end. He reckons that this time expired in the year 399. As a matter of fact, the year in question was marked by a widespread destruction of pagan temples throughout the Roman world (Vit. Bened. IV. xvi.). In this year apparently the counts Gaudentius and Jovius arrived in Africa to execute an imperial decree for the dismantling of the temples. At Carthage the splendid temple of Dea Coelestis, which had been closed, as it seems, since the law of 391 (Cod. Th. XVI. x. 10), and was already overgrown with weeds and bushes, was taken possession of by the Christians. But in 421 it was razed to the ground (Prosper, de Praed. III. xxxviii.). In some places images were hidden to preserve them from destruction. Heathen customs, as we gather from a sermon of Augustine (Serm. 62, 4); were still secretly observed even by some Christians. A council at Carthage in 401 petitioned the emperor to abolish public feasts and games which were, in spite of a previous imperial prohibition (Cod. Th. ib. 17), occasions of heathenish observances. The destruction of a statue of Hercules at Colonia Suffectana (? Sufetula) was the cause of a riot in which sixty Christians lost their lives (Ep. 50). In 407–408 a sweeping law, confiscating temples and ordering the destruction of altars, images, etc., was issued (Cod. Th. ib. 19, cf. Vit. Bened. VI. iv. 2, v. 3). Its promulgation was attended by most serious riots at Calama, where the church was repeatedly wrecked by the heathen (Ep. 90, 91, 103, 104). The murder of Stilicho (Sept. 408), and the rumours that the laws against the heathen and the Donatists passed during his life lapsed with his death, caused a further widespread outburst of heathen violence in Africa (cf. Cod. Th. App. Sirm. XIV.; Aug. Ep. 97). A stringent law, passed apparently at the instance of the provincial council at Carthage, of which Augustine was not a member, ordered rigorous penalties against all the offenders, and against conniving officials. Alarmed by the state of the empire, the ministers of Honorius appear to have relaxed for a time the rigour of the laws against paganism and heresy alike, but at the urgent request of the African bishops they were again strictly enforced. On the whole, Augustine's tone and attitude towards the pagans is dignified and conciliatory (Epp. 133, etc.), but he shares in the general responsibility for persecution which must be allotted to the churchmen of this degenerate age.
In 408 and 409 the Goths, under Alaric, had laid siege to Rome, and after long and fruitless negotiations, the city was taken and sacked on Aug. 24, 410. The sack of Rome, in its direct effects, was but an incident in the profound abasement of the empire in the miserable reign of Honorius. But the downfall of the "Eternal City" struck awe into the minds of men who failed to appreciate the material and moral exhaustion which the disaster merely symbolized. Augustine's friend Marcellinus, the imperial officer who had been in charge of the conference with the Donatists introduced him to a distinguished ("illustris") official, Volusianus, who was kept back from the Christian faith by difficulties relating to the Old Testament, the Incarnation, and the incompatibility of some principles of the Gospel with civil life and the public good (Epp. 135–138, cf. 132). The last-named question naturally connected itself with the prevalent heathen explanation of the fall of Rome, as due to the desertion of the old gods and the progress of Christianity. Augustine, unable at the time to discuss this question except in passing (Ep. 1381, 9–16, cf. 1363), presently began a more thorough consideration of it. This is his famous treatise de Civitate Dei, begun about the end of 412, and not completed until 426. The first two books are addressed to Marcellinus, who was put to death, Sept. 13, 413; with a third book, they were published before 415. In this year, about Lent, he wrote two more (Ep. 1691) In 416–417, when he was advising Orosius to write his Historia adversus Paganos, Augustine had published ten books, and was at work on the eleventh. By 420 he had published fourteen; the eighteenth was finished "nearly thirty years" after the consulate of Theodorus (399), i.e. hardly earlier than 426. The work then was continued amid interruptions, and the plan widened out from a refutation of the heathen calumny (Retr. II. xliii.) to a comprehensive explanation of the course of human affairs—a religious philosophy of history.
The problem was one of terrible actuality. The ancient world and its civilization
were in real truth breaking up, and the end of Rome
But this conclusion is not, thus baldly stated, that of Augustine. To begin with, his conception of the church (see §§ 8, 16, b, c) is not consistent. Does he mean the visible church, the communio externa, or the communio sanctorum, the number of those predestined to life, to which not all belong who are members of the visible church, and to which some belong who are not? Augustine's language on this point is not always uniform. But at the time when he wrote the de Civitate, the predestinarian idea was growing upon him, and the two civitates tend to coincide with the predestined on the one hand, and, on the other, the rest of mankind. Again, the visible church, even apart from its merely nominal members, is but part of a larger whole, but the empirical shadow of a transcendent reality, the civitas superna, which includes angels as well as redeemed humanity (XI. 7). And in its earthly visible existence the church borrows the form of the earthly state (XV. 2). Again, historically, the two civitates are mingled together and interpenetrate. Moreover, the church needs the pax terrena, and is dependent for it on the civitas terrena (XIX. 17, cf. "per jura regum possidentur possessiones," in Joh. Tr. VI. 15); practically for all civil purposes the churchman must obey the law. But, on the other hand, the civitas terrena cannot attain its chief good, the pax terrena, unless heavenly motives are brought to bear; for the social bond of caritas, for the elementary requisite of justitia, it is dependent upon the civitas Dei.
The destiny of the civitas terrena, therefore,
when at the judgment the two are finally separated, is the destruction of its social
bond; it will cease to be a civitas at all. There
is, then, if we look at things in their eternal aspect, only one civitas,
and, applying the ideal to the empirical, the state (qua
good, i.e. if Christian) is in the church. Optatus had said (de Schism.
III. 3) "Ecclesia in Imperio." Augustine reverses this relation:
"Dominus jugo suo in gremio ecclesiae toto orbe diffuso omnia
terrena regna subjecit." The state is in the church, and is bound to carry
out the church's aims. The subject of "Church and State" was not the theme of the
book, and it is not easy to extract from it a strictly consistent theory of their
relations (see Reuter, pp. 125–150, 380–392). But these relations were the question
of the future, and in the de Civitate Augustine laid the theoretical foundation
for the medieval system (see also below, § 16 ad fin.). The modifying ideas
alluded to above were not forgotten, but their assertion was the work of the opponents
of the medieval hierocracy; and Dante, de Monarchia, is practically a reversal
of the characteristic doctrine of the de Civitate Dei, after that doctrine,
tested by being put into practice, has been found to lead to unchristian results.
One unchristian corollary of Augustine's doctrine was the persecution of heretics
as a duty of the Christian state. In his earlier days Augustine disapproved of this
(contr. Ep. Man. 1–3; Ep. 23, 7; 93, 2, 5, etc.); but the stress of
the Donatist controversy changed his mind; in the interest of the doubtful, the
weak, the generations to come, he found a sanction for persecution in St.
§ 10. The Pelagian Controversy (412–430).—Augustine, in his first days
as a Christian, held the common view that, while the grace of God is necessary to
the salvation of man, the first step, the act of faith, by which man gains
access to grace, is the act of man, and not itself the gift of God (de Praed.
III. 7). This view is manifest in the Expos. Propos. in Rom. 13–18, 55, etc.,
and traceable in de Quaest. LXXXIII., qu. 68 and 83). He came to see that
faith itself is the gift of God, and that the very first step to Godward must be
of God's doing, not of our own. This conviction was not due to reaction against
Pelagianism; on the contrary, Pelagius himself was roused to contradiction by Augustine's
language in his Confessions: "Domine da quod jubes"
(see de Don. Persev. 53). Augustine's change of mind was directly and wholly
due to his study of St. Paul (see above, § 7 b); partly his wrestling with
the difficulties of the Ep. to the Romans; but especially his reflection on St.
Paul's question (
(a) 410–417.—Pelagius, offended at a passage in Augustine's Confessions (see above), began at Rome (405–409) to express his disapproval of such an insistence upon Divine grace as should undermine human responsibility. Before the siege of Rome (supra, § 9) he left with his friend Coelestius for Africa; there Pelagius left Coelestius, and went to Palestine. Coelestius sought ordination at Carthage, and thus attracted additional attention to his doctrines. A council of bishops in 412 condemned him; he went away to Ephesus, and there he was ordained. Subsequently he went to Constantinople and (417) to Rome. Meanwhile, opposed by Jerome in Palestine, Pelagius was found not guilty of heresy by John, bp. of Jerusalem, and by councils at Jerusalem and Diospolis (415). He dispatched to Rome (417) a confession of faith to be submitted to Innocentius: it arrived after that bishop's death. Coelestius shortly afterwards (still in 417) arrived at Rome, and submitted his confession of faith to the new bp. Zosimus. Augustine appears to have been partly aware of the opinions of Pelagius before his arrival in Africa (see de Gest. Pel. 46; also probably through Paulinus of Nola, see de Grat. Christi, 38), but he appears to have attached little importance to them at the time; and the arrival of Pelagius found him in the very thick of other questions (see above, §§ 8, 9). He alludes to the Pelagian doctrines (without any mention of names) in preaching (Serm. 170, 174, 175), but took no part in the proceedings at Carthage in 412. But his friend Marcellinus (supra, § 9) pressed him for his opinion upon the questions there discussed, and his first anti-Pelagian writings (A.D. 412, de Pecc. Meritis et Remiss. lib. III., and de Spiritu et Litera) were addressed to him. In 415 he wrote de Natura et Gratia, and probably the tract, in the form of a letter to Eutropius and Paulus, de Perfectione Justitiae Hominis, in refutation of the propositions of Coelestius in 412; in 417 he wrote de Gestis Pelagii, a discussion of the proceedings in Palestine above referred to. Augustine and the African bishops, who had been represented in Palestine not only by Jerome, but by Orosius, fresh from Hippo, were naturally dismayed at what had happened there. They knew that Pelagius and Coelestius were likely to address themselves to Rome, where they had a strong following (Ep. 177, 2). Accordingly councils at Carthage and at Milevis, at the latter of which Augustine was present, wrote to urge Innocentius to support them against the "alleged" decision of the Palestinian councils, either by reclaiming the heretics or by adding the authority of his see to their condemnation. A letter carefully explaining the doctrinal issue was also sent by Aurelius of Carthage, Augustine, Alypius, Possidius, and Evodius (see above, §§ 6, 7). Augustine certainly drew up the latter two (Epp. 176, 177), and his inspiration is also manifest in the Carthaginian letter. Innocent, unable to conceal his satisfaction at so important an appeal to his authority (he assumes that the African bishops, though they do not refer to them, are not unacquainted with the "instituta patrum," which direct that nothing shall be done in any province of the church without reference to the Apostolic See; Epp. 1811, 1812; see below, § 12, c), responded cordially with a prompt condemnation of Pelagianism, root and branch. Augustine was triumphant. The unfortunate proceedings of Diospolis were more than neutralized. Preaching on Sunday, Sept. 23, 417, he says: "Jam enim de hac causa duo concilia missa sent ad sedem Apostolicam, inde etiam rescripta venerunt. Causa finita est; utinam aliquando finiatur error" (Serm. 131). But the author of the rescripta was already dead six months before, and there was need of another council. The cause was not "finished" yet.
(b) Zosimus. Julian (418–430). Zosimus, the new bp. of Rome (see
D. C. B. 4-vol. ed. s.v.), was favourably impressed with the confessions
of faith submitted by Pelagius and Coelestius, as well as by their deference to
his authority. He pronounced them orthodox, and twice wrote indignantly to Aurelius
and the Africans for their hasty condemnation of the accused in their absence. He
adds that he has admonished Coelestius and others to abstain from curious and unedifying
questions. But the original accusers of Pelagius were unmoved. After some correspondence
with Zosimus they held a plenary council at Carthage (May 418), in which they passed
nine dogmatic canons condemning the characteristic Pelagian theses. Meanwhile, Aurelius
had been taking more practical steps. A rescript in the emperor's name (Honorius
was here, as in the Donatist question, the passive instrument of his advisers, probably
count Valerius, whose ear Aurelius gained—"secuta est clementia
nostra judicium sanctitatis tuae," Honorius writes in 419) ordered the banishment
of Pelagius, Coelestius, and all their
The most able advocate of Pelagianism now appears in the person of Julian, bp. of Eclanum in Southern Italy. He refused to sign the tractoria, accused Zosimus of changing his front under imperial pressure ("jussionis terrore perculsos," c. Duas Epp. Pelag. ii. 3), and appealed to a general council. This appeal came to nothing (ib. iv. 34). Julian was deposed by Zosimus, banished by the Government, and took refuge in the East. He is said to have found a friend in Theodore of Mopsuestia. At any rate, in 431 the Westerns secured the condemnation of Pelagianism (without specification of its tenets) along with Nestorianism at the council of Ephesus, on the ground of the kindred nature of the two heresies. This was not without substantial reason. The two heresies rest upon the same fundamental idea of the benefit which the redemptive work of Christ brings to man—viz. moral improvement by perfect teaching and example, rather than atonement for an inherently guilty race ("ut vel sero redamaremus eum," Julian in Op. Imperf. I. xciv.). Augustine continued to write against Pelagianism. In 418 he wrote two books, de Gratia Christi et de Peccato Originali; in the two following years the two books de Nuptiis et Concupiscentia, and four de Anima ejusque Origine. These works bore on the transmission of original sin, and the difficult collateral question of the origin of the soul, whether by direct creation or ex traduce. Tertullian had roundly maintained tradux animae, tradux peccati. Pelagius denied both. Augustine cannot decide the question; he half leans to creation, but his theory appears to require the other alternative (see below, § 15). Julian attacked the de Nuptiis hotly. Augustine's four books, contra Duas Epp. Pelagianorum (420) are in reply to Julian on this as well as on the historical questions; they were followed by six books contra Julianum (about 421). Julian replied with vigour, and Augustine at the time of his death had only finished six books of a rejoinder which he intended to be complete (Opus Imperfectum).
(c) The semi-Pelagians (from about 426).—In the combat with Pelagianism, Augustine cannot be said to have changed his views (supra, § 10, sub init.); but he stated, with increasing clearness and sharper consistency, opinions which he had gathered from his study of St. Paul long before the combat began. These opinions were new to most churchmen, although reaction from the paradoxes of Pelagius, and Augustine's immense authority throughout the Latin church, gained them widespread acceptance. But there were, especially in monastic circles, grave misgivings as to their soundness. The three points to which most serious objection was felt were the doctrines of the total depravity of fallen man, of irresistible grace, and of absolute predestination, not on the ground of foreseen merit. The Christian, as taught by Augustine, received instruction, baptism, the subsequent beneficia gratiae which went to build up the Christian life and train the soul for its eternal home. But the success or failure, the permanent value of the whole process, depended upon the crowning beneficium gratiae, the Donum Perseverantiae, which even at the very moment of death decides whether the soul departs in Christ or falls from Him. This awful gift, which alone decides between the saved and the lost, may be withheld from many who have lived as good and sincere Christians: it may be granted to those whose lives have been far from Christ. Its giving or withholding depends upon the Divine predestination only; God's foreknowledge of those who will "persevere" is but His own foreknowledge of what He Himself will give or withhold. Only the foreknown in this sense are called with vocatio congrua. If these doctrines were true, if free will was by itself entirely powerless to accept the Divine call or to reject the vocatio congrua, if man's salvation at bottom depended simply and solely upon the Divine predestination, what appeal was possible to the conscience of the wicked (correptio)? Was not preaching deprived of its raison d’étre?
This was the view of John Cassian, the father of Western monachism, and of Vincent and other monks of Lerins on the southern coast of Gaul. These "semi-Pelagians," who may with equal justice be called "semi-Augustinians," were not a sect outside the church, but a party of dissentient Catholics. Excepting the above-mentioned points and certain obvious corollaries, such as the doctrine of "particular" redemption, they accepted the entire Augustinian position. The controversy, which is in reality insoluble, lasted long after Augustine's death. Temporarily laid to rest at Orange (where a modified Augustinianism was adopted by a small council in 529), it burst out again in the Gottschalk troubles in the 9th cent., it ranged the Scotists against the Thomists in the 13th, the Arminians against the Calvinists, the Jesuits against the Jansenists in the 17th. Intellectually it is a case of an "antinomy," in which from obvious truths we are led by irresistible logic to incompatible conclusions. Morally, our crux is to insist on human responsibility while excluding human merit. The religious instinct of deep and genuine self-accusation is not easy to combine with the unreserved acknowledgment that we have no power of ourselves to help ourselves. We must, with Cassian, appeal to free will from the pulpit, but Augustine is with us in the secret sanctuary of prayer.
Augustine's attention was drawn to these difficulties by Hilary and Prosper of
Aquitaine, the latter the most active, and indeed bitter, opponent of the
Ingrati, as he calls Cassian and his friends. The
works de Gratis et Libero
(d) The Doctrinal Issues.—Pelagianism split upon the rock of infant baptism. Had this practice not become general by the time when Pelagius arose, Augustine would have had to combat him by arguments which churchmen at large would have found difficulty in following. As it was, to the question, "Why"—if Adam's sin directly affected himself only, and extended to his descendants non propagine sed exemplo—"why, then, are infants baptized?" Pelagius had no satisfactory reply. His answer, that the unbaptized infant is excluded, not from eternal life, but only from the kingdom of heaven, was a relic of Milleniarism with which the Eastern church had even less sympathy than the West. Pelagius allowed that man can do no good thing without the grace of God. But his conception of grace was loose and shallow; practically it went back to the general providence of God, which supplies our temporal and spiritual wants alike. His assertion that a sinless life was not only possible, but was actually lived by many of the holy men of the Bible, was in direct conflict with the promptings of a deep religious sense (de Nat. et Grat. xxxvi. 42). His conception of the beneficium Christi (supra, b, c) was shallow and unsatisfying. Pelagius was an ardent churchman, a strict ascetic, and a believer in sacramental grace. The earlier church had reflected but little on the questions raised by him. "Unde factum est ut de gratia Dei quid sentirent breviter ac transeuntes attingerent." Free will equipped with sacraments, the Christian religion a "New Law," predestination founded upon prescience, fairly represent the implicit pre-Augustinian view of the Christian life and its relation to the mystery of Divine election. Augustine pressed Pelagius with the implications of sacramental grace. If free will is as complete as Pelagius believed, sacraments are in reality superfluous as means of grace. If sacramental grace is as real as Pelagius admitted it to be, then man depends for his salvation not upon his own free will, but upon the gift of God. Augustine, assuming the church doctrine of sacramental grace, gave it a deeper meaning and a wider context, and brought it into close relation with the almost forgotten Pauline categories of sin, faith, justification, and the gratia Christi (see Reuter, pp. 40–45). It was formerly thought (by Baur and others) that Augustine's antagonism to Pelagius was dictated by his conception of the church and the sacraments, especially of baptism. This we have seen to be incorrect. As a matter of fact, Pelagius was, as the proceedings at Diospolis shew, hard to convict of heresy on merely ecclesiastical grounds. The theological principles which Augustine brought to the analysis of ecclesiastical practice, and to the refutation of Pelagianism, he had learned from St. Paul at first hand. Pelagius appealed to the naïve language of churchmen before him, who as Augustine says, "Pelagianis nondum litigantibus securius loquebantur." Augustine shewed that the accord was superficial, and that if Pelagius were right, the church and the positive religion of Christ had only a relative value. Moreover, it was impossible for the Pelagians to argue out their case without exposing themselves to an array of damaging quotations from recognized Fathers of the church (c. Julian. I. II.). And it is impossible to deny that Augustine, in the points at issue with the semi-Pelagians, was following out the strict logical consequences of the elementary truths which Pelagius and Julian denied. He admits frankly, in this as in some other questions, that he had changed his mind, plenius sapere coepi, but he again and again protests that he is merely defending the doctrine which nunquam Ecclesia Christi non habuit (i.e. predestination, de Don. Persev. xiv. 36, etc.).
This is certainly sincere, but also certainly incorrect, so far as concerns the formal assertion of absolute predestination, irresistible grace, and total depravity. And it must further be noted that the doctrine of predestination is, logically at least, as subversive of the worth of church and sacraments as is the Pelagian doctrine of human nature (see below, § 16, c). Probably neither Augustine nor the Pelagians were conscious of the full consequences of their position—the naturalism of the one and the transcendentalism of the other were alike tempered by common church teaching. But the ecclesiastical instinct has generally been (in spite of the rapier-thrusts of a Pascal) to seek some illogical via media between the Augustinian and the semi-Pelagian (itself an illogical) position. Instinct in such a matter is perhaps a safer guide than logic. But it is important to bear in mind that in rejecting Pelagianism the whole church, Augustinian and semi-Pelagian alike, were as one. [Pelagianism.]
§ 11. Augustine and Greek Christendom.—The last sentence may seem questionable
so far as the Greek-speaking churches were concerned. But we must remember that
Coelestius found no welcome at Constantinople, that Augustine not only wrote (Ep.
179) to bp. John of Jerusalem to warn him of Pelagius's errors, but also quotes
John's arguments as decisive against Pelagianism (
§ 12. Augustine and the Constitution of the Church. The Roman See.—Augustine's view of the relation of the church to the civil power (see above, § 9) prepared the way for the medieval system. But in Augustine's hands the theory lacked elements indispensable for its practical application. Not only did his conception of the church hover between the transcendental spiritual ideal and the empirical, tangible organization, but his conception of the organization of the visible church itself lacked that practical precision without which the church could assert no effective claim to control the secular arm. To the authority of the church he surrendered himself with passionate affection. "I should not believe in the Gospel," he wrote in the early days of his episcopate, "did not the authority of the Catholic church compel me" (c. Ep. Fund. 6, in A.D. 397). But this was the immanent authority which the church by her life, creed, and worship exercised upon his soul, rather than her official decisions. These, again, he accepted with all his heart. But what was the ultimate organ of the church's authority? Where was its centre? What was the final standard of appeal? To these questions it is hard to obtain from Augustine a definite answer. Augustine was not an ecclesiastical statesman. His interest was above all in personal religion, and therefore, in a secondary degree, in doctrine and discipline. Although he takes for granted the Cyprianic view of the episcopal office, he does not insist upon it with special emphasis; he emphasises, on the other hand, in a marked manner, the universal priesthood of Christians. His insistence on the indelible character of the priestly ordination is not in the interest of "sacerdotalism," but as against the spiritual value of valid but schismatical orders (supra, § 8, c). He accepts the authority of Nicaea (the only strictly general council known to him), but as to the authority of other councils his language is ambiguous. He disallows Julian's appeal to a general council on the ground that "the cause is finished" by "a competent judgment of bishops" (c. Jul. III. 5). But in another passage (supra, § 10, a, fin.) he is understood to say, "the cause is finished" by two African councils, plus "rescripts from the apostolic see." What is his real view of the supreme organ of church authority?
(a) The Apostles in their lifetime were the leaders, "principes"
(
(c) The Episcopate and the Roman See.—The Roman see was Apostolica sedes, not exclusively (c. Faust. xi. x.; de Doct. Christ. II. viii. 12), but conspicuously. This implied a pre-eminence of rank, at any rate over sees not "Apostolic" (Ep. 434, "Rom. ecclesiae, in qua semper Apostolicae Cathedrae viguit principatus"; c. Jul. I. iv. 13, prior loco; c. Dual Epp. Pel. I. i. 2 [to pope Bonifatius], "quamvis ipse in ea [sc. communi specula pastorali] praeemineas celsiore fastigio," and ib. I. "qui non alta sapis quamvis altius praesideas". But in none of the passages where this is fully recognized is any definite authority assigned to the "apostolic see." Peter was first of the Apostles, superior to any bishop (even to Cyprian, de Bapt. III. i.–2); but he is simply the representative of the Apostles, nor does Augustine ascribe to him authority over the others (see Serm. 4630), and the same applies to his estimate of Peter's successors.
Augustine's own instinct towards Rome is one of unbounded respect. Towards the end of his life (about 423) he had to remove, for obvious unfitness, Antonius, the bishop of the newly-created see of Fussala, a daughter-church of Hippo (Ep. 209). Antonius, like Apiarius (of whom presently), and possibly encouraged, like others (ib.8), by his example, decided to try his fortune at Rome. He obtained from the senior bp. of Numidia a favourable verdict and an introduction to Bonifatius, who was, prima facie, inclined to take up his cause, and wrote to that effect. But Bonifatius died (422), and his successor Coelestinus had to deal with the case. Rumours reached Fussala that he would insist on the restoration of Antonius, and that the Government would support him by military force. Augustine, in fear lest the people of Fussala should go back en masse to the Donatists, writes to Coelestinus to entreat his support. He entreats him by the memory of St. Peter, "who warned the praepositi of Christian peoples not to domineer over their brethren" (ib. 9). The case is an interesting one, but it loses some of its importance in view of the fact that the African church was then still bound by voluntary promise, pending inquiry into the genuineness of an alleged Nicene canon to that effect, to allow appeals to Rome by bishops. The promise arose out of the famous case of Apiarius. This presbyter was deposed by Augustine 's friend and pupil Urbanus, bp. of Sicca, and appealed to Zosimus, bp. of Rome. Zosimus had hastily taken his side and ordered his restoration. Urbanus refused, both on the merits of the case, which he knew and Zosimus did not, and also on the ground that Zosimus had no right to interfere. This was the real question at issue. Zosimus first wrote (418), basing his right to interfere on the canons of Nicaea. As the African bishops found no such provision in their copy of the canons, they postponed the matter for further verification of the true text, promising meanwhile (paulisper) to act (without prejudice) on the assumption that the alleged canon was genuine. In reply, Zosimus sent three legates—Faustinus, bp. of Potentia in Picenum, and the presbyters Philip and Asellus—to Carthage, with written and oral instructions. The written instructions (commonitorium) comprised four points (Bruns Canones, I. 197): (1) the right of the Roman See to receive appeals from bishops (see Can. Sard. Lat. 3, 4); (2) bishops not to go over the sea to court (i.e. from Africa) "importune" (ib. 8); (3) presbyters and deacons excommunicated by their bishop to have an appeal to finitimi episcopi (ib. 17); (4) Urbanus to be excommunicated, "or even cited to Rome." Of these points, (2) betrays the soreness of Zosimus at the way in which Aurelius had forced his hand (supra, § 10, b); (4) hangs upon (1); (3) is necessary in order to bring the case of Apiarius, who was not a bishop, somehow under the scope of the pretended Nicene canon relating to (1); the case of Apiarius would become a factor in that of Urbanus, which Zosimus would, by stretching the right of receiving appeals to a right of evocatio, claim to deal with under (1). A reference to the Sardican canons will shew how flimsy a foundation they offer for the claims founded upon them. But what is important to observe is that Zosimus, like Innocentius (supra, § 10, a), bases his right to interfere simply upon canonical authority. On neither side is there any notion of jurisdiction inherent in the Roman see prior to ecclesiastical legislation. If the alleged canon was genuinely Nicene, it established the jurisdiction; if not, the jurisdiction fell to the ground.
When Faustinus and his colleagues reached Africa, Zosimus had been succeeded
by Bonifatius. They were received by the plenary council of the African provinces
at Carthage (419). Alypius and Augustine were there, and joined in the proceedings
(Bruns, pp. 155 ff.). The council. cut short the verbal instructions of Faustinus
(ib. p. 197), and insisted upon hearing the commonitorium.
When it was read, and the canon on episcopal appeals was quoted, Alypius undertook
the invidious duty of pointing out that the Latin and the Greek copies of the Nicene
canons accessible at Carthage contained no such canon. He suggested that both sides
should obtain authentic copies from the bps. of Constantinople, Alexandria, and
Antioch. Meanwhile, the copies above referred to should be placed on the minutes;
but the alleged canon should be observed donec integra exemplaria
veniant. Augustine proposed a like action with regard to (3); the proposals
were unanimously carried, and accepted, though with no good grace, by Faustinus.
The council wrote to Bonifatius intimating their action (Bruns, pp. 196 f.), stating
how they had dealt with Apiarius, and complaining with dignity and firmness of the
insolence of Faustinus; which, they add, they believe and hope they will not, under
the new Roman bishop, be called upon to suffer. The signatures include those of
Augustine and Alypius. Six years later (425) an African council (Bruns, p. 200)
receive Faustinus once again. Coelestinus, now bp. of Rome, writes that "he has
been rejoiced by the coming of Apiarius," and with Faustinus, Apiarius once more
(d) The Roman See and the Final Doctrinal Authority.—Augustine
shews no jealousy of the power and prestige of the Roman see. On the contrary, he
regarded it as, in a special degree, the depository of apostolic tradition. What
degree of dogmatic authority did this imply? The principal data for answering this
question are connected with the Pelagian controversy (supra, § 10, a,
b). Innocentius certainly reads into the letters of the Africans (Aug. Epp.
175–177, see 181–183) a hyper-Sardican attitude towards his chair of which they
were innocent. But it is clear that the Africans attach the greatest importance
to his approbation of their decision, only they do not treat the doctrinal issue
as at all doubtful or subject to papal decision; on the contrary, in the private
letter (Ep. 1773, 6–9) which Augustine sends to ensure that Innocentius
shall not lack full information on the merits of the case, he takes for granted
that the ecclesiastica et apostolica veritas is already
certain. He assumes (with probable historical correctness) that the African church
owes its original tradition to Rome (ib.19); but both have their
source ("ex eodem capite") in the Apostolic tradition itself
(see Reuter, pp. 307–311). Augustine refers to Innocentius's reply in a letter to
Paulinus of Nola (Ep. 186). He treats it not as a doctrinal decision,
but as a splendid confirmation of a doctrine already certain (see Reuter,
p. 311). As a result, the Pelagians have definitely lost their case: "causa
finita est." Augustine uses this phrase twice: once (§ 10, a, fin.)
with reference to the African councils and the reply of Innocentius; once (see beginning
of this section) in 421 of the condemnation of Pelagianism by the
judicium episcoporum. With the latter passage we must
compare Ep. 19022 (written in 418), where the "adjutorium
Salvatoris qui suam tuetur ecclesiam" is connected with the "conciliorum
episcoporum vigilantia," not with the action of popes Innocentius and Zosimus.
At a much later date (426), reviewing the controversy as a whole, he speaks of the
whole cause as having been dealt with conciliis episcopalibus;
the letters of the Roman bishops are not dignified with separate mention (Ep.
2145). On the whole, these utterances are homogeneous. The prominence,
if any, assigned to the rescripta over the
concilia in Serm. 131, 10 (supra, §
10, a, fin.) is relative to a passing phase of the question. Its sense is,
moreover, wholly altered in the utterance invented for Augustine by some Roman Catholic
apologists: Roma locuta est, et causa finita est.
It occurred to no one in those days to put any bishop, even of an apostolic see,
above a council, although there are signs at Rome of a tendency to work the Sardican
canons in that direction. Augustine experienced, as we have seen, a signal, and
to him especially galling, papal blunder in the action of Zosimus with reference
to the Pelagians. The brunt of the correspondence with Zosimus at this painful crisis
apparently fell upon Aurelius and the bishops of his province (Afri. c. Duas
Epp. Pel. II. iii. 5), rather than upon Numidia, Augustine's own province. Augustine,
as compared with the African bishops, distinctly minimizes the indictment. Zosimus
had pronounced the libellus of Coelestius catholic.
Augustine explains this favourably, as referring not to his doctrine, but to his
profession of submission to correction; "voluntas emendationis,
non falsitas dogmatis approbata est." The action of Zosimus was well meant,
even if too lenient (lenius actum est. See also
de Pecc. Orig. vi. 7, vii. 8). The letter of the Afri, which was stern
and menacing in tone "Constituimus . . per venerabilem .
. . . Innocentium . . . prolatam manere sententiam," Prosp. adv.
Coll. v. 15) put an end to all hopes of compromise. Zosimus, however (c.
Duas Epp., u.s.), "never by a word, in the whole course of the proceedings,"
denied original sin. His faith was consistent throughout. Coelestius deceived
him for a time, but illam sedem usque ad finem fallere non potuit
(de Pecc. Orig. xxi. 24). "The Roman church, where he was so well known,
he could not deceive permanently" (ib. viii. 9). But there had been danger.
"Supposing—which God forbid!—the Roman church had gone back upon the sentence of
Innocentius and approved the dogmata condemned by
him, then it would be necessary rather [potius] to
brand the Roman clergy with the note of 'praevaricatio.'" Even in
contemplating the repellent possibility that the action of Rome had been
(e) Conclusion.—Augustine has no consistent theory of the ultimate organ of church authority, whether legislative, disciplinary, or dogmatic. This authority resides in the Episcopate, its content is the catholica veritas, and in practical matters the consuetudo or traditio. These are to be interpreted by the bishops acting in concert—especially in councils. The "regional" council is subordinate to the "plenary," the plenary council of the province to that of the whole church (de Bapt. V. xvii., VII., liii.; Ep. 43, 9; de Bapt. II. iii. 4); while of the latter, the earlier are subject to amendment by later councils. Even, then, with regard to the authority of councils there is no real finality; Augustine sees, like Julius of Rome in 340 (see the writer's Roman Claims to Supremacy, iii. ad fin.), no remedy but the revision of earlier councils by later. Clearly we have here no complete system of thought. Augustine falls back on the sensus catholicus, a real and valuable criterion, but not easy to bring within a logical definition. The church is infallible, but he cannot point to an absolutely infallible organ of her authority. By his very vagueness on this point, Augustine practically paved the way for the future centralization of infallible authority in the papacy (on the whole question, see Reuter, pp. 329–355; and below, § 16, b).
§ 13. Death and Character.—Augustine died on Aug 28, 430. Clouds were thickening over his country and church. The Vandals, invited by the error, too late discovered, of Augustine's friend count Bonifatius (see Ep. 220), welcomed by the fierce Moors and the persecuted Donatists, had swept Numidia and Africa. Carthage, Cirta, and Hippo alone remained untaken (Possid. xxviii.). Bonifatius, routed by Gaiseric, was besieged by him in Hippo itself. Augustine had exhorted all bishops, so long as they had any flocks to minister to, to remain at their posts (Ep. 228; Possid. xxx.); but many, whose dioceses were swept away, took refuge, like Possidius himself, at Hippo. Up to the time of his death, during three months of the siege, Augustine was working at his unfinished refutation of Julian. He prayed, so he told his friends at table, that God would either see fit to deliver the city, or fortify His servants to bear His will, or at any rate would take him out of this world to Himself. In the third month he was attacked by fever. Now, as on other marked occasions (Possid. xxix.), his prayer was heard. He healed a sick man who came to him as he lay upon his death-bed. He had a copy of the Penitential Psalms written out, and fixed to the wall opposite his bed. For ten days, at his special request, he was left alone, except when the physician came or food was brought. He spent his whole time in prayer, and died in the presence of his praying friends, in a green old age, with hearing, sight, and all his bodily faculties unimpaired. The Sacrifice was offered and he was buried. He left no will, nor any personal property. His books he had given to the church to be kept for ever; fortunately, they survived when Hippo was destroyed by the Vandals; his writings, says Possidius, "will for ever keep his character fresh in the minds of his readers, yet not even they will supply, to those who knew him, the place of his voice and his presence. For he was one who fulfilled the word of St. James: 'So speak ye, and so do.'" He had lived 76 years, and nearly 40 in the ranks of the clergy. Till his last illness he had preached regularly. His arbitration was greatly in request, on the part both of churchmen and non-churchmen. He gladly aided all, taking opportunity when he could to speak to them for the good of their souls. For criminals, he would intercede with discrimination and tact, and rarely without success. He attended councils whenever he could, and in these, as in the ordination of bishops and clergy, he was conspicuously conscientious. In dress and furniture he followed a just mean between luxury and shabbiness; his table was spare, his diet mainly vegetarian, though meat was there for visitors or for infirmiores. Wine he always drank. His spoons were silver, but his other vessels wood, earthenware, or marble. His hospitality never failed: his meals were made enjoyable, not by feasting and carousing, but by reading or conversation. Ill-natured gossip he sternly repressed. He had this motto conspicuously displayed
He sharply rebuked even bishops for breaches of this excellent
rule. He freely spent upon the poor both the income of his see and the alms of the
faithful. To ill-natured grumblings about the wealth of his see, he replied that
he would gladly resign all the episcopal estates, if the people would support him
and his brethren wholly by their offerings. "Sed nunquam id laici
suscipere voluerunt." The whole management of the property of the see was
entrusted to the more capable clergy in rotation, subject only to an annual report
to himself. He would never increase the estate by purchase, but he accepted bequests.
Only he refused them if he thought they entailed hardship upon the natural heirs.
He felt but little interest in such affairs—his part was that of Mary, not that
of Martha. Even building he left to his clergy, only interfering if the plans seemed
extravagant. If the annual accounts shewed a deficit, he would announce to the Christian
people that he had nothing left to spend on the poor. Sometimes he would have church
plate melted to relieve the poor or ransom prisoners. His clergy lived with him,
and no one who joined them was permitted to retain any property of his own. If one
of them swore at table, one of the regulation number of cups of wine (these were
strictly limited, even for visitors) was cut off by way of fine. Women, even near
relatives, were excluded.
Without doubt Augustine is the most commanding religious personality of the early church. No Christian writer since the apostolic age has bequeathed to us so deep an insight into the working of a character penetrated with the love of God, none has struck deeper into the heart of religion in man.
C. Influence.—§ 14. Retractations
and Other Writings.—Shortly before his last illness (Possid. xxviii.) he went
over all his writings, noting points, especially in the earlier books, which he
would wish amended. The result is his two books of Retractationes, which,
from the chronological order, and the mention of the circumstances which elicited
the several writings, places the literary history of St. Augustine on an exceptionally
sure footing. He enumerates, characterizes, and identifies by the first words, two
hundred and thirty-two books. His letters and sermons he mentions collectively,
but he did not live to reconsider them in detail. Possidius includes most of them
in the indiculus of Augustine's works appended to
the Life; but it is not always easy to identify them by the titles he employs. Some
of the letters, however, are counted as "books" in the Retractations, while
the books de Unitate Ecclesiae, de Bono Viduitatis ad Julianum, and de
Perfectione Justitiae are passed over (being reckoned as letters) in the
Retractations. The Sermons are not chronologically arranged in the Bened.
ed.; some are duplicate recensions of the same discourse. Augustine preached extempore,
but with careful preparation (de Cat. Rud. 2, 3); his words were taken down
by shorthand, or else dictated by himself. On one occasion we read (Possid. xv.)
that he abandoned his prepared matter and spoke on another subject, with the result
of the conversion of a Manichean who happened to be present. His homilies (tractatus)
on St. John, and on the "Epistle of John to the Parthians" (i.e.
Many of his works have been already mentioned in connexion with the occasion
of their production. For a full list of other writings, see D. C. B. (4-vol.
ed.), s.v., and the art. of Loofs referred to below. But one or two of special
importance must be briefly characterized. He accomplished by 415 the task, his first
attempt at which had failed, of a commentary on Genesis ad literam (Retr.
II. xxiv.; cf. I. xviii., and supra, § 7, b). But even now, he claims
to have reached only problematical results. The de Catechizandis Rudibus
(c. 400) gives a syllabus of the course for catechumens, with hints as to
effective method in their instruction. It is full of wisdom, and suggestive to all
engaged in teaching. The de Spiritu et Litera (supra, § 10) was supplemented
(c. 413) by the book de Fide et Operibus, in which he deals with the
obligations of the Christian life, insisting that faith cannot save us without charity.
Here occurs the often quoted reference to the Lord's Prayer as the
quotidiana medela for sins not demanding public penance
(xxvi. 48), nor even fraternal rebuke (correptio,
Of Augustine as a writer, Gibbon says "His style, though sometimes animated by the eloquence of passion, is usually clouded by false and affected rhetoric." This verdict would gain in justice if the words "usually" and "sometimes" were transposed. Augustine had indeed learned and taught rhetoric to some purpose; but tried by Aristotle's criterion—the revelation of character—Augustine stands far above the category of rhetorical writers. He rarely or never spends words upon mere effect. He is always intent upon bringing home to his hearers or readers things which he feels to be momentously real. He handles subjects of intimate and vital interest to the human spirit. And whether he is right or wrong, his deep feeling cannot fail to kindle the hearts of those who read him.
§ 15. Asceticism. Estimate of Poverty and Riches.—Among the attractions
which Manicheism had for Augustine in his youth, the strict continency supposed
to prevail among the perfecti (supra, § 4)
had been prominent. His whole early experience had led him to regard sexual temptation
as the great ordeal of life. Disillusioned with the perfecti, he was fired
with the ideals of Catholic monasticism (§ 6), and one of his earliest resolves
at the time of his conversion was to forswear for ever even lawful marriage. The
whole drift of Christian feeling at that period was in this direction. The influence
of Ambrose, the horror of representative churchmen at the anti-monastic tenets of
Jovinian and Vigilantius, the low tone even of nominally Christian society in an
age of degenerate civilization, all tended to fix in him the conviction, exemplified
Augustine had occasion (Ep. 211) to address a long letter to his nuns, giving directions for the abatement of evils incidental to the common life, and for the regulation of their prayers, food, costume, and other details. This letter, a model of good sense and right-mindedness, is the basis of the "Regula" for monks printed among his works. This Rule is therefore an adaptation of Augustine's actual counsels, but can hardly be from his own hand. It has been much valued by monastic reformers, and was the basis of the rules of St. Norbet, of St. Dominic (1216), and of the different communities of "canons regular" and friars which have borne the title of "Augustinian" (from 1244).
It will be noticed that Augustine's theory of property is vitiated by the assumption
that
§ 16. Intellectual Influence on Christian Posterity.—The diverse influences which met in Augustine, held together rather than fused into unison by the strength of his superb personality, parted in after-times into often conflicting streams. It has been said with truth (Loofs) that three primary elements determine Augustine's complex realm of ideas: his neo-Platonist philosophical training (supra, § 5), his profound Biblical studies (§§ 7, b, 10, init.), and his position as an officer of the church. In combinations which we can in part analyse, these elements, given the Augustine of A.D. 387, go to constitute Augustine as he became—the greatest of the Latin doctors, the pioneer of modern Christianity—in his threefold significance for the church of all time. Augustine is (a) the prince of theists, (b) the incomparable type of reasoned devotion to the Catholic church, and (c) the founder of the theology of sin and grace.
(a) Theistic Transcendentalism.—The passion of theism was the core
of his personal religion. His was an experimental theism, a theism of the heart.
The often quoted words, "Tu Domine fecisti nos ad te, et inquietum
est cor nostrum donec requiescat in te" (Conf. I. i.), sum up his
inmost personal experience. This is, above all, what Augustine found in the Psalms,
which were his introduction to the deeper study of Scripture (supra, § 6).
"Mihi autem adhaerere Deo bonum est" (
From this point of view we can partly understand Augustine's famous conception of the universality of the Christian Religion. This he insists on in his letter to Deogratias (Ep. 102) contra Paganos. At all times, he writes, since the world began, the same faith has been revealed to men, at one time more obscurely, at another more plainly, as the circumstances altered; but what we now call the Christian religion is but the clearest revelation of a religion as old as the world. Never has its offer of salvation been withheld from those who were worthy of it (see references, Reuter, p. 91 n), even though they may not be (like Job, etc.) mentioned in the sacred record. Such men, who followed His commands (however unconsciously), were implicit believers in Christ. The changing (and therefore semi-real) form represents the one constant reality, the saving grace of God, revealed through the passion and resurrection of Christ (Ep. 18915).
(b) Catholic Churchmanship.—Of this we have already spoken (§ 8).
Augustine was not the first to formulate belief in the Holy Catholic Church; but
no one before him had reflected so deeply, or expressed himself with such inimitable
tenderness and devotion, on
(c) Influence of his Doctrine of Grace.—Augustine's conception
of the church, little as it was modified in practice by his transcendental theory
of "Being" taken by itself, was more seriously affected by his predestinarian doctrine,
which his transcendentalism certainly tended to reinforce. Augustine had first found
salvation in the Catholic church (c. Ep. Fund. 6) in self-surrender to the
authority of Christ (c. Acad. III. 43: "mihi autem certum
est nusquam prorsus ab auctoritate Christi discedere," etc.). His whole religious
thought, founded upon his experience of the Catholic church, turned upon Christ
as its fountain-head and centre (see the passages collected by Reuter, pp. 19–25).
His whole being, and that of the church, was owing to the grace of Christ ("gratia
Dei per Christum, propter Christum," etc.); the
gratia Christi is the central idea of his theology.
We saw above (§ 10) by what steps he was led, from the inward recognition of the
sovereignty of grace in his personal life, to the logical conclusion that salvation
depends upon the Divine will irrespective of merit or of anything which takes place
on earth. Membership of the church, a holy life, use of the means of grace, may
be indispensable to the predestined; but they are in no sense conditions
of predestination, which is absolute. They depend on it, not it on them. Even the
historical work of Christ is secondary to the Divine purpose to save some and "pass
over" the rest of mankind. Hence, on the one hand, the doctrine of particular redemption
(for none perish for whom Christ died, Ep. 1694, while those predestined
ad interitum are "non ad vitam
aeternam sui sanguinis pretio comparati"—in Joh. Tr. xlvii. 11, 4),
on the other hand, a tendency to make the atonement not an efficient cause
of redemption but a proof (to the elect) of God's love: "ut ostenderet
Deus dilectionem suam," etc. (de Catech. Rud. 4; cf. Ep.
17715: "gratia Dei quae revelata est per passionem
et resurrectionem Christi"). The number of the predestined is irrevocably
fixed, and this certus numerus constitute the church
as it will be in the perfect Kingdom of God. The church on earth, viewed as it is
in God's sight, in its true "being," consists of the elect and of them alone. The
old Catholic axiom extra ecclesiam nulla salus thus
acquires a new and unlooked-for meaning out of the number of the elect there
is no salvation. This is the Augustinian doctrine of the communion of saints,
which stands in contrast with the externa communio
or visible church as the invisible reality with the semi-real phenomenon. The distinction
is not quite identical with the familiar distinction of wheat and tares, nominal
and real Christians; for even real Christians have no certainty that they are "elect."
The donum perseverantiae, which is as absolutely unmerited
as that of faith, and is, in fact, the turning-point of the whole predestinarian
scheme, may fail them (supra, § 10, c). In that case they are, after
all, vessels of wrath; while again it may be vouchsafed to others who are now but
nominal Christians, or not even that. When Augustine identifies the church with
the Kingdom of
To this side of Augustine's teaching applies the remark of Gibbon, that "the rigid system of Christianity which he framed or restored has been entertained with public applause and secret reluctance by the Latin church." In fact, as the ecclesiastical side of Augustine's thought supplied the inspiration for the medieval theocracy, so his predestinarian idea of the church furnished the theological foundation for most of the medieval counter-movements, especially those of Marsilius, of Wyclif, and of Hus; and the Zwinglian idea of an invisible church is little more than an isolation of this doctrine from the Catholic context which surrounded it in Augustine's own theology.
§ 17. Select Bibliography. (1) History of Publication.—Augustine's Retractationes, coupled with the Indiculus of Possidius, give a practically complete list of his authentic works and of the occasions of their composition and publication. During his lifetime they were widely multiplied in Latin Christendom (Possid. vii.); the Emendatiora Exempla, revised by himself, and bequeathed to the church of Hippo, were preserved through the disasters which overtook the town (ib. xviii.). The history of the study and literary influence of Augustine in after-times must be read in the histories of Christian doctrine. For the 11th cent. we have a useful investigation by Mirbt (pupil of Reuter), Die Stellung Augustins in der Publizistik des Gregorianischen Kirchenstreits (Leipz. 1888). The history of manuscript transmission may be read in the prefatory notes to the several treatises in the Benedictine ed., and in the Prolegomena to the instalments of Augustine's works that have so far been published in the Vienna Corpus Script. Eccles. Latinorum. The list of editions since the first by Amerbach (Basel, 1506) may be found in the article by Loofs (infra). The standard ed. is that by the Benedictines of St. Maur (see Kukula and Rottmanner in Hist. Phil. Transactions of the Vienna Academy, 1890–1892, and Tassin, Hist. lit. de la Congrég. de S. Maur., Brux. 1770), completed in 1690. The edition was by several hands, and was attacked fiercely by the opponents of Jansenism. This was perhaps inevitable in the attempt to make Augustine speak for himself. The principal points of attack were the Preface, by Mabillon, to the Tenth Volume, which its author revised under pressure, and the Index. The latter is a marvel of completeness, and many of its articles are in substance theological treatises. The Vita, mainly by Vaillant, is largely indebted to the contemporary work of Tillemont, the thirteenth vol. of whose Mémoires, a Life of St. Augustine, in 1075 pp., appeared after his death (1698). The Bened. ed. was reprinted at Venice, 1729–1735. The eleven vols. in folio were replaced in the next reprints (Venice, 1756–1769, Bassano, 1797–1807) by eighteen in quarto. The Paris reprint of Gaume (1836–1839) and that of Migne (in the Patr. Lat., vols. 32–46) return to the arrangement of eleven vols.; but in Migne some of the vols. are subdivided, and a twelfth of supplementary matter (Patr. Lat. 47) is added. This edition is better printed than many of the series, and is the most convenient for reference. Its text should be superseded by that of the Vienna Corpus; but at present only a portion of Augustine's works have appeared in this series (Confessions, de Civ. Dei, Letters, 1–133, Speculum, several exegetical works, anti-Manichean treatises, various anti-Pelagian works, and a vol. containing de Fid. et Symb., the Retractationes, and other works (1900); also the excerpts of Eugippius, an edition important for the light thrown by it on the text of Augustine).
(2) Editions of Separate Works.—We have a good edition of the de Civitate Dei, by Dombart (Trübner, 1863), and a more recent one of bks. xi. and xii., with intro., literal trans., and notes by Rev. H. Gee (Bell, 5s.), who has also ed. In Joannis Evang. Tract. xxiv.–xxvii. and lxvii.-lxxix. (1s. 6d. each, Bell), with trans. by Canon H. Brown; a number of smaller tracts, and the de Trinitate in the SS. Patr. Opusc. Selecta, by H. Hurter, S.J. (Innsbruck, Wagner); Anti-Pelagian Treatises, with valuable Introduction by Dr. Bright (Clarendon Press, 1880); de Catechis. Rud., by Krüger (in his Quellenschriften, 4, Frieburg, 1891); Confessions, by Pusey (Oxf. 1838), and Gaume (Paris, 1836, 12mo). The new ed. of Tract. in Joh. lxvii.-lxxix., by H. F. Stewart (Camb. 1900), has a translation and some admirably digested introductory matter.
(3) Translations.—The translations in the Oxford Library of the Fathers,
and in Clark's series (Edin. 1866–1872), are incorporated and supplied with useful
introductory matter in the Post-Nicene Library (ser. 1), ed. by Dr. Philip
Schaff (Buffalo, 1886–8). Three Anti-Pelagian Treatises, by Woods and Johnston
(D. Nutt, 1887). The Confessions, bks. i.–ix., are translated by Dr. Charles
Bigg (Methuen, 1897, with a most interesting Introduction). The extracts in this
article follow this translation. Another ed. by Temple Scott, with intro. by Mrs.
Meynell, is pub. by Mowbray (7s. 6d. net.), and follows Dr. Pusey's
trans. Dr. Hutchings trans. and ed. the Confessions
(4) Biographies.—In addition to that of Possidius, and those of the Benedictines and Tillemont mentioned above, see Remy Ceillier, Auteurs Sacrés, vols. 11 and 12; Acta Sanctorum: Aug. vol. 6; Poujoulat, Hist. de Saint Aug. (Paris, 1843); Böhringer, Aur. Aug. (2 ed., Stuttg. 1878); Naville, St. Aug.: Etude sur le développement de sa pensée, etc. (Geneva, 1872); Bindemann, der h. Aug. (3 vols., Berlin. 1844–1869); Harnack, Augustin's Confessionem (Giessen, 1888). The greater Church Histories, and works on Christian literature, deal fully with Augustine. A brochure, S. Augustine and African Church Divisions by the Rev. W. J. Sparrow Simpson, was pub. by Longmans in 1910. Of articles in Dictionaries, etc., we may mention those of de Pressensé, in D. C. B. (4-vol. ed.), which gives a very useful list of the contents of the several vols. of his works in the great Benedictine edition, and Loofs, in Herzog-Hauck's Real-Encyclopädie (Leipz. 1897), an article worthy of the writer's high reputation, and much used in the present article.
(5) Doctrinal and General.—For older literature, see the references to fuller bibliographies at the end. The Augustinische Studien of Hermann Reuter (Gotha, 1887), so frequently quoted above, are beyond comparison for thoroughness and impartiality, and indispensable. The histories of doctrine should be consulted. Harnack's treatment of Augustine (in his Dogmengeschichte, vol. 3) is among the most sympathetic and powerful portions of that work; the writer's instinctive appreciation of a great religious personality is nowhere more apparent than here. Loofs's Leitfaden is also most useful. Mozley, The Augustinian Doctrine of Predestination (3rd. ed. 1883); Nourrisson, La Philosophie de St. Augustin (Paris, 1886, 2 vols.); Bright, Lessons from the Lives of Three Great Fathers (ed. 2, Oxf. 1891); Cunningham, St. Austin (Hulsean Lectures, 1886); Bigg, Christian Platonists of Alexandria (Bampton Lectures, 1886; comparison of Aug. with Origen, etc.); Robertson, Regnum Dei (Bampton Lectures, No. 5); Dorner, Augustinus (Berlin, 1873); Gibb and Montgomery's ed. of the Confessions in the Camb. Patristic Texts, 1908, a valuable critical ed. with Introduction.
The above list is a mere selection. For more complete bibliography see Loofs (u.s.); Bardenhewer's Patrology, Dr. Shahan's trans. 1908, pub, by Herder, Freiburg i/B. and St. Louis, Mo.; Potthast, Bibliotheca Hist. Medii Aevi (ed. 2, I896), vol. ii. p. 1187 ; Chevallier, Répertoire des sources historiques; de Pressensé (u.s.); Nicene and Post-Nicene Libr., ser. 1, vol. i. A short popular Life of St. Augustine is pub. in their Fathers for Eng. Readers, by S.P.C.K., who also pub. an Eng. trans. of the Treatise on the City of God, by F. R. M. Hitchcock. Cheap trans. of the Confessions and the City of God (2 vols.) are in A. and M. Theol. Lib. (Griffith).
Augustinus, St., archbp. of Canterbury. The materials for the life of the first archbp. of Canterbury are almost entirely comprised in the first and second books of Bede's Ecclesiastical History, with some additional points in Gocelin's Life of St. Augustine, Thorn's Chronicles of St. Augustine's Abbey; a few letters of Gregory the Great; the Lives of Gregory the Great by Paul the Deacon and John the Deacon.
His mission to England was due to the circumstance of Gregory the Great, a monk in the monastery of St. Andrew, on the Caelian Mount at Rome, one day passing through the market-place of the city, and noticing three boys exposed for sale who told him they were Angles from Deira, a province of King Ella. By a playful interpretation of the word he was reminded of angels, delivered from wrath, with songs of hallelujah. Years passed away and the idea ripened into a mission to Britain headed by Augustine the abbot of St. Andrew's.
In the summer of A.D. 596 they set out, traversed the north of Italy, and reached the neighbourhood of Aix, in Provence, and the north of France. They crossed the English Channel and landed at Ebbe's Fleet, in the Isle of Thanet and kingdom of Kent.
King Ethelbert received the missionaries in a friendly spirit, either in the open space near Ebbe's Fleet, or, according to another account, under an ancient oak in the middle of the island. To make a deeper impression on the monarch's mind, Augustine came up from the shore in solemn procession, preceded by a verger carrying a large silver cross, and followed by one bearing aloft on a board, painted and gilded, a representation of the Saviour. Then came the rest of the brethren and the choir, headed by Honorius and the deacon Peter, chanting a solemn litany for the eternal welfare of themselves and the people amongst whom they had come. Ethelbert listened attentively to Augustine's address, delivered through interpreters, and then, in a manner at once politic and courteous, replied that the promises of the strangers were fair, but the tidings they announced were new and full of a meaning he did not understand. He could not give his assent to them and leave the customs of his people, but he promised the strangers kindness and hospitality, together with liberty to celebrate their services, and undertook that none of his subjects who might be so disposed should be prohibited from espousing their religion. Augustine and his companions again formed a procession, and crossing the ferry to Richborough, advanced to Canterbury, chanting one of the solemn litanies learnt from Gregory, and took up their abode in the Stable-gate, near the present church of St. Alphege, till the king should finally make up his mind.
Thus admitted into the city, the missionaries commended their message by their
self-devotion and pure and chaste living. Before long they were allowed to worship
in the church of St. Martin, which Ethelbert's Christian queen Bertha, a Gallic
princess with bp. Liudhard for her chaplain, had been accustomed to attend, and
they were thus encouraged to carry on their labours with renewed zeal. At last Ethelbert
avowed himself ready to accept Christianity, and was baptized
The conversion of their chief was, as is illustrated again and again in the history of medieval missions, the signal for the baptism of the tribe. At the next assembly, therefore, of the Witan, the matter was formally referred to the authorities of the kingdom, and they decided to follow the example of Ethelbert. Accordingly, on Dec. 25, 597, upwards of 10,000 received baptism in the waters of the Swale, at the mouth of the Medway, and thus sealed their acceptance of the new faith.
Thus successful in the immediate object of the mission, Augustine repaired to France, and was consecrated the first archbp. of Canterbury by Virgilius, the metropolitan of Arles. On his return he took up his abode in the wooden palace of Ethelbert, who retired to Reculver, and this, with an old British or Roman church hard by, became the nucleus of Augustine's cathedral. Another proof of the king's kindness was soon displayed. To the west of Canterbury, and midway between it and the church of St. Martin, was a building, once a British church but now used as a Saxon temple. This Ethelbert, instead of destroying, made over to the archbishop, who dedicated it to St. Pancras, in memory, probably, of the young Roman martyr on the tombs of whose family the monastery on the Caelian Mount at Rome had been built. Round this building now rose another monastery, at the head of which Augustine placed one of his companions, Peter, as its first abbot.
Before, however, these arrangements were completed, he sent Peter and Laurence to inform Gregory of the success of the mission.
Gregory was overjoyed at the receipt of the intelligence, and after an interval sent over a reinforcement of fresh labourers for the mission, amongst whom were Mellitus, Paulinus, and Justus. They brought ecclesiastical vestments, sacred vessels, some relics of apostles and martyrs, a present of books, and the pall of a metropolitan for Augustine himself, who was thus made independent of the bishops of France. In a lengthened epistle Gregory sketched out the course which the archbishop was to take in developing his work. London was to be his metropolitan see, and he was to consecrate twelve bishops as suffragans. Moreover, whenever Christianity had extended to York, he was to place there also a metropolitan with a like number of bishops under him. As to the British bishops, they were all entrusted to his care, "that the unlearned might be instructed, the weak strengthened by persuasion, the perverse corrected with authority." Augustine, thereupon, invited the British clergy to a conference on the confines of Wessex, near the Severn, under an oak, long after known as Augustine's oak. Prepared to make considerable concessions, he yet felt that three points did not admit of being sacrificed. He proposed that the British church should (1) conform to the Roman usage in the celebration of Easter; and (2) the rite of baptism; and (3) that they should aid him in evangelizing the heathen Saxons. The discussion was long and fruitless. At last the archbishop proposed that an appeal should be made to the Divine judgment. A blind Saxon was introduced, whom the British clergy were unable to cure. Augustine supplicated aid from above, and the man, we are told, forthwith recovered his sight.
Convinced but unwilling to alter their old customs, the vanquished party proposed another meeting. Seven British bishops met on this occasion, together with Dinoth, abbot of the great monastery of Bangor in Flintshire. Before the synod assembled, they proposed to ask the advice of an aged hermit whether they ought to change the traditions of their fathers. "Yes," replied the old man, "if the new-comer be a man of God?" "But how," they asked, "are we to know whether he be a man of God?" "The Lord hath said," was the reply, "'Take My yoke upon you and learn of Me, for I am meek and lowly.' Now if this Augustine is meek and lowly, be assured that be beareth the yoke of Christ." "Nay, but how are we to know this?" they asked again. "If he rises to meet you when ye approach," answered the hermit, "hear and follow him; but if he despise you, and fails to rise up from his place, let him also be despised by you." The synod met, and Augustine remained seated when they approached. It was enough. It was deemed clear that he had not the Spirit of Christ, and no efforts of the archbishop could induce the British clergy to yield to any of his demands. Thereupon Augustine broke up the conference with an angry threat that, if the British clergy would not accept peace with their brethren, they must look for war with their foes, and if they would not proclaim the way of life to the Saxons, they would suffer deadly vengeance at their hands. Thus, unsuccessful, Augustine returned to Canterbury, and there relaxed none of his efforts to evangelize the Saxon tribes. As all Kent had espoused the Faith, it was deemed advisable to erect a second bishopric at Rochester. Over it Augustine placed his companion Justus, and Ethelbert caused a cathedral to be built, which was named after St. Andrew, in memory of the monastery dedicated to that Apostle on the Caelian Hill at Rome, whence the missionaries had started. At the same time, through the connexion of the same monarch with the king of Essex, who was his nephew, Christianity found its way into the adjacent kingdom, and the archbishop was able to place Mellitus in the see of London, where Ethelbert built a church, dedicated to St. Paul.
This was the limit of Augustine's success. It fell, indeed, far short of Gregory's
grand design; but this had been formed on a very imperfect acquaintance with the
condition of the island, the strong natural prejudices of the British Christians,
and the relations which subsisted between the different Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. On
The most important modern authorities for the life of the first archbp. of Canterbury
are Montalambert, Monks of the West, iii.;
Aurelian, A.D. 270–275. The few facts which connect the name of this emperor with the history of the Christian church are as follows:—(1) he is said (Vopiscus, c. 20) to have reproached the Roman senate for not consulting the Sibylline books, as their fathers would have done, at a time of danger and perplexity. "It would seem," he said, "as if you were holding your meetings in a church of the Christians instead of in the temple of all the gods." The words clearly imply a half-formed suspicion that the decline of the old faith was caused by the progress of the new. The decree of Gallienus recognising Christianity as a religio licita had apparently stimulated church building. (2) Startled by the rapid progress of Christianity, Aurelian is said to have resolved towards the close of his reign on active measures for its repression. The edict of Gallienus was to be rescinded. A thrill of fear pervaded the Christian population of the empire. The emperor was surrounded by counsellors who urged on him a policy of persecution, but his death hindered the execution of his plans. (3) In the interval we find him connected, singularly enough, with the action of the church in a case of heresy. Paul of Samosata had been chosen as bp. of Antioch in A.D. 260. A synod of bishops including Firmilianus of the Cappadocian Caesarea, Gregory Thaumaturgus, and others, had condemned his teaching; but on receiving promises of amendment had left him in possession of the see. Another (A.D. 270) deposed him, and Domnus was appointed in his place. Paul refused to submit and kept possession of the episcopal residence. Such was the position of affairs at Antioch when Aurelian, having conquered Zenobia, became master of the city. The orthodox bishops appealed to the emperor to settle whose the property was, and he adjudged it to belong to those to whom the bishops in Italy and in Rome had addressed their epistles (Eus. H. E. viii. 27–30).
Aurelius, Marcus, emperor, A.D.
161–180. The policy adopted by Marcus Aurelius towards the Christian church cannot
be separated from the education which led him to embrace Stoicism, and the long
training which he had, after he had attracted the notice of Hadrian and been adopted
by Antoninus Pius, in the art of ruling. In the former he had learnt, as he records
with thankfulness, from his master Diognetus (Medit. i. 6), the temper of
incredulity as to alleged marvels, like those of seers and diviners. Under
Hadrian and
Antoninus
Pius he had acquiesced, at least,
in a policy of toleration, checking false accusations, requiring from the accusers
proof of some other crime than the mere profession of Christianity. It is, therefore,
startling to find that he takes his place in the list of persecutors along with
Nero and Domitian and Decius. The annals of martyrdom place in his reign the deaths
of Justin Martyr at Rome (A.D. 166),
of Polycarp at Smyrna (A.D. 167), of
Blandina and Pothinus and the other sufferers at Lyons (A.D.
177). The last-named year seems indeed to have witnessed an outburst of popular
fury against the new sect, and this could not have been allowed to rage without
the emperor's sanction, even if there were no special edicts like those of which
Melito speaks (Eus. H. E. iv. 26) directly authorizing new measures of repression.
It was accordingly an era of Apologies; Justin had led the way under Antoninus Pius,
and the second treatise that bears his name was probably written just before his
own martyrdom under Aurelius. To the years 177 and 178 are assigned those which
were written by Melito, Tatian, Athenagoras, Apollinaris, and Theophilus, perhaps
also that of Miltiades. The causes of this increased rigour are not difficult to
trace. (1) The upward progress of Christianity brought its teachers into rivalry
with the Stoic philosophers who up to this time, partly for good and partly for
evil, had occupied the position of spiritual directors in the families in which
there was any effort to rise out of the general debasement. They now found themselves
brought into contact with men of a purer morality and a nobler fortitude than their
own, and with a strange mysterious power which enabled them to succeed where others
failed. Just in proportion, therefore, as the emperor was true to his Stoicism was
he likely to be embittered against their rivals. (2) A trace of this bitterness
is found in his own Meditations (xi. 3). Just as Epictetus (Arrian, Epict.
iv. 7) had spoken of the "counterfeit apathy" which was the offspring not of true
wisdom, but "of madness or habit like that of the Galileans," so the emperor contrasts
the calm considerate preference of death to life, which he admired, with the "mere
obstinacy (παράταξις) of the Christians." "The
wise man," he says, "should meet death σεμνῶς καὶ
ἀτραγῴδως." The last word has, there seems reason to believe, a special significance.
Justin, towards the close of his second Apology, presented to this emperor, had
expressed a wish that some one would stand up, as on some lofty rostrum, and "cry
out with a tragic voice, Shame, shame on you who ascribe to innocent men
the things which ye do openly yourselves. . . . Repent ye, be converted to the ways
of purity and wisdom (Μετάθεσθε, σωφρονίσθητε)."
If we believe that his acts were in harmony with his words or that what he wrote
had come under the emperor's eye, it is natural to see in the words in which the
latter speaks so scornfully of the "tragic airs" of the Christians a reference to
what had burst so rudely upon his serene tranquillity. (3) The period was
one of ever-increasing calamities. The earthquakes which had alarmed Asia under
Antoninus were but the prelude to more serious convulsions. The Tiber rose to an
unprecedented height and swept away the public granaries. This was followed by a
famine, and that by a pestilence, which spread from Egypt and Ethiopia westward.
Everywhere on the frontiers there were murmurs of insurrection or invasion. The
year 166 was long known as the "annus calamitosus," and
Two apparent exceptions to this policy of repression have to be noticed. (1) One edition of the edict πρὸς τὸ κοινὸν της Ἀσίας, though ascribed by Eusebius (H. E. iv. 13) to Antoninus Pius, purports, as given by him, to come from Aurelius. But the edict is unquestionably spurious, and merely shows the wish of some Christians, at a later stage in the conflict, to claim the authority of the philosopher in favour of his brethren. (2) There is the decree mentioned by Eusebius (H. E. v. 5) on the authority of Tertullian (Apol. c. 5, ad Scap. c. 4, p. 208) and appended to Justin's first Apology, which purports to be addressed to the Senate, informing them how, when he and his army were in danger of perishing for want of water in the country of the Marcomanni, the Christians in his army had prayed to their God, and refreshing rain had fallen for them, and a destroying hail on their enemies, and bidding them therefore to refrain from all accusations against Christians as such, and ordering all who so accused them to be burnt alive. (Cf. Thundering Legion in D. C. B. 4-vol. ed.) The decree is manifestly spurious. An interesting monograph, M. Aurelius Antoninus als Freund und Zeitgenosse des Rabbis Jehudas ben Nasi, by Dr. A. Bodek (Leipz. 1868), may be noticed as maintaining that this emperor is identical with the Antoninus ben Ahasuerus, who is mentioned in the Talmud as on terms of intimacy with one of the leading Jewish teachers of the time. If this be accepted, it suggests another possible element in his scorn of Christianity. G. H. Rendal, Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, to Himself, Eng. trans. with valuable Intro. (Lond. 1898).
Ausonius, Decimus Magnus, a native of Bordeaux, was the son of Julius Ausonius, a physician of Cossium (Bazas), in Aquitania (Aus. Idyll. ii. 2). His poems, which are singularly communicative as to his private history, display him to us in riper years both as student and courtier, professor and prefect, poet and consul. At the age of 30 he was promoted to the chair of rhetoric in his native city, and not long after was invited to court by the then Christian emperor Valentinian I., who appointed him tutor to his son Gratian (Praef. ad Syagr. 15–26). Ausonius was held in high regard by the emperor and his sons and accompanied the former in his expedition, against the Alemanni. It was no doubt during the residence of the court at Trèves at this time that he composed his Mosella. From Valentinian he obtained the title of Comes and the office of Quaestor, and on the accession of Gratian became successively Prefect of Latium, Libya, and Gaul, and finally, A.D. 379, was raised to the consulship (Praef. ad Syagr. 35, etc.; Epigr. ii. iii., de fast.). After the death of Gratian, A.D. 383, although he seems to have enjoyed the favour of Theodosius (Praef. ad Theodos.), it is probable that he returned to the neighbourhood of his native city and spent the remainder of his life in studious retirement (Ep. xxiv.). His correspondence with Paulinus of Nola evidently belongs to these later years. The date of his death is unknown, but he was certainly alive in A.D. 388, as he rejoices in the victory of Theodosius over the murderer of Gratian at Aquileia (Clar. Urb. vii.).
The question of the poet's religion has always been a matter of dispute. Voss,
Cave, Heindrich, Muratori, etc., maintain that he was a pagan, while Jos. Scaliger,
Fabricius, Funccius, and later M. Ampère, uphold the contrary view. Without assenting
to the extreme opinion of Trithemius, who even makes him out to have held the see
of Bordeaux, we may safely pronounce in favour of his Christianity. The negative
view rests purely upon assumptions, such as that a Christian would not have been
guilty of the grossness with which some of his poems are stained, nor have been
on such intimate terms with prominent heathens (Symmach. Epp. ad Auson. passim),
nor have alluded so constantly to pagan rites and mythology without some expression
of disbelief. On the other hand, he was not only appointed tutor to the Christian
son of a Christian emperor, whom he seems at any rate to have instructed in the
Christian doctrine of prayer (Grat. Act. 43); but certain of his poems testify
distinctly to his Christianity in language that is only to be set aside by assuming
the poems themselves to be spurious. Such are (1) the first of his idylls, entitled
Versus Paschales, and commencing Sancta salutiferi redeunt
solemnia Christi, the genuineness of which is proved by a short prose
address to the reader connecting it with the next idyll, the Epicedion, inscribed
to his father. (2) The Ephemeris, an account of the author's mode of
spending his day, which contains not merely an allusion to the chapel in which his
morning devotions were performed (I. 7), but a distinct confession of faith, in
the form of a prayer to the first two Persons of the Trinity. (3) The letters
of the poet to his friend and former pupil St. Paulinus of Nola, when the latter
had forsaken the service of the pagan Muses for the life of a Christian recluse.
This correspondence, so far from being evidence that he was a heathen (see Cave,
etc.), displays him to us rather as a Christian by conviction, still clinging to
the pagan associations of his youth, and incapable of understanding a truth which
had revealed itself to his friend, that Christianity was not merely a creed but
a life. The letters are a beautiful instance of wounded but not
The works of Ausonius comprise: Epigrammaton Liber, a collection of 150 epigrams on all manner of subjects, political, moral, satirical, amatory; many of which for terseness and power of sarcasm are only surpassed by those of Martial. Ephemeris (see above). Parentalia, a series of tributes to the memory of those of his family and kindred who had died before him, many of which are full of pathos. The Mosella is a poem in praise of his favourite river. The Epistolae are, on the whole, the most interesting, because the most heartfelt, of the works of Ausonius; they number 25, addressed to various friends. Those to St. Paulinus of Nola prove that the poet was capable of earnestness when his heart was stirred.
The works of Ausonius are published in Migne's Patr. Lat. vol. xix. There is a complete ed. by R. Peiper (Leipz. 1886); H. de la V. de Mirmont, Mosella, with trans. (Bordeaux, 1889); also de Mosella (Paris, 1892); Dill, Roman Society (Lond. 1898).
Avitus, Alcimus Ecdicius, archbp. of Vienne in Narbonian Gaul; born about the middle of 5th cent. His father belonged to a family of senatorial rank. His mother, Audentia, was, in all probability, a sister of M. Maecilius Avitus, emperor of the West, A.D. 456. The mother of Sidonius Apollinaris the poet, who, in a letter to Alcimus Avitus, speaks of their near relationship and the identity of their youthful pursuits, seems to have been another sister of the same illustrious family (Sidon. Apoll. Ep. iii. 1, 61). A student's life attracted Avitus more than did wealth and rank, and at an early age he bestowed his patrimony upon the poor and retired into the seclusion of a monastery close to the walls of his native city. Here he gained so high a reputation for piety and learning that in 490 A.D., upon the death of his father, he was elected to succeed him in the archbishopric. The fame of Avitus rests partly upon his poetry and partly upon the important part he was called to play in the controversies of his time. In 499 Vienne was captured by Gundobald, king of the Burgundians, who was at war with Clovis, king of the Franks; and Avitus, as metropolitan of S. and E. Gaul, took the lead in a conference between the Catholic and Arian bishops held in presence of Gundobald at Sardiniacum near Lyons (Greg. Turon., ii. 34). The king was convinced by the earnest entreaties and powerful reasoning of Avitus, who addressed several extant letters to him, but could never be induced to recant his errors publicly. His successor Sigismund was converted by Avitus from Arianism.
Avitus published treatises in confutation of the Nestorian, Eutychian, and Sabellian heresies; he also wrote against the Pelagian errors of Faustus, abbot of Lerins, and converted many Jews who had settled in his diocese (Venant. Fortun. l. v. c. 5).
From a letter of pope Hormisdas to Avitus (Ep. x.) we gather that he was made vicar apostolic in Gaul by that pontiff; and in A.D. 517 he presided in this capacity at the council of Epaune (Concilium Epaonense) for the restitution of ecclesiastical discipline in Narbonian Gaul. But his influence seems to have extended far beyond the limits of his own diocese, as is shewn by his correspondence with several historical personages at Rome, e.g. Faustus, Symmachus, Vitalianus, etc. He appears also to have exerted himself to terminate the dispute between the churches of Rome and Constantinople which arose out of the excommunication of Acacius; that this was accomplished before his death we gather from his letters (Epp. iii, vii.).
Avitus died Feb. 5, 523, and was buried in the monastery of St. Peter and St. Paul at Vienne, where the greater part of his youth had been spent.
The extant works of St. Avitus are as follows: A poem in five books on subjects
drawn from Genesis and Exodus: de Origine Mundi; de Peccato Originali; de Sententia
Dei; de Diluvio; de Transitu Maris Rubri, this is dedicated to his brother Apollinaris,
and consists of 2611 hexameter lines. The first three books might almost have suggested
the idea of Milton's Paradise Lost, to which they bear a curious and in many
points interesting analogy. A collection of 91 letters, several of historical interest,
especially that addressed to Clovis (Ep. xli.) upon his baptism. A homily,
de Festo Rogationum, from which the religious observance of Rogation days
took its origin. [Mamertus.]
A second homily representing the Rogation of the third day, which was discovered
in the library of the Grande Chartreuse, and first published in 1717 by Dom Marten
(Thesaur. Anecd. p. 47). A homily preached on the occasion of the dedication
of a church erected by Maximus, bp. of Geneva. Seventy-two short fragments of homilies,
sermons, etc. The Collatio Episcoporum contra Arianos coram Gundobaldo rege,
first published in d’Achery's Spicilegium, 1655 ff. (tom. iii. p. 304, ed.
Paris, 1725). These remains contain much that is valuable with reference to the
history, doctrine, and discipline of the church in the 5th cent. The works of Avitus
are contained
B
Babylas (1), bp. of Antioch from a.d. 237 or 238 until his martyrdom, a.d. 250 or 251, under Decius, either by death in prison for the faith (Eus. H. E. vi. 39), or by direct violence (St. Chrys. de St. Bab. c. Gentes, tom. i.); other authorities—Epiphanius (de Mens. xviii.), Sozomen (v. 19), Theodoret (H. E. iii. 6)—simply calling him martyr, while St. Jerome (de Scriptt. Eccl. liv. lxii.) gives both accounts in different places. The Acta of Babylas (Acta SS. Jan. 24), place his martyrdom under Numerian, by a confusion (according to Baronius's conjecture, ad ann. 253, § 126) with one Numerius, who was an active officer in the Decian persecution (Tillemont, M. E. iii. 729). The great act of his life was the compelling the emperor Philip, when at Antioch shortly after the murder of Gordian, to place himself in the ranks of the penitents, and undergo penance, before he was admitted to church privileges (κατέχει λόγος, according to Eus. H. E. vi. 34, but asserted without qualification by St. Chrysostom, as above, while the V. St. Chrys. in Acta SS. Sept. tom. iv. 439, transfers the story, against all probability, to Decius, and assigns it as the cause of St. Babylas's martyrdom). But his fame has arisen principally from the triumph of his relics after his death over another emperor, viz. Julian the Apostate, a.d.362. The oracle of Apollo at Daphne, it seems, was rendered dumb by the near vicinity of St. Babylas's tomb and church, to which his body had been translated by Gallus, a.d.351. And Julian in consequence, when at Antioch, ordered the Christians to remove his shrine (λάρνακα), or rather (according to Amm. Marcell. xxii.), to take away all the bodies buried in that locality. A crowded procession of Christians, accordingly, excited to a pitch of savage enthusiasm characteristic of the Antiochenes, bore his relics to a church in Antioch, the whole city turning out to meet them, and the bearers and their train tumultuously chanting psalms the whole way, especially those which denounce idolatry. On the same night, by a coincidence which Julian strove to explain away by referring it to Christian malice or to the neglect of the heathen priests, the temple of Apollo was struck by lightning and burned, with the great idol of Apollo itself. Whereupon Julian in revenge both punished the priests and closed the great church at Antioch (Julian Imp. Misopog. Opp. ii. 97 (Paris, 1630); St. Chrys. Hom. de St. Bab. c. Gent. and Hom. de St. Bab.; Theod. de Cur. Graec. Affect. x. and H. E. iii. 6, 7; Socr. iii. 13; Soz. v. 19, 20; Rufin. x. 35; Amm. Marcell. xxii. pp. 225, 226). St. Chrysostom also quotes a lamentable oration of the heathen sophist Libanius upon the event. The relics of St. Babylas were subsequently removed once more to a church built for them on the other side of the Orontes (St. Chrys. Hom. de St. Bab.; Soz. vii. 10).
[A.W.H.]
Bachiarius, a monk, early in the 5th cent, author of two short treatises printed in the Biblioth. Vet. Patr. of Galland, vol. ix. and the Patrologia of Migne, vol. xx. He is commemorated by Gennadius (c. 24), who attributes to him several works, only one of which he acknowledges to have read—viz. the Libellus de Fide Apologeticus, to satisfy the bp. of Rome of his orthodoxy, who regarded him with suspicion on account of his being a native of a country tainted with heresy. What this country was there is nothing in his Libellus to determine. Bachiarius's profession of faith is thoroughly orthodox in all leading points. Its date is fixed approximately at about the middle of the 5th cent., by his denial of the tenets of Origen regarding the soul and the resurrection life, and those of Helvidius on the perpetual virginity of the Virgin (§ 3, 4), and by his omission of the Son when speaking of the procession of the Holy Ghost. This confession is an interesting document, and will repay perusal. It was first printed by Muratori (Anecd. Latin. ii. 939). He also wrote ad Januarium Liber de Reparatione Lapsi in behalf of a monk whom Januarius had expelled from the monastery of which he was the head for immorality with a nun. He rebukes Januarius and his monks for refusing to receive the monk again on his penitence.
Bachiarius has been confused by Cave, Bale, and others with Mochta, a disciple of St. Patrick. Tillemont, xvi. 473-476; Cave, Hist. Lit. i. 429.
Bardaisan (Bardesanes). A Syrian theologian, commonly reckoned
among Gnostics. Born at Edessa a.d.155, and died there a.d.222-223. His
theology as known to us is doubtless a mere fraction of his actual theology. His
reception of the Pentateuch, which he seemed to contradict, is expressly attested,
and there is no reason to suppose that he rejected the ordinary faith of Christians
as founded on the Gospels and the writings of the apostles, except on isolated points.
The more startling peculiarities of which we hear belong for the most part to an
outer region of speculation, which it may easily have seemed possible to combine
with Christianity, more especially with the undeveloped Christianity of Syria in
the 3rd cent. The local colour is everywhere prominent. In passing over to the new
faith, Bardaisan could not shake off the ancient glamour of the stars, or abjure
the Semitic love of clothing thoughts in mythological forms. Scarcely anything survives
of his writings, for a Dialogue concerning Fate, extant in Syriac under the title
"Book of the Laws of the Countries," is by his disciple Philip. The 56 Hymns of
Ephrem Syrus against Heresies are intended to refute the doctrines of Marcion, Bardaisan,
and Mani, but Ephrem's criticism is harsh and unintelligent. On the whole, whatever
might have come to Bardaisan through Valentinianism might as easily have come to
him directly from the traditions of his race, and both alternatives are admissible.
It is on any supposition a singular fact that the remains of his theology disclose
no traces of the deeper thoughts which moved the Gnostic leaders. That he held a
doctrinal position intermediate between them and the church is consistent with the
circumstances of his life, but is not supported by any internal evidence. On this,
as on many other points, we can only deplore our ignorance about a
Barnabas, Epistle of.—I. Authenticity.—Is this epistle the production of the Barnabas so often associated with St. Paul; or has it been falsely connected with his name? The question is one of deep interest, bearing on the historical and critical spirit of the early Christian church.
It is admitted on all sides that the external evidence is decidedly in favour of the idea that the epistle is authentic. Clement of Alexandria bears witness to it as the work of "Barnabas the apostle"—"Barnabas who was one of the seventy disciples and the fellow-labourer of Paul"—"Barnabas who also preached the Gospel along with the apostle according to the dispensation of the Gentiles" (Strom. ii. 7, 35; ii. 20, 116; v. 10, 64. Cf. also ii. 6, 31 ; ii. 15, 67; ii 18, 84; v. 8, 52). The same may be said of Origen, who speaks of it as "the Catholic Ep. of Barnabas" (c. Cels. i. 63). Eusebius disputes its canonicity, but is hardly less decided in favour of its authenticity. It is included by him at one time among the disputed, at another among the spurious books; yet there is no reason to doubt that when, in both passages, he calls it the Ep. of Barnabas, he under stands not an unknown person of that name but the Barnabas of Scripture (vi. 14, iii. 25). Jerome must be understood to refer to it when he tells us of an Ep. read among the apocryphal books, and written by Barnabas of Cyprus, who was ordained along with Paul the Apostle of the Gentiles (de Vir. Ill. c. vi.). In the Stichometria of Nicephorus, in the 5th cent., it is enumerated among the uncanonical books; and, at the close of that cent., a similar place is assigned to it by Anastasius Sinaita. Since it is, moreover, found in Codex א attached to the books of N.T., there is no doubt the early Christian church considered it authentic. That she refused to allow its canonicity is little to the purpose. The very fact that many thought it entitled to a place in the canon is a conclusive proof of the opinion that had been formed of its authorship. The early Church drew a line between apostles and companions of apostles; and, although writings of the latter, such as the Gospels of St. Mark and St. Luke, and the Ep. to the Hebrews, were received into the canon, the connexion between the writers of these books and one or other of the apostles was believed to be such that the authority of the latter could be transferred to the former. Such a transference would be more difficult in the case of Barnabas, because, although associated at one time with St. Paul in his labours, the two had differed in opinion and separated.
It is on internal evidence that many distinguished critics have denied
its authenticity. That there is great force in some at least of the arguments adduced
by them from this source it is impossible to deny, yet they do not seem so irresistible
as to forbid renewed consideration. They have been summed up by Hefele (Patr.
Apost. p. 14), and succeeding writers have added little to his statement. Of his
eight arguments, five may be at once rejected: The first, that the words of Augustine
regarding the Apocrypha of Andrew and John, si illorum essent recepta essent
ab ecclesia, show that our epistle would have been placed in the canon had it
been deemed authentic; for Andrew and John were apostles, Barnabas was not. The
second, that Barnabas had died before the destruction of Jerusalem, while the epistle
bears clear marks of not having been written until after that date; for this idea
is no just inference from the texts referred to,
The three remaining arguments of Hefele are more important.
(1) That the many trifling allegories of cc. v.–xi. are unworthy of one who was
named the "Son of Consolation." It is true that it is difficult to conceive how
such a one could find in the numeral letters of the Greek version of the O.T. an
indication of the will of Him Who had given that Testament in Hebrew to His ancient
people. Yet, after all, is it not the time rather than the writer that is here in
fault? It is unfair to take as our standard of judgment the principles of interpretation
just now prevailing. We must transfer ourselves into the early Christian age, and
remember the spirit of interpretation that then prevailed. We must call to mind
the allegorical explanations of both Jewish and heathen schools, whose influence
passed largely into the Christian church. Above all, we must think of the estimation
in which the epistle was held for centuries, e.g. by Clement and Origen;
that some would have assigned it a place in the canon; and that, even by those who
denied
(2) Against its authenticity are urged, next, the numerous mistakes committed by the writer in cc. vii, viii. with regard to the rites and ceremonies of Judaism, mistakes to all appearance inconsistent with the idea that he could be a Jew, a Levite, who had lived long in Jerusalem, and must have been acquainted with the ceremonial institutions of the Jews. It is impossible not to feel the great force of the objection, or even to complain of one who, upon this ground alone, should reject the authorship of Barnabas. Let it only be remembered that these mistakes are almost equally inexplicable on the supposition that the author was not Barnabas. If such rites were not actually practised, whence did he learn their supposed existence? It is out of the question to think that they were a mere fancy of his own. And how came the great Fathers whose names have been already mentioned, how came the church at large, to value the epistle as it did if in the mention of them we have nothing but absurdity and error? We are hardly less puzzled to account for such inaccuracies if the writer was an Alexandrian Christian of heathen origin than if he were a Jew and a Levite.
(3) The third and last important argument adduced by Hefele is founded upon the unjust notions with regard to Judaism which are presented in our epistle. They are correctly so described. But it is not so clear that they might not have been entertained by one who, educated in the school of St. Paul and animated by a high sense of the spirituality and universality of the Christian faith, would be easily led, in the heat of the Judaic controversies of his day, to depreciate a system which was threatening to overthrow the distinctiveness and power of the Gospel of Christ.
To these arguments recent writers have added that the strong anti-Judaistic tendency
of the epistle is inconsistent with its ascription to Barnabas, inasmuch as he erred
in too great attachment to the Jewish party (
To sum up the evidence, it seems to the present writer that its balance favours its composition by Barnabas more than critics have been generally willing to allow. The bearing of the external evidence upon this result is unquestionable; and, where we have such evidence, it is a sound principle that nothing but the strongest internal evidence should be permitted to overcome it. The traditions of the early church with regard to historical facts do not appear to have been so loose as is often alleged. It is difficult also to imagine how a generally accepted and firmly held tradition could arise without some really good foundation.
Finally, we are too prone to forget that the substance of Christian truth may be held by others in connexion with misapprehensions, imperfections, misinterpretations, of Scripture, absurd and foolish views, in connexion with which it would be wholly impossible for us to hold it. The authorship of Barnabas is rejected by, among others, Neander, Ullman, Hug, Baur, Hefele, Winer, Hilgenfeld, Donaldson, Westcott, Mühler, while it is maintained by Gieseler, Credner, Guericke, Bleek, Möhler, and, though with hesitation, De Wette. [The weighty judgment of bp. Lightfoot must now (1911) be added to the list in favour, and will generally be considered as decisive: see Apost. Fathers, pt. i, vol. ii. pp. 503-512.]
II. The Date of the Epistle.—External evidence does not help us here. We are thrown wholly upon the internal. Two limits are allowed by all, the destruction of Jerusalem on the one hand, and the time of Clement of Alexandria on the other—that is, from a.d.70 to the last years of the 2nd cent. Between these two limits the most various dates have been assigned to it; the general opinion, however, being that it is not to be placed earlier than towards the close of the 1st, nor later than early in the 2nd cent. Most probably it was written only a very few years after the destruction of Jerusalem.
III. Object of the Epistle, and Line of Argument pursued in it.—Two points are especially insisted on by the writer: first, that Judaism, in its outward and fleshly form, had never been commended by the Almighty to man, had never been the expression of God's covenant; secondly, that that covenant had never belonged to the Jews at all.
In carrying out his argument upon the first point, the writer everywhere proceeds
on the idea that the worship which God requires, which alone corresponds to His
nature, and which therefore can alone please Him, is spiritual, not a worship of
rites and ceremonies, of places and seasons, but a worship of the heart and life.
It is not by sacrifices and oblations that we approach God, Who will have no offerings
thus made by man
This line of argument clearly indicates what was the special object of the epistle,
the special danger against which it was designed to guard. It was no mere Judaizing
tendency that was threatening the readers for whom it was intended. It was a tendency
to lapse into Judaism itself. The argument of those who were endeavouring to seduce
them was, "The covenant is ours" (c. iv.).
IV. Authorities for the Text.—These consist of MSS. of the Greek text, of the old Latin version, and of citations in early Christian writings. The MSS. are tolerably numerous, but the fact that, except the Sinaiticus (א), which deserves separate mention, they all lack exactly the same portion of the epistle, the first five and a half chapters, seems to shew that they had been taken from a common source and cannot be reckoned as independent witnesses. Since the discovery of Codex א by Tischendorf a new era in the construction of the text has begun. Besides bringing to light the portion previously wanting, valuable readings were suggested by it throughout, and it is now our chief authority for the text. The old Latin version is of high value. The MS. from which it is taken is probably as old as the 8th cent., but the translation itself is supposed by Müller to have been made from a text older even than that of Codex א. It wants the last 4 chapters of the epistle. Citations in early Christian writings are extensive.
Editions and Literature.—Valuable editions are those of Hefele, 1855 (4th ed.); Dressel, 1863; Hilgenfeld, 1866; and Müller, 1869. Dressel was the first to make use of Codex א, but of all these editors Müller seems to have constructed his text upon the most thoroughly scientific principles. The literature is very extensive. Notices of the Epistle will be found in the writings of Dorner, Baur, Schwegler, Ritschl, Lechler, Reuss, and others. The following monographs are especially worthy of notice; Hefele, Das Sendschreiben des Apostels Barnabas aufs neue untersucht, übersetzt und erklärt (Tübingen, 1840); Hilgenfeld in his Die Apostolischen Väter (Halle, 1853); Weizäcker, Zur Kritik des Barnabasbriefes aus dem Codex Sinaiticus (Tübingen, 1863); J. G. Müller's Erklärung des Barnabasbriefes, Ein Anhang zu de Wette's Exegetischem Handbuch zum neuen Testament (Leipz. 1869), contains general prolegomena to the epistle, a critically constructed text, and an elaborate commentary, together with careful Excursus on all the most important difficulties. W. Cunningham, A Dissertation. on the Ep. of B. (Lond. 1877). A trans. of the epistle is contained in the vol. of the Apost. Fathers in the Ante-Nicene Christian Lib. (T. & T. Clark, 10s. 6d.). The ed. princeps by archbp. Ussher (Oxf. 1642) has been reprinted by the Clarendon Press with a dissertation by J. H. Backhouse. The best text for English scholars is given in Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, ed. by bp. Harmer (Lond. 1991), pp. 237-242.
Barsumas (the Eutychian), an archimandrite of a Syrian monastery, who warmly espoused the cause of Eutyches. When, in 448, Eutyches was denounced before the local synod of Constantinople, Barsumas, who was resident in the city, raised a violent opposition to the Eastern bishops. The next year, 449, at the "Robbers' Synod" of Ephesus, Theodosius II. summoned Barsumas as the representative of the malcontent monastic party, and granted him a seat and vote among the bishops. He was the first monk allowed to act as a judge at a general council. Barsumas brought with him a turbulent band of 1000 monks to coerce the assembly, and took a prominent part in the disorderly proceedings, vociferously expressing his joy on the acquittal of Eutyches and joining in the assault on the aged Flavian by the monks and soldiers. The injuries inflicted were so serious that the venerable patriarch died three days afterwards. When with great effrontery Barsumas presented himself at the council of Chalcedon, 451, an outcry was raised against him as "the murderer of the blessed Flavian." He actively propagated Eutychian doctrines in Syria and died 458. His disciple, Samuel, carried Eutychianism into Armenia. He is regarded among the Jacobites as a saint and worker of miracles (Assemani, Bibl. Orient. ii. 4; Labbe, iv. 105 seq.; Liberatus, c. 12; Tillemont, xv.; Schröckh, xvii. 451 seq.).
Barsumas (the Nestorian), bp. of Nisibis and metropolitan, 435-489, who, after the suppression of Nestorianism within the empire, engaged successfully in its propagation in Eastern Asia, especially in Persia. Banished from Edessa by Rabulas, after his desertion of his former friends, Barsumas proved the chief strength and wisdom of the fugitive church. In 435 he became bp. of Nisibis, where, in conjunction with Maanes, bp. of Hardaschir, he established a theological school of deserved celebrity, over which Narses presided for fifty years. Barsumas had the skill to secure for his church the powerful support of the Persian king Pherozes (Firuz), who ascended the throne in the year 462. He worked upon his enmity to the Roman power to obtain his patronage for a development of doctrine which had been formally condemned by the emperor and his assembled bishops, representing to him that the king of Persia could never securely reckon on the allegiance of his subjects so long as they held the same religious faith with his enemies. Pherozes admitted the force of this argument, and Nestorianism became the only form of Christianity tolerated in Persia. Barsumas died in 489, in which year the emperor Zeno broke up the theological seminary at Edessa on account of its Nestorianism, with the result that it flourished still more at Nisibis. Missionaries went out from it in great multitudes, and Nestorianism became the recognized form of Christianity in Eastern Asia. The Malabar Christians are the lineal descendants of their missions. Assemanni, Bibl. Or, iii. 1, 16-70; Wigram, Hist. of Assyrian Ch. c. viii. [Nestorian Church.]
Basilides (Βασιλείδης), the founder of one of the semi-Christian sects, commonly called Gnostic, which sprang up in the early part of the 2nd cent.
1. Biography.—He called himself a disciple
Several independent authorities indicate the reign of Hadrian (a.d.117-138) as the time when Basilides flourished. To prove that the heretical sects were "later than the Catholic church," Clement of Alexandria (l.c.) marks out early Christian history into different periods: he assigns Christ's own teaching to the reigns of Augustus and Tiberius; that of the apostles, of St. Paul at least, ends, he says, in the time of Nero; whereas "the authors of the sects arose later, about the times of the emperor Hadrian (κάτω δὲ περὶ τοὺς κ.τ.λ. γεγόνασι), and continued quite as late as the age of the elder Antoninus." He gives as examples Basilides, Valentinus, and (if the text is sound) Marcion, taking occasion by the way to throw doubts on the claims set up for the two former as having been instructed by younger contemporaries of St. Peter and St. Paul respectively, by pointing out that about half a century lay between the death of Nero and the accession of Hadrian. Again Eusebius (l.c.) places Saturnilus and Basilides under Hadrian. Yet his language about Carpocrates a few lines further on suggests a doubt whether he had any better evidence than a fallacious inference from their order in Irenaeus. He was acquainted with the refutation of Basilides by Agrippa Castor; but it is not clear, as is sometimes assumed, that he meant to assign both writers to the same reign. His chronicle (Armenian) at the year 17 of Hadrian (a.d.133) has the note "The heresiarch Basilides appeared at these times"; which Jerome, as usual, expresses rather more definitely. A similar statement without the year is repeated by Jerome, de Vir. Ill. 21, where an old corrupt reading (mortuus for moratus) led some of the earlier critics to suppose they had found a limit for the date of Basilides's death. Theodoret (l.c.) evidently follows Eusebius. Earliest of all, but vaguest, is the testimony of Justin Martyr. Writing in or soon after a.d.145, he refers briefly (Ap. i. 26) to the founders of heretical sects, naming first the earliest, Simon and Menander, followers of whom were still alive; and then apparently the latest, Marcion, himself still alive. The probable inference that the other great heresiarchs, including Basilides, were by this time dead receives some confirmation from a passage in his Dialogue against Trypho (c. 35), a later but probably not much later book, where the "Marcians," Valentinians, Basilidians, Saturnilians, "and others," are enumerated, apparently in inverse chronological order: the growth of distinct and recognized sects implies at least the lapse of some time since the promulgation of their several creeds. It seems therefore impossible to place Basilides later than Hadrian's time; and, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we may trust the Alexandrian Clement's statement that his peculiar teaching began at no earlier date.
II. Writings.—According to Agrippa Castor (Eus. H. E. l.c.), Basilides
wrote "twenty-four books (βιβλία) on the Gospel."
These are no doubt the Exegetica, from the twenty-third of which Clement
gives an extract (Strom. iv. §§ 83 ff., pp. 599 f.). The same work is doubtless
intended by the "treatises" (tractatuum), the thirteenth book of which is cited
in the Acta Archelai, if the same Basilides is referred to. The authorship
of an actual Gospel, of the "apocryphal" class, is likewise attributed to Basilides
on plausible grounds. The word "taken in hand" (ἐπεχείρησαν)
in
An interesting question remains, in what relation the Exegetica stand
to the exposition of doctrine which fills eight long chapters of Hippolytus. Basilides
(or the Basilidians), we are told (vii. 27), defined the Gospel as "the knowledge
of supermundane things" (ἠ τῶν ὑπερκοσμίων γνῶσις),
and the idea of the progress of "the Gospel" through the different orders of beings
plays a leading part in the Basilidian doctrine (cc. 25 ff.). But there is not the
slightest reason to think that the "Gospel" here spoken of was a substitute for
the Gospel in a historical sense, any more
The certain fragments of the Exegetica have been collected by Grabe (Spicil. Patr. ii. 35-43), followed by Massuet and Stieren in their editions of Irenaeus; but he passes over much in Clement which assuredly has no other origin. A single sentence quoted in Origen's commentary on Romans, and given further on (p. 275), is probably from the same source. In an obscure and brief fragment preserved in a Catena on Job (Venet. 1587, p. 345), Origen implies the existence of Odes by Basilides and Valentinus. No other writings of Basilides are mentioned.
III. Authenticity of the Hippolytean Extracts.—In endeavouring to form a clear conception of the work and doctrine of Basilides, we are met at the outset by a serious difficulty. The different accounts were never easy to harmonize, and some of the best critics of the first half of the 19th cent. considered them to refer to two different systems of doctrine. But till 1851 their fragmentary nature suggested that the apparent incongruities might conceivably be due only to the defects of our knowledge, and seemed to invite reconstructive boldness on the part of the historian. The publication of Hippolytus's Refutation of all Heresies in 1851 placed the whole question on a new footing. Hardly any one has ventured to maintain the possibility of reconciling its ample statements about Basilides with the reports of Irenaeus and Epiphanius. Which account then most deserves our confidence?
Before attempting to answer this question it is well to enumerate the authorities. They are Agrippa Castor as cited by Eusebius, Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, the anonymous supplement to Tertullian, de Praescriptione, the Refutation of Hippolytus, Epiphanius, Philaster, and Theodoret, and possibly the Acta Archelai, besides a few scattered notices which may be neglected here. This ample list shrinks, however, into small dimensions at the touch of criticism. Theodoret's chapter is a disguised compilation from previous Greek writers. The researches of Lipsius have proved that Epiphanius followed partly Irenaeus, partly the lost Compendium of Hippolytus, this same work being also the common source of the Latin authors pseudo-Tertullian and Philaster. Our ultimate authorities therefore are Irenaeus (or the unknown author from whom he took this section of his work), the Compendium of Hippolytus (represented by Epiphanius [part], Philaster, and pseudo-Tertullian), Clement and the Refutation of Hippolytus, together with a short statement by Agrippa Castor, and probably a passing reference and quotation in the Acts of Archelaus.
It is now generally allowed that the notices of Clement afford the surest criterion by which to test other authorities. Not only does his whole tone imply exact personal knowledge, but he quotes a long passage directly from the Exegetica. Is then his account, taken as a whole, consistent with other accounts? And does it agree best with the reports of Irenaeus and Hippolytus in his younger days, or with the elaborate picture drawn by Hippolytus at a later time? This second question has received opposite answers from recent critics. A majority have given the preference to Hippolytus; while Hilgenfeld (who three years before, in his earliest book, the treatise On the Clementine Homilies and Recognitions, pp. 125-149, had described the Basilidian system from the then known records, endeavouring with perverse ingenuity to shew their virtual consistency with each other) has prided himself on not being dazzled by the new authority, whom he holds to be in effect describing not Basilides but a late development of his sect; and Lipsius takes the same view.
It should be observed at the outset that the testimony of Clement is not quite
so homogeneous as is generally assumed. Six times he criticises doctrines of "Basilides"
himself; eight times he employs the ambiguous plural (οἱ
ἀπὸ Β., οἱ ἀμφὶ τὸν Β.). Are we to suppose a distinction here, or is the
verbal difference accidental? Both views might be maintained. The quotation from
the Exegetica (Strom. iv. pp. 599 f.) is a piece of moral argument
on Providence, wholly free from the technical terms of Gnostic mythology. In the
succeeding discussion Clement eventually uses plurals (εἰ
. . . τις αὐτῶν λέγοι—πέπτωκεν ἡ ὑπόθεσις αὐτοῖς—ὡς φάναι, apparently a misreading
for ὡς φασιν—ὡς αὐτοὶ λέγουσιν), which might
equally imply that he employs both forms indifferently, or that he distinguishes
Basilides from his followers within the limits of a single subject. The other references
to "Basilides" are likewise of a distinctly ethical character, while several of
the passages containing the plural name abound in technical language. Yet the distinction
is not absolute on either side. "Basilides" furnishes the terms "the Ogdoad," "the
election," "supermundane"; while such subjects as the nature of faith, the relation
of the passions to the animal soul, and the meaning of Christ's saying about eunuchs,
occur in the other group, though they remind us rather of Basilides himself. In
the last passage, moreover (Strom. iii. pp. 508 ff.), the ambiguous plural
(οἱ ἀπὸ Β. φασί—λέγουσι—᾿ξηγοῦνται—φασί bis)
is applied to a quotation intended to shame by contrast the immoral Basilidians
of Clement's own time; and a similar quotation from Basilides's
The range of possible contact between the quotations and reports of Clement and any of the other authorities is not large. His extant writings contain nothing like an attempt to describe the Basilidian System. The Stromates, which furnish the quotations from Basilides, expressly limit themselves to moral and practical questions (ὁ ἠθικὸς λόγος); and reserve for a future work, i.e. the lost Hypotyposes, the exposition of the higher doctrine (τῆς κατὰ τὴν ἐποπτικὴν θεωρίαν γνώσεως,—τὴν τῷ ὄντι γνωστικὴν φυσιολογίαν) belonging to the department of knowledge which the Stoics called Physics, beginning with the Creation and leading up to Theology proper (Strom. i. p. 324; iv. pp. 563 f., 637; vi. pp. 735 f., 827; vii. 829, 902; cf. Bunsen, Anal. Antenic. i. 159 ff.). Now it is precisely to this latter department that the bulk of Gnostic speculation would belong, and especially such theories as Hippolytus ascribes to Basilides; and moreover Clement distinctly promises that in the course of that loftier investigation he will "set forth in detail the doctrines of the heretics (τῶν ἑτεροδόξων), and endeavour to refute them to the best of his power" (iv. § 3, p. 564). We have therefore no right to expect in the Stromates any cosmological or even theological matter respecting Basilides except such as may accidentally adhere to the ethical statements, the subjects treated of in the various books "against all heresies" being formally excluded by Clement. His sphere being thus distinct from theirs, the marked coincidences of language that we do find between him and Hippolytus afford a strong presumption that, if the one account is authentic, the other is so likewise. Within the narrow limits of Clement's information we meet with the phrases "primitive medley and confusion" (σύγχυσις), and on the other hand "separation" (differentiation) and restoration (σοφία φυλοκρινητική, ἀποκαταστατική); with a division of the universe into stages (διαστήματα), and prominence given to the sphere of "super-mundane" things; with an "Ogdoad" and an "Archon"; all of these terms being conspicuous and essential in the Hippolytean representation. Above all, we hear of the amazement of the Archon on receiving "the utterance of the ministering Spirit" or "Minister" (διάκονος, cf. Ecl. Theod. p. 972) as being that fear of the Lord which is called the beginning of wisdom (Strom. ii. p. 448) ; the utterance itself being implied to be a Gospel (εὐηγγελισμένον); while Hippolytus describes the same passage as interpreted of the amazement of the Great Archon on receiving "the Gospel," a revelation of things unknown, through his Son, who had received it from a "power" within the Holy Spirit (vii. 26). The coincidences are thus proportionately great, and there are no contradictions to balance them: so that it would require strong evidence to rebut the conclusion that Clement and Hippolytus had the same materials before them. Such evidence does not exist. The coincidences between Clement and the Irenaean tradition are limited to the widely spread "Ogdoad" and a single disputable use of the word "Archon," and there is no similarity of doctrines to make up for the absence of verbal identity. The only tangible argument against the view that Hippolytus describes the original system of Basilides is its Greek rather than Oriental character, which is assumed to be incompatible with the fundamental thoughts of a great Gnostic leader. We shall have other opportunities of inquiring how far the evidence supports this wide generalization as to Gnosticism at large. As regards Basilides personally, the only grounds for expecting from him an Oriental type of doctrine are the quotation in the Acts of Archelaus, which will be discussed further on, and the tradition of his connexion with Saturnilus of Antioch, which we have already seen to be founded on a misconception. The fragmentary notices and extracts in Clement, admitted on all hands to be authentic, are steeped in Greek philosophy; so that the Greek spirit of the Hippolytean representation is in fact an additional evidence for its faithfulness.
It may yet be asked, Did Hippolytus consult the work of Basilides himself, or
did he depend on an intermediate reporter? His own language, though not absolutely
decisive, favours the former alternative. On the one hand it may be urged that he
makes no mention of a book, that occasionally he quotes by the words "they say,"
"according to them," and that his exposition is immediately preceded by the remark,
"Let us then see how openly both Basilides and [his son] Isidore (
Β. ὁμοῦ καὶ Ἰ.) and the whole band of them
not merely calumniate Matthias [from whom they professed to have received records
of Christ's secret teaching], but also the Saviour Himself" (c. 20). Against these
indications may be set the ten places where Basilides is referred to singly, and
the very numerous quotations by the words "he says." It is true that Greek usage
permits the occasional use of the singular even when no one writer or book is intended.
But in this case the most natural translation is borne out by some of the language
quoted. The first person singular (ὅταν δὲ λέγω, φησίν,
τό Ἦν, οὐχ ὅτι ἦν λέγω, ἀλλ᾿ ἵνα σημάνω τοῦτο ὅπερ βούλομαι δεῖξαι, λέγω, φησίν,
ὅτι ἦν ὅλως οὐδέν· . . . καὶ οὐ δέχομαι, φησίν κ.τ.λ.) proves the book in
Hippolytus's hands to have been written by an original speculator; yet this very
quotation is immediately followed by a comment on it with the third person plural
We shall therefore assume that the eight chapters of Hippolytus (vii. 20-27) represent faithfully though imperfectly the contents of part at least of the Exegetica of Basilides; and proceed to describe his doctrine on their authority, using likewise the testimony of Clement wherever it is available.
IV. Doctrine.—Basilides asserts the beginning of all things to have been pure nothing. He uses every device of language to express absolute nonentity. He will not allow the primitive nothing to be called even "unspeakable": that, he says, would be naming it, and it is above every name that is named (20). Nothing then being in existence, "not-being God" (or Deity, οὐκ ὢν θεός: the article is omitted here) willed to make a not-being world out of not-being things. Once more great pains are taken to obviate the notion that "willing" implied any mental attribute whatever. Also the world so made was not the extended and differentiated world to which we gave the name, but "a single seed containing within itself all the seed-mass of the world," the aggregate of the seeds of all its forms and substances, as the mustard seed contains the branches and leaves of the tree, or the pea-hen's egg the brilliant colour of the full-grown peacock (21). This was the one origin of all future growths; their seeds lay stored up by the will of the not-being God in the single world-seed, as in the new-born babe its future teeth and the resemblances to its father which are thereafter to appear. Its own origin too from God was not a putting-forth (προβολή), as a spider puts forth its web from itself. (By this assertion, on which Hippolytus dwells with emphasis, every notion of "emanation" is expressly repudiated.) Nor was there an antecedent matter, like the brass or wood wrought by a mortal man. The words "Let there be light, and there was light" convey the whole truth. The light came into being out of nothing but the voice of the Speaker; "and the Speaker was not, and that which came into being was not."
What then was the first stage of growth of the seed? It had within itself "a tripartite sonship, in all things consubstantial with the not-being God." Part of the sonship was subtle of substance (λεπτομερές), part coarse of substance (παχυμερές), part needing purification (ἀποκαθάρσεως δεόμενον). Simultaneously with the first beginning of the seed the subtle sonship burst through (διέσφυξεν) and mounted swiftly up "like a wing or a thought" (Odyss. vii. 36) till it reached the not-being God; "for toward Him for His exceeding beauty and grace (ὡραιότητος) every kind of nature yearns (ὀρέγεται), each in its own way." The coarse sonship could not mount up of itself, but it took to itself as a wing the Holy Spirit, each bearing up the other with mutual benefit, even as neither a bird can soar without wing, nor a wing without a bird. But when it came near the blessed and unutterable place of the subtle sonship and the not-being God, it could take the Holy Spirit no further, as not being consubstantial or of the same nature with itself. There, then, retaining and emitting downwards the fragrance of the sonship like a vessel that has once held ointment, the Holy Spirit remained, as a firmament dividing things above the world from "the world" itself below (22).
The third sonship continued still within the heap of the seed-mass. But out of the heap burst forth into being the Great Archon, "the head of the world, a beauty and greatness and power that cannot be uttered." He too raised himself aloft till he reached the firmament which he supposed to be the upward end of all things. Then he became wiser and every way better than all other cosmical things except the sonship left below, which he knew not to be far better than himself. So he turned to create the world in its several parts. But first he "made to himself and begat out of the things below a son far better and wiser than himself," for thus the not-being God had willed from the first; and smitten with wonder at his son's beauty, he set him at his right hand. "This is what they call the Ogdoad, where the Great Archon is sitting." Then all the heavenly or ethereal creation (apparently included in the Ogdoad), as far down as the moon, was made by the Great Archon, inspired by his wiser son (23). Again another Archon arose out of the seed-mass, inferior to the first Archon, but superior to all else below except the sonship; and he likewise made to himself a son wiser than himself, and became the creator and governor of the aerial world. This region is called the Hebdomad. On the other hand, in the heap and seed-mass, constituting our own (the terrestrial) stage, "those things that come to pass come to pass according to nature, as having been previously uttered by Him Who hath planned the fitting time and form and manner of utterance of the things that were to be uttered (ὡς φθάσαντα λεχθῆναι ὑπὸ τοῦ τὰ μέλλοντα λέγεσθαι ὅτε δεῖ καὶ οἷα δεῖ καὶ ὡς δεῖ λελογισμένου): and these things have no one to rule over them, or exercise care for them, or create them: for sufficient for them is that plan (λογισμός) which the not-being One planned when He was making" [the seed-mass] (24).
Such is the original cosmogony as conceived by Basilides, and it supplies the
base for his view of the Gospel, as well as of the interval before the coming of
the Gospel into the
This short interpretation of the times before Christ, which has evidently suffered in the process of condensation by Hippolytus, carries us at once to the Gospel itself. "Because therefore it was needful that we the children of God should be revealed, concerning whom the creation groaned and travailed, expecting the revelation, the Gospel came into the world, and passed through every principality and power and lordship, and every name that is named." There was still no downward coming from above, no departure of the ascended sonship from its place; but "from below from the formlessness of the heap the powers penetrated (διήκουσιν) up to the sonship" (i.e. probably throughout the scale the power of each stage penetrated to the stage immediately above), and so thoughts (νοήματα) were caught from above as naphtha catches fire at a distance without contact. Thus the power within the Holy Spirit "conveyed the thoughts of the sonship, as they flowed and drifted (ῥέοντα καὶ φερόμενα) to the son of the Great Archon" (25); and he in turn instructed the Great Archon himself, by whose side he was sitting. Then first the Great Archon learned that he was not God of the universe, but had himself come into being, and had above him yet higher beings; he discovered with amazement his own past ignorance, and confessed his sin in having magnified himself. This fear of his, said Basilides, was that fear of the Lord which is the beginning of wisdom (wisdom to "separate and discern and perfect and restore," Clem. Strom. ii. 448 f.). From him and the Ogdoad the Gospel had next to pass to the Hebdomad. Its Archon's son received the light from the son of the Great Archon, he became himself enlightened, and declared the Gospel to the Archon of the Hebdomad, and he too feared and confessed, and all that was in the Hebdomad received the light (26).
It remained only that the formlessness of our own region should be enlightened,
and that the hidden mystery should be revealed to the third sonship left behind
in the formlessness, as to "one born out of due time" (οἱονεὶ
ἐκτρώματι,
From the Nativity Hippolytus's exposition passes on at once to its purpose in
the future and the final consummation. The world holds together as it is now, we
learn, until all the sonship that has been left behind, to give benefits to the
souls in formlessness and to receive benefits by obtaining distinct form, follows
Jesus and mounts up and is purified and becomes most subtle, so that it can mount
by itself like the first sonship; "for it has all its power naturally established
in union (συνεστηριγμένην) with the light that
shone down from above" (26). When every sonship has arrived above the Limitary Spirit,
"then the creation shall find mercy, for till now it groans and is tormented and
awaits the revelation of the sons of God, that all the men of the sonship may ascend
from hence" (27). When this has come to pass, God will bring upon the whole world
the Great Ignorance, that everything may remain according to nature, and that nothing
may desire aught that is contrary to nature. Thus all the souls of this stage, whose
nature it is to continue immortal in this stage alone, will remain without knowledge
of anything higher and better than this, lest they suffer torment by craving for
things impossible, like a fish desiring to feed with the sheep on the mountains,
for such a desire would have been to them destruction. All things are indestructible
while they abide in their place, but destructible if they aim at overleaping the
bounds of Nature. Thus the Great Ignorance
These last two remarks, on the subjection to seasons and on the ultimate abandonment of the immortal but earth-bound soul by the ascending sonship or spiritual man, taking place first in the Saviour and then in the other "sons of God," belong in strictness to an earlier part of the scheme; but they may have been placed here by Basilides himself, to explain the strange consummation of the Great Ignorance. The principle receives perhaps a better illustration from what purports to be an exposition of the Basilidian view of the Gospel, with which Hippolytus concludes his report. "According to them," he says, "the Gospel is the knowledge of things above the world, which knowledge the Great Archon understood not: when then it was shewn to him that there exists the Holy Spirit, that is the Limitary Spirit, and the sonship and a God Who is the author (αἴτιος) of all these things, even the not-being One, he rejoiced at what was told him, and was exceeding glad: this is according to them the Gospel." Here Hippolytus evidently takes too generally the special form under which Basilides represented the Gospel as made known to the Great Archon. Nor, when he proceeds to say that "Jesus according to them was born in the manner that we have previously mentioned," is it clear that Basilides gave a different account of the Nativity itself from that accepted by the church, because he gave a peculiar interpretation to the angel's words. "After the Nativity already made known," adds Hippolytus, "all incidents concerning the Saviour came to pass according to them [the Basilidians] as they are described in the Gospels." But all this is only introductory to the setting forth of the primary principle. "These things" (apparently the incidents of our Lord's life) "are come to pass that Jesus might become the first fruits of the sorting of the things confused" (τῆς φυλοκρινήσεῶς τῶν συγκεχυμένων). For since the world is divided into the Ogdoad and the Hebdomad and this stage in which we dwell, where is the formlessness, "it was necessary that the things confused should be sorted by the division of Jesus. That therefore suffered which was His bodily part, which was of the formlessness, and it was restored into the formlessness; and that rose up which was His psychical part, which was of the Hebdomad, and it was restored into the Hebdomad; and he raised up that which belonged to the summit where sits the Great Archon (τῆς ἀκρωρείας τοῦ μ. ἄ.), and it abode beside the Great Archon: and He bore up on high that which was of the Limitary Spirit, and it abode in the Limitary Spirit; and the third sonship, which had been left behind in [the heap] to give and receive benefits, through Him was purified and mounted up to the blessed sonship, passing through them all." "Thus Jesus is become the first fruits of the sorting; and the Passion has come to pass for no other purpose than this [reading γέγονεν ἢ ὑπέρ for γέγονεν ὑπό], that the things confused might be sorted." For the whole sonship left behind in the formlessness must needs be sorted in the same manner as Jesus Himself hath been sorted. Thus, as Hippolytus remarks a little earlier, the whole theory consists of the confusion of a seed-mass, and of the sorting and restoration into their proper places of things so confused (27).
Clement's contributions to our knowledge of Basilides refer chiefly, as has been
said, to the ethical side of his doctrine. Here "Faith" evidently played a considerable
part. In itself it was defined by "them of Basilides" (οἱ
ἀπὸ Β.) as "an assent of the soul to any of the things which do not excite
sensation, because they are not present" (Strom ii. p. 448); the phrase
being little more than a vague rendering of
The same rigid adhesion to the conception of natural fixity, and inability to
accept Christian beliefs, which transcend it, led Basilides (ὁ Β.) to confine
the remission of sins to those which are committed involuntarily and in ignorance;
as though, says Clement (Strom. iv. p. 634), it were a man and not God that
bestowed the gift. A like fatalistic view of Providence is implied in the language
held by Basilides (in the 23rd book of his Exegetica, as quoted by Clement,
Strom. iv. pp. 599-603) in reference to the sufferings of Christian martyrs.
In this instance we have the benefit of verbal extracts, though unfortunately their
sense is in parts obscure. So far as they go, they do not bear out the allegations
of Agrippa Castor (ap. Eus. H. E. iv. 7, § 7) that Basilides taught that
the partaking of food offered to idols, and the heedless (ἀπαραφυλάκτως)
abjuration of the faith in time of persecution was a thing indifferent; and of Origen
(Com. in Matt. iii. 856 Ru.), that he depreciated the martyrs, and treated
lightly the sacrificing to heathen deities. The impression seems to have arisen
partly from a misunderstanding of the purpose of his argument, partly from the actual
doctrine and practices of later Basilidians; but it may also have had some justification
in incidental words which have not been preserved. Basilides is evidently contesting
the assumption, probably urged in controversy against his conception of the justice
of Providence, that the sufferers in "what are called tribulations" (ἐν
ταῖς λεγομέναις θλίψεσιν) are to be regarded as innocent, simply because
they suffer for their Christianity. He suggests that some are in fact undergoing
punishment for previous unknown sins, while "by the goodness of Him Who brings events
to pass" (τοῦ περιάγοντος) they are allowed
the comfort of suffering as Christians, "not subject to the rebuke as the adulterer
or the murderer" (apparently with reference to
We have a curious piece of psychological theory in the account of the passions attributed to the Basilidians (οἱ ἀμφὶ τὸν Β.). They are accustomed, Clement says (Strom. ii. p. 488), to call the passions Appendages (προσαρτήματα), stating that these are certain spirits which have a substantial existence (κατ οὐσίαν ὐπάρχειν), having been appended (or "attached," or "adherent," various kinds of close external contact being expressed by προσηρτημένα, cf. M. Aur. xii. 3, with Gataker's note, and also Tertullian's ceteris appendicibus, sensibus et affectibus, Adv. Marc. i. 25, cited by Gieseler) to the rational soul in a certain primitive turmoil and confusion, and that again other bastard and alien natures of spirits grow upon these (προσεπιφύεσθαι ταύταις), as of a wolf, an ape, a lion, a goat, whose characteristics (ιδιώματα), becoming perceptible in the region of the soul (θανταζόμενα περὶ τὴν ψυχήν), assimilate the desires of the son to the animals; for they imitate the actions of those whose characteristics they wear, and not only acquire intimacy (προσοικειοῦνται) with the impulses and impressions of the irrational animals, but even imitate (ζηλοῦσι) the movements and beauties of plants, because they likewise wear the characteristics of plants appended to them; and [the passions] have also characteristics of habit [derived from stones], as the hardness of adamant (cf. p. 487 med.). In the absence of the context it is impossible to determine the precise meaning and origin of this singular theory. It was probably connected with the doctrine of metempsychosis, which seemed to find support in Plato's Timaeus 42, 90 f.), and was cherished by some neo-Pythagoreans later in the 2nd cent. (cf. Zeller, Philos. d. Gr. v. 198 f.); while the plurality of souls is derided by Clement as making the body a Trojan horse, with apparent reference (as Saumaise points out, on Simplic. Epict. 164) to a similar criticism of Plato in the Theaetetus (184 D). And again Plutarch (de Comm. Not. 45, p. 1084) ridicules the Stoics (i.e. apparently Chrysippus) for a "strange and outlandish" notion that all virtues and vices, arts and memories, impressions and passions and impulses and assents (he adds further down even "acts," ἐνεργείας, such as "walking, dancing, supposing, addressing, reviling") are not merely "bodies" (of course in the familiar Stoic sense) but living creatures or animals (ζῳα), crowded apparently round the central point within the heart where "the ruling principle" (τὸ ἡγεμονικόν) is located: by this "swarm," he says, of hostile animals they turn each one of us into "a paddock or a stable, or a Trojan horse." Such a theory might seem to Basilides an easy deduction from his fatalistic doctrine of Providence, and of the consequent immutability of all natures.
The only specimen which we have of the practical ethics of Basilides is of a
favourable kind, though grossly misunderstood and misapplied by Epiphanius (i.
211 f.). Reciting the views of different heretics on Marriage, Clement (Strom.
iii. 508 ff.) mentions first its approval by the Valentinians, and then gives specimens
of the teaching of Basilides (οἱ ἀπὸ Β.) and
his son Isidore, by way of rebuke to the immorality of the later Basilidians, before
proceeding to the sects which favoured licence, and to those which treated marriage
as unholy. He first reports the exposition of
Although we have no evidence that Basilides, like some others, regarded our Lord's
Baptism as the time when a Divine being first was joined to Jesus of Nazareth, it
seems clear that he attached some unusual significance to the event. "They of Basilides
(οἱ ἀπὸ Β.)," says Clement (Strom. i.
146, p. 408), "celebrate the day of His Baptism by a preliminary night-service of
[Scripture] readings (προδιανυκτερεύοντες ἀναγνώσεσι);
and they say that the 'fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar' (
The same author, we hear, stated that Basilides "named as prophets to himself Barcabbas and Barcoph, providing himself likewise with certain other [? prophets] who had no existence, and that he bestowed upon them barbarous appellations to strike amazement into those who have an awe of such things." The alleged prophecies apparently belonged to the apocryphal Zoroastrian literature popular with various Gnostics.
From Hippolytus we hear nothing about these prophecies, which will meet us again presently with reference to Basilides's son Isidore, but he tells us (Haer. vii. 20) that, according to Basilides and Isidore, Matthias spoke to them mystical doctrines (λόγους ἀποκρύφους) which he heard in private teaching from the Saviour: and in like manner Clement (Strom. vii. 900) speaks of the sect of Basilides as boasting that they took to themselves the glory of Matthias. Origen also (Hom. in Luc. i. t. iii p. 933) and after him Eusebius refer to a "Gospel" of or according to Matthias (H. E. iii. 25, 6). The true name was apparently the Traditions of Matthias: three interesting and by no means heretical extracts are given by Clement (Strom. ii. 452; iii. 523 [copied by Eusebius, H. E. iii. 29. 4]; vii. 882). In the last extract the responsibility laid on "the elect" for the sin of a neighbour recalls a passage already cited (p. 275 B) from Basilides.
It remains only to notice an apparent reference to Basilides, which has played a considerable part in modern expositions of his doctrine. Near the end of the anonymous Acts of the Disputation between Archelaus and Mani, written towards the close of the 3rd cent. or a little later, Archelaus disputes the originality of Mani's teaching, on the ground that it took rise a long time before with "a certain barbarian" (c. 55, in Routh, Rell. Sac. v. 196 ff.). "There was also," he says, "a preacher among the Persians, a certain Basilides of great [or 'greater,' antiuqior] antiquity, not long after the times of our Apostles, who being himself also a crafty man, and perceiving that at that time everything was preoccupied, decided to maintain that dualism which was likewise in favour with Scythianus," named shortly before (c. 51, p. 186) as a contemporary of the Apostles, who had introduced dualism from a Pythagorean source. "Finally, as he had no assertion to make of his own, he adopted the sayings of others" (the last words are corrupt, but this must be nearly the sense). "And all his books contain things difficult and rugged." The writer then cites the beginning of the thirteenth book of his treatises (tractatuum), in which it was said that "the saving word" (the Gospel) by means of the parable of the rich man and the poor man pointed out the source from which nature (or a nature) without a root and without a place germinated and extended itself over things (rebus supervenientem, unde pullulaverit). He breaks off a few words later and adds that after some 500 lines Basilides invites his reader to abandon idle and curious elaborateness (varietate), and to investigate rather the studies and opinions of barbarians on good and evil. Certain of them, Basilides states, said that there are two beginnings of all things, light and darkness; and he subjoins some particulars of doctrine of a Persian cast. Only one set of views, however, is mentioned, and the Acts end abruptly here in the two known MSS. of the Latin version in which alone this part of them is extant.
It is generally assumed that we have here unimpeachable evidence for the strict
dualism of Basilides. It seems certain that the writer of the Acts held his Basilides
responsible for the barbarian opinions quoted, which are clearly dualistic, and
he had the whole book before him. Yet his language on this point is loose, as if
he were not sure of his ground; and the quotation which he gives by no means bears
him out: while it is quite conceivable that he may have had some acquaintance with
dualistic Basilidians of a later day, such as certainly existed, and have thus given
a wrong interpretation to genuine words of their master (cf. Uhlhorn, 52 f.). It
assuredly requires considerable straining to draw the brief interpretation given
of the parable to a Manichean position, and there is nothing to shew that the author
of it himself adopted the first set of "barbarian" opinions which he reported. Indeed
the description of evil (for evil doubtless is intended) as a supervenient
nature, without root and without place, reads almost as if it were directed
against Persian doctrine, and may be fairly interpreted by Basilides's comparison
of pain and fear to the rust of iron as natural accidents (ἐπισυμβαίνει).
The identity of the Basilides of the Acts with the Alexandrian has been denied by
Gieseler with some shew of reason. It is at least strange that our Basilides should
be described simply as a "preacher among the Persians," a character in which he
is otherwise unknown; and all the more since he has been previously mentioned with
Marcion and Valentinus as a heretic of familiar name (c. 38, p. 138). On the other
hand, it has been justly urged that the two passages are addressed to different
persons. The correspondence is likewise remarkable between the "treatises" in at
least thirteen books, with an interpretation of
Gnosticism was throughout eclectic, and Basilides superadded an eclecticism of
his own. Antecedent Gnosticism, Greek philosophy, and the Christian faith and Scriptures
all exercised a powerful and immediate influence over his mind. It is evident at
a glance that his system is far removed from any known form of Syrian or original
Gnosticism. Like that of Valentinus, it has been remoulded in a Greek spirit, but
much more completely. Historical records fail us almost entirely as to the personal
relations of the great heresiarchs; yet internal evidence furnishes some indications
which it can hardly be rash to trust. Ancient writers usually name Basilides before
Valentinus; but there is little doubt that they were at least approximately contemporaries,
and it is not unlikely that Valentinus was best known personally from his sojourn
at Rome, which was probably (Lipsius, Quellen d. ält. Ketzergeschichte, 256)
the last of the recorded stages of his life. There is at all events no serious chronological
difficulty in supposing that the Valentinian system was the starting-point from
which Basilides proceeded to construct by contrast his own theory, and this is the
view which a comparison of doctrines suggests. In no point, unless it be the retention
of the widely spread term archon, is Basilides nearer than Valentinus to
the older Gnosticism, while several leading Gnostic forms or ideas which he discards
or even repudiates are held fast by Valentinus. Such are descent from above (see
a passage at the end of c. 22, and p. 272 B, above), putting forth or pullulation (imperfect renderings of
προβολή, see p. 271
B), syzygies of male and female powers,
and the deposition of faith to a lower level than knowledge. Further, the unique
name given by Basilides to the Holy Spirit, "the Limitary (μεθόριον)
Spirit," together with the place assigned to it, can hardly be anything else than
a transformation of the strange Valentinian "Limit" (ὅρος),
which in like manner divides the Pleroma from the lower world; though, in conformity
with the unifying purpose of Basilides, the Limitary Spirit is conceived as connecting
as well as parting the two worlds (cf. Baur in Theol. Jahrb. for 1856, 156
f.). The same softening of oppositions which retain much of their force even with
Valentinus shews itself in other instances, as of matter and spirit, creation and
redemption, the Jewish age and the Christian age, the earthly and the heavenly elements
in the Person of our Lord. The strongest impulse in this direction probably came
from Christian ideas and the power of a true though disguised Christian faith. But
Greek speculative Stoicism tended likewise to break down the inherited dualism,
while at the same time its own inherent limitations brought faith into captivity.
An antecedent matter was expressly repudiated, the words of
V. Refutations.—Notwithstanding the wide and lasting fame of Basilides
as a typical heresiarch, no treatise is recorded as written specially in confutation
of his teaching except that of Agrippa Castor. He had of course a place in the various
works against all heresies; but, as we have seen, the doctrines described and criticized
in several of them belong not to him but to a sect of almost wholly different character.
Hippolytus, who in later years became acquainted with the Exegetica, contented
himself with detecting imaginary plagiarisms from Aristotle (vii. 14-20). Even Origen,
who likewise seems to have known the work (if we may judge by the quotation on metempsychosis
given at p. 275, and by a complaint of "long-winded fabling," aut Basilidis longam
fabulositatem: Com. in
VI. Isodorus.—In the passage already noticed (Haer. vii. 20) Hippolytus
couples with Basilides "his true child and disciple" Isidore. He is there referring
to the use which they made of the Traditions of Matthias; but in the next
sentence he treats them as jointly responsible for the doctrines which he recites.
Our only other authority respecting Isidore is Clement (copied by Theodoret), who
calls him in like manner "at once son and disciple" of Basilides (Strom.
vi. 767). In this place he gives three extracts from the first and second books
of Isidore's Expositions (Ἐξηγητικά)
of the Prophet Parchor. They are all parts of a plea, like so many put forward
after the example of Josephus against Apion, that the higher thoughts of
heathen philosophers and mythologers were derived from a Jewish source. The last
reference given is to Pherecydes, who had probably a peculiar interest for Isidore
as the earliest promulgator of the doctrine of metempsychosis known to tradition
(cf. Zeller, Philos. d. Griechen, i. 55 f. ed. 3). His allegation that Pherecydes
followed "the prophecy of Ham" has been perversely urged as a sign that he set up
the prophets of a hated race against the prophets of Israel. The truth is rather
that the identification of Zoroaster with Ham or Ham's son, whatever may have been
its origin, rendered it easy to claim for the apocryphal Zoroastrian books a quasi-biblical
sanctity as proceeding from a son of Noah, and that Isidore gladly accepted the
theory as evidence for his argument. "The prophets" from whom "some of the philosophers"
appropriated a wisdom not their own can be no other than the Jewish prophets. Again
Clement quotes his book On an Adherent Soul (Περὶ
προσφυοῦς ψυχῆς) in correction of his preceding quotation from Basilides
on the passions as "appendages" (Strom. ii. 488). If the eight lines transcribed
are a fair sample of the treatise, Isidore would certainly appear to have argued
here against his father's teaching. He insists on the unity
μονομερής of the soul, and maintains that bad
men will find "no common excuse" in the violence of the "appendages" for pleading
that their evil acts were involuntary: our duty is, he says, "by overcoming the
inferior creation within us (τῆς ἐλάττονος ἐν ἡμῖν
κτίσεως) through the reasoning faculty (τῷ
λογιστικῷ), to shew ourselves to have the mastery." A third passage from
Isidore's Ethics (Strom. iii. 510) is intercalated into his father's
argument on
Basilides had to all appearance no eminent disciple except his own son. In this respect the contrast between him and Valentinus is remarkable. A succession of brilliant followers carried forward and developed the Valentinian doctrine. It is a singular testimony to the impression created at the outset by Basilides and his system that he remained for centuries one of the eponymi of heresy; his name is oftener repeated, for instance, in the writings of Origen, than that of any other dreaded of the ante-Nicene church except Marcion, Valentinus, and afterwards Mani. But the original teaching, for all its impressiveness, had no vitality. The Basilidianism which did survive, and that, as far as the evidence goes, only locally, was, as we have seen, a poor and corrupt remnant, adulterated with the very elements which the founder had strenuously rejected.
VII. The Spurious Basilidian System.—In briefly sketching this degenerate
Basilidianism it will seldom be needful to distinguish the authorities, which are
fundamentally two, Irenaeus (101 f.) and the lost early treatise of Hippolytus;
both having much in common, and both being interwoven together in the report of
Epiphanius (pp. 68-75). The other relics of the Hippolytean Compendium are the accounts
of Philaster (32), and the supplement to Tertullian (4). At the head of this theology
stood the Unbegotten (neuter in Epiph.), the Only Father. From Him was born or put
forth Nûs, and from Nûs Logos, from Logos Phronesis, from Phronesis Sophia and Dynamis,
from Sophia and Dynamis principalities, powers, and angels. This first set of angels
first made the first heaven, and then gave birth to a second set of angels who made
a second heaven, and so on till 365 heavens had been made by 365 generations of
angels, each heaven being apparently ruled by an Archon to whom a name was given,
and these names being used in magic arts. The angels of the lowest or visible heaven
made the earth and man. They were the authors of the prophecies; and the Law in
particular was given by their Archon, the God of the Jews. He being more petulant
and wilful than the other angels (ἰταμώτερον καὶ αὐθαδέστερον),
in his desire to secure empire for his people, provoked the rebellion of the other
angels and their respective peoples. Then the Unbegotten and Innominable Father,
seeing what discord prevailed among men and among angels, and how the Jews were
perishing, sent His Firstborn Nûs, Who is Christ, to deliver those Who believed
on Him from the power of the makers of the world. "He," the Basilidians said, "is
our salvation, even He Who came and revealed to us alone this truth." He accordingly
appeared on earth and performed mighty works; but His appearance was only in outward
show, and He did not really take flesh. It was Simon of Cyrene that was crucified;
for Jesus exchanged forms with him on the way, and then, standing unseen opposite
in Simon's form, mocked those who did the deed. But He Himself ascended into heaven,
passing through all the powers, till He was restored to the presence of His own
Father. The two fullest accounts, those of Irenaeus and Epiphanius, add by way of
appendix another particular of the antecedent mythology; a short notice on the same
subject being likewise inserted parenthetically by Hippolytus
On these doctrines various precepts are said to have been founded. The most distinctive is the discouragement of martyrdom, which was made to rest on several grounds. To confess the Crucified was called a token of being still in bondage to the makers of the body (nay, he that denied the Crucified was pronounced to be free from the dominion of those angels, and to know the economy of the Unbegotten Father); but it was condemned especially as a vain and ignorant honour paid not to Christ, Who neither suffered nor was crucified, but to Simon of Cyrene; and further, a public confession before men was stigmatized as a giving of that which is holy to the dogs and a casting of pearls before swine. This last precept is but one expression of the secrecy which the Basilidians diligently cultivated, following naturally on the supposed possession of a hidden knowledge. They evaded our Lord's words, "Him that denieth Me before men," etc., by pleading, "We are the men, and all others are swine and dogs." He who had learned their lore and known all angels and their powers was said to become invisible and incomprehensible to all angels and powers, even as also Caulacau was (the sentence in which Irenaeus, our sole authority here, first introduces Caulacau, a name not peculiar to the Basilidians, is unfortunately corrupt). And as the Son was unknown to all, so also, the tradition ran, must members of their community be known to none; but while they know all and pass through the midst of all, remain invisible and unknown to all, observing the maxim, "Do thou know all, but let no one know thee." Accordingly they must be ready to utter denials and unwilling to suffer for the Name, since [to outward appearance] they resembled all. It naturally followed that their mysteries were to be carefully guarded, and disclosed to "only one out of 1000 and two out of 10,000." When Philaster (doubtless after Hippolytus) tells us in his first sentence about Basilides that he was "called by many a heresiarch, because he violated the laws of Christian truth by making an outward show and discourse (proponendo et loquendo) concerning the Law and the Prophets and the Apostles, but believing otherwise," the reference is probably to this contrast between the outward conformity of the sect and their secret doctrines and practices. The Basilidians considered themselves to be no longer Jews, but to have become more than Christians (such seems to be the sense of the obscure phrase Χριστιανοὺς δὲ μηκέτι γεγενῆσθαι for the nondum of the translator of Irenaeus can hardly be right). Repudiation of martyrdom was naturally accompanied by indiscriminate use of things offered to idols. Nay, the principle of indifference is said to have been carried so far as to sanction promiscuous immorality. In this and other respects our accounts may possibly contain exaggerations; but Clement's already cited complaint of the flagrant degeneracy in his time from the high standard set up by Basilides himself is unsuspicious evidence, and a libertine code of ethics would find an easy justification in such maxims as are imputed to the Basilidians. It is hardly necessary to add that they expected the salvation of the soul alone, insisting on the natural corruptibility of the body. They indulged in magic and invocations, "and all other curious arts." A wrong reading taken from the inferior MSS. of Irenaeus has added the further statement that they used "images"; and this single spurious word is often cited in corroboration of the popular belief that the numerous ancient gems on which grotesque mythological combinations are accompanied by the mystic name ΑΒΡΑΣΑΞ were of Basilidian origin. It is shewn in D. C. B. (4-vol. ed.), art. Abrasax, where Lardner (Hist. of Heretics, ii. 14-28) should have been named with Beausobre, that there is no tangible evidence for attributing any known gems to Basilidianism or any other form of Gnosticism, and that in all probability the Basilidians and the heathen engravers of gems alike borrowed the name from some Semitic mythology.
Imperfect and distorted as the picture may be, such was doubtless in substance
the creed of Basilidians not half a century after Basilides had written. Were the
name absent from the records of his system and theirs, no one would have suspected
any relationship between them, much less imagined that they belonged respectively
to master and to disciples. Outward mechanism and inward principles are alike full
of contrasts; no attempts of critics to trace correspondences between the mythological
personages, and to explain them by supposed condensations or mutilations, have attained
even plausibility. Two misunderstandings have been specially misleading. Abrasax,
the chief or Archon of the first set of angels, has been confounded with "the Unbegotten
Father," and the God of the Jews, the Archon of the lowest heaven, has been assumed
to be the only Archon recognized by the later Basilidians, though Epiphanius (69
b.c.) distinctly implies that each
of the 365 heavens had its Archon. The mere name "Archon" is common to most forms
of Gnosticism. So again, because Clement tells us that Righteousness and her daughter
Peace abide in substantive being within the Ogdoad, "the Unbegotten Father"
VIII. History of the Basilidian Sect.—There is no evidence that the sect extended itself beyond Egypt; but there it survived for a long time. Epiphanius (about 375) mentions the Prosopite, Athribite, Saite, and "Alexandriopolite" (read Andropolite) nomes or cantons, and also Alexandria itself, as the places in which it still throve in his time, and which he accordingly inferred to have been visited by Basilides (68 c). All these places lie on the western side of the Delta, between Memphis and the sea. Nearer the end of cent. iv. Jerome often refers to Basilides in connexion with the hybrid Priscillianism of Spain, and the mystic names in which its votaries delighted. According to Sulpicius Severus (Chron. ii. 46) this heresy took its rise in "the East and Egypt"; but, he adds, it is not easy to say "what the beginnings were out of which it there grew" (quibus ibi initiis coaluerit). He states, however, that it was first brought to Spain by Marcus, a native of Memphis. This fact explains how the name of Basilides and some dregs of his disciples' doctrines or practices found their way to so distant a land as Spain, and at the same time illustrates the probable hybrid origin of the secondary Basilidianism itself.
IX. Literature.—Basilides of course occupies a prominent place in every
treatise on Gnosticism, such as those of Neander (including the Church History),
Baur (the same), Lipsius, and Möller (Geschichte der Kosmologie in der Christlichen
Kirche). Two reviews by Gieseler (Halle A. L. Z. for 1823, pp. 335-338;
Studien u. Kritiken for 1830, pp. 395 ff.) contain valuable matter. The best
monograph founded on the whole evidence is that of Uhlhorn (Das Basilidianische
System, Göttingen, 1855), with which should be read an essay by Baur (Theol.
Jahrb. for 1856, pp. 121-162); Jacobi's monograph (Basilidis Philosophi Gnostici
Sententius, etc., Berlin 1852) being also good. Able expositions of the view
that the true doctrine of Basilides is not represented in the larger work of Hippolytus
Against all Heresies will be found in a paper by Hilgenfeld, to which Baur's
article in reply is appended (pp. 86-121), with scattered notices in other articles
of his (especially in his Zeitschrift for 1862, pp 452 ff.); and in Lipsius's
Gnosticismus. Three articles by Gundert (Zeitschrift f. d. Luth. Theol.
for 1855, 209 ff., and 1856, 37 ff., 443 ff.) are of less importance. The lecture
on Basilides in Dr. Mansel's posthumous book on The Gnostic Heresies is able
and independent and makes full use of the best German criticisms, but underrates
the influence of Stoical conceptions on Basilides, and exaggerates that of Platonism;
and after the example of Baur's Christliche Gnosis in respect of Gnosticism
generally, though starting from an opposite point of view, it suffers from an effort
to find in Basilides a precursor of Hegel. Cf. Harnack, Gesch. Alt. Chr. Lit.
1893, pp. 157-161; Th. Zahn, Gesch. des N. T. Kanon (1888-1889), i. 763-774;
J. Kennedy, "Buddhist Gnosticism: the System
Basiliscus, martyr, bp. of Comana, martyred with Lucianus at Nicomedia under Maximin, a.d.312 (Pallad. Dial. de V. St. Chrys. xi., misreading, however, Maximian for Maximin). St. Chrysostom, when exiled, was received upon his journey in a "martyrium," built some five or six miles out of Comana in memory of Basiliscus, and there died and was buried (Theod. H. E. v. 30; Soz. viii. 28; Pallad. as above; Niceph. xiii. 37). Basiliscus is said to have been shod with iron shoes, red hot, and then beheaded and thrown into the river (Menol. in Baron. May 22).
Basilius of Ancyra (Βασίλειος, also called Basilas, Socr. ii. 42), a native of Ancyra, originally a physician (Hieron. de Vir. Ill. 89; Suidas, s.v.), and subsequently bp. of that city, a.d.336-360, one of the most respectable prelates of the semi-Arian party, whose essential orthodoxy was acknowledged by Athanasius himself, the differences between them being regarded as those of language only (Athan. de Synod. tom. i. pp. 915, 619, ed. Morell, Paris, 1627). He was a man of learning, of intellectual power, and dialectical skill, and maintained an unwavering consistency which drew upon him the hostility of the shifty Acacians and their time-serving leader. The jealousy of Acacius was also excited by the unbounded influence Basil at one time exercised over the weak mind of Constantius, and his untiring animosity worked Basil's overthrow. On the deposition of Marcellus, the aged bp. of Ancyra, by the Eusebian party, on the charge of Sabellianism, at a synod meeting at Constantinople, a.d.336, Basil was chosen bishop in his room. He enjoyed the see undisturbed for eleven years; but in 347, the council of Sardica, after the withdrawal of the Eusebians to Philippopolis, reinstated Marcellus, and excommunicated Basil as "a wolf who had invaded the fold" (Socr. ii. 20). Three years later, a.d.350, the Eusebians were again in the ascendant, through the powerful patronage of Constantius, and Basil was replaced in his see by the express order of the emperor (Socr. ii. 26). Basil speedily obtained a strong hold over Constantius, who consulted him on all ecclesiastical matters, and did nothing without his cognizance. He and George of Laodicea were now the recognized leaders of the semi-Arian party (Epiph. Haer. lxxiii. 1). The next year, a.d.351, Basil took the chief part in the proceedings of the council that met at Sirmium, where Constantius was residing, to depose Photinus the pupil of Marcellus, who was developing his master's views into direct Sabellianism (ib. lxxi. lxxiii.; Socr. ii. 30). Shortly after this we find him attacking with equal vigour a heresy of an exactly opposite character, disputing with Aetius, the Anomoean, in conjunction with Eustathius of Sebaste, another leader of the semi-Arian party. The issue of the controversy is variously reported, according to the proclivities of the historians. Philostorgius (H. E. iii. 16) asserts that Basil and Eustathius were worsted by their antagonist; orthodox writers assign them the victory (Greg. Nys. in Eunom. lib. i. pp. 289, 296). Basil's representations of the abominable character of Aetius's doctrines so exasperated Gallus against him that he issued an order for his execution; but on having personal intercourse with him pronounced him maligned, and took him as his theological tutor. [Aetius.] Basil's influence increased, and just before Easter, a.d.358, when a number of bishops had assembled at Ancyra for the dedication of a new church that Basil had built, Basil received letters from George of Laodicea speaking with great alarm of the spread of Anomoean doctrines, and entreating him to avail himself of the opportunity to obtain a synodical condemnation of Aetius and Eunomius. Other bishops were accordingly summoned, and eighteen anathemas were drawn up. Basil himself, with Eustathius and Eleusius, were deputed to communicate these anathemas to Constantius at Sirmium. The deputies were received with much consideration by the emperor, who ratified their synodical decrees and gave his authority for their publication. Basil availed himself of his influence over Constantius to induce him to summon a general council for the final settlement of the questions that had been so long distracting the church. It was ultimately decided to divide the council into two, and Ariminum was selected for the West, and Seleucia in Isauria for the East. The Eastern council met, Sept. 27, 359. Basil did not arrive till the third day. He was soon made aware that his influence with the emperor had been undermined by his Acacian rivals, and that his power was gone. When he reproved Constantius for unduly favouring them, the emperor bid him hold his peace, and charged him with being himself the cause of the dissensions that were agitating the church (Theod. ii. 27). At another synod convened at Constantinople under the immediate superintendence of Constantius, Acacius found himself master of the situation and deposed whom he would. Basil was one of the first to fall. No doctrinal errors were charged against him. He was condemned on frivolous and unproved grounds, together with Cyril of Jerusalem, Eustathius of Sebaste, and other leading prelates. Banishment followed deposition. Basil was exiled to Illyria (Soz. iv. 24; Philost. v. 1). On the accession of Jovian, a.d.363, he joined the other deposed bishops in petitioning that emperor to expel the Anomoeans and restore the rightful bishops; but Basil seems to have died in exile (Socr. iii. 25).
Athanasius speaks of his having written περὶ πίστεως (Athan. de Synod. u.s.). Ittigius (de Haer. p. 453) defends him from the charge of Arianism. Jerome identifies him, but unjustly, with the Macedonian party (Tillemont, vol. vi. passim).
Basilius of Ancyra, a presbyter who became a martyr under Julian
a.d.362. During the reign of Constantius
he had been an uncompromising opponent of Arianism. He was more than once apprehended
by the provincial governors, but recovered his liberty. The Arian council under
Eudoxius at Constantinople in 360 forbade him to hold any ecclesiastical assembly.
The zeal of Basil was still further quickened by the attempts of Julian to suppress
Christianity. Sozomen tells us
Basilius, bp. of Caesarea in Cappadocia, commonly called Basil the
Great, the strenuous champion of orthodoxy in the East, the restorer of union
to the divided Oriental church, and the promoter of unity between the East and the
West, was born at Caesarea (originally called Mazaca), the capital of Cappadocia,
towards the end of 329. His parents were members of noble and wealthy families,
and Christians by descent. His grandparents on both sides had suffered during the
Maximinian persecution, his maternal grandfather losing both property and life.
Macrina, his paternal grandmother, and her husband, were compelled to leave their
home in Pontus, of which country they were natives, and to take refuge among the
woods and mountains of that province, where they are reported to have passed seven
years (Greg. Naz. Or. xx. p. 319). [Macrina.]
His father, whose name was also Basil, was an advocate and teacher of rhetoric whose
learning and eloquence had brought him a very large practice. Gregory Nazianzen
speaks of this elder Basil in terms of the highest commendation as one who was regarded
by the whole of Pontus as "the common instructor of virtue" (Or. xx. p. 324).
The elder Basil and Emmelia had ten children, five of each sex, of whom a daughter,
Macrina, was the eldest. Basil the Great was the eldest son; two others, Gregory
Nyssen and Peter, attained the episcopate. Naucratius the second son died a layman.
Four of the daughters were well and honourably married. Macrina, the eldest, embraced
a life of devotion, and exercised a very powerful influence over Basil and the other
members of the family. [Macrina,
(2).] Basil was indebted for the care of his earliest years to his grandmother
Macrina, who brought him up at her country house, not far from Neocaesarea in the
province of Pontus (Bas. Ep. 210, § 1). The date of Basil's baptism is uncertain,
but, according to the prevalent custom, it was almost certainly deferred until he
reached man's estate. For the completion of his education, Basil was sent by his
father first to his native city of Caesarea (Greg. Naz. Or. xx. p. 325).
>From Caesarea he passed to Constantinople (Bas. Epp. 335-359; Liban. Vita,
p. 15), and thence to Athens, where he studied during the years 351-355, chiefly
under the Sophists Himerius and Prohaeresius. His acquaintance with his fellow-student
and inseparable companion Gregory Nazianzen, previously begun at Caesarea, speedily
ripened at Athens into an ardent friendship, which subsisted with hardly any interruption
through the greater part of their lives. Athens also afforded Basil the opportunity
of familiar intercourse with a fellow-student whose name was destined to become
unhappily famous, the nephew of the emperor Constantius, Julian. The future emperor
conceived a warm attachment for the young Cappadocian, with whom—as the latter reminds
him when the relations between them had so sadly changed—he not only studied the
best models of literature, but also carefully read the sacred Scriptures (Epp.
40, 41; Greg. Naz. Orat. iv. adv. Julian, pp. 121 seq.). Basil remained
at Athens till the middle or end of 355, when with extreme reluctance he left for
his native city. By this time his father was dead. His mother, Emmelia, was residing
at the village of Annesi, near Neocaesarea. Basil's Athenian reputation had preceded
him, and he was received with much honour by the people of Caesarea, where he consented
to settle as a teacher of rhetoric (Greg. Naz. Or. xx. p. 334). He practised
the profession of a rhetorician with great celebrity for a considerable period (Rufin.
ii. 9), but the warnings and counsels of Macrina guarded him from the seductions
of the world, and eventually induced him to abandon it altogether and devote himself
to a religious life (Greg. Nys. u.s.). Basil, in a letter to Eustathius of
Sebaste, describes himself at this period as one awaked out of a deep sleep, and
in the marvellous light of Gospel truth discerning the folly of that wisdom of this
world in the study of which nearly all his youth had vanished. His first care was
to reform his life. Finding, by reading the Gospels, that nothing tended so much
toward perfection as to sell all that he had and free himself from worldly cares,
and feeling himself too weak to stand alone in such an enterprise, he desired earnestly
to find some brother who might give him his aid (Ep. 223). No sooner did
his determination become known that he was beset by the remonstrances of his friends
entreating him, some to continue the profession of rhetoric, some to become an advocate.
But his choice was made, and his resolution was inflexible. Basil's baptism may
be placed at this epoch. He was probably baptized by Dianius, bp. of Caesarea, by
whom not long afterwards he was admitted to the order of reader (de Spir. Sancto,
c. xxix. 71). Basil's determination in favour of a life of devotion would be strengthened
by the death of his next brother, Naucratius, who had embraced the life of a solitary,
and about this period was drowned while engaged in works of mercy (Greg. Nys.
de Vit. S. Macr. p. 182). About a.d.357, when still under thirty, Basil left Caesarea to seek the most celebrated ascetics
upon whose life he might model his own; visiting Alexandria and Upper Egypt, Palestine,
Coelesyria, and Mesopotamia. He records his admiration of the abstinence and endurance
of the ascetics whom he met, their mastery over hunger and sleep, their indifference
to cold and nakedness, as well as his desire to imitate them (Ep. 223, §
2). The year 358 saw Basil again at Caesarea resolved on the immediate carrying
out of his purpose of retiring from the world, finally selecting for his retreat
a spot near Neocaesarea, close to
After two years thus spent Basil was summoned from his solitude in 359 to accompany Basil of Ancyra and Eustathius of Sebaste, who had been delegated by the council of Seleucia to communicate the conclusions of that assembly to Constantius at Constantinople. Basil seems from his youth and natural timidity to have avoided taking any part in the discussions of the council that followed, 360, in which the Anomoeans were condemned, the more orthodox semi-Arians deposed, and the Acacians triumphed. But when Constantius endeavoured to force those present to sign the creed of Ariminum, Basil left the city and returned to Cappadocia (Greg. Nys. in Eunom. pp. 310, 312; Philost. iv. 12). Not long after his return George of Laodicea arrived at Caesarea as an emissary of Constantius, bringing with him that creed for signature. To Basil's intense grief, bp. Dianius, a gentle, undecided man, who valued peace above orthodoxy, was persuaded to sign. Basil felt it impossible any longer to hold communion with his bishop, and fled to Nazianzus to find consolation in the society of his dear friend Gregory (Ep. 8, 51). He denied with indignation the report that he had anathematized his bishop, and when two years afterwards (362) Dianius was stricken for death and entreated Basil to return and comfort his last hours, he at once went to him, and the aged bishop died in his arms.
The choice of Dianius's successor gave rise to violent dissensions at Caesarea. At last the populace, wearied with the indecision, chose Eusebius, a man of high position and eminent piety, but as yet unbaptized. They forcibly conveyed him to the church where the provincial bishops were assembled, and compelled the unwilling prelates first to baptize and then to consecrate him. Eusebius was bp. at Caesarea for 8 years (Greg. Naz. Or. xix. 308, 309).
Shortly before the death of Dianius, Julian had ascended the throne (Dec. 11,
361), and desired to surround himself with the associates of his early days (Greg.
Naz. Or. iv. 120). Among the first whom he invited was his fellow-student
at Athens, Basil. Basil at first held out hopes of accepting his old friend's invitation;
but he delayed his journey, and Julian's declared apostasy soon gave him sufficient
cause to relinquish it altogether. The next year Julian displayed his irritation.
Receiving intelligence that the people of Caesarea, so far from apostatizing with
him and building new pagan temples, had pulled down the only one still standing
(Greg. Naz. Or. iii. 91, xix. 309; Socr. v. 4), he expunged Caesarea from
the catalogue of cities, made it take its old name of Mazaca, imposed heavy payments,
compelled the clergy to serve in the
One of the first acts of bp. Eusebius was to compel the reluctant Basil to be ordained priest, that the bishop might avail himself of Basil's theological knowledge and intellectual powers to compensate for his own deficiencies. At first he employed him very largely. But when he found himself completely eclipsed he became jealous of Basil's popularity and treated him with a marked coldness, amounting almost to insolence, which awoke the hostility of the Christians of Caesarea, whose idol Basil was. A schism was imminent, but Basil, refusing to strengthen the heretical party by creating divisions among the orthodox, retired with his friend Gregory to Pontus, where he devoted himself to the care of the monasteries he had founded (Greg. Naz. Or. xx. pp. 336, 337; Soz. vi. 15).
Basil had passed about three years in his Pontic seclusion when, in 365, the blind zeal of the emperor Valens for the spread of Arianism brought him back to Caesarea. As soon as it was known that Valens was approaching that city, the popular voice demanded the recall of Basil as the only bulwark against the attack on the true faith and its adherents meditated by the emperor. Gregory acted the part of a wise mediator, and Basil's return to the bishop was effected (Greg. Naz. Ep. 19, 20, 169; Or. xx. p. 339). Treating Eusebius with the honour due to his position and his age, Basil now proved himself, in the words of Gregory, the staff of his age, the support of his faith; at home the most faithful of his friends; abroad the most efficient of his ministers (ib. 340).
The first designs of Valens against Caesarea were interrupted by the news of the revolt of Procopius (Amm. Marc. 26, 27). He left Asia to quell the insurrection which threatened his throne. Basil availed himself of the breathing-time thus granted in organizing the resistance of the orthodox against the Eunomians or Anomoeans, who were actively propagating their pernicious doctrines through Asia Minor; and in uniting the Cappadocians in loyal devotion to the truth. The year 368 afforded Basil occasion of displaying his large and universal charity. The whole of Cappadocia was desolated by drought and famine, the visitation pressing specially on Caesarea. Basil devoted his whole energies to helping the poor sufferers. He sold the property he had inherited at the recent death of his mother, and raised a large subscription in the city. He gave his own personal ministrations to the wretched, and while he fed their bodies he was careful to nourish their souls with the bread of life (Greg. Naz. Or. xx. 340-342; Greg. Nys. in Eunom. i. 306).
Eusebius died towards the middle of 370 in Basil's arms (Greg. Naz. Or. xix. 310, xx. 342). Basil persuaded himself, not altogether unwarrantably, that the cause of orthodoxy in Asia Minor was involved in his succeeding Eusebius. Disappointed of the assistance anticipated from the younger Gregory, Basil betook himself to his father, the aged bp. of Nazianzus of the same name. The momentous importance of the juncture was more evident to the elder man. Orthodoxy was at stake in Basil's election. "The Holy Spirit must triumph" (Greg. Naz. Or. xx. 342). Using his son as his scribe, he dictated a letter to the clergy, monks, magistrates, and people of Caesarea, calling on them to choose Basil; another to the electing prelates, exhorting them not to allow Basil's weakness of health to counterbalance his marked pre-eminence in spiritual gifts and in learning (Greg. Naz. Ep. 22, 23). No orthodox prelate had at that time a deservedly greater influence than Eusebius of Samosata. Gregory wrote to him and persuaded him to visit Caesarea and undertake the direction of this difficult business (Bas. Ep. 47). On his arrival, Eusebius found the city divided into two opposite factions. All the best of the people, together with the clergy and the monks, warmly advocated Basil's election, which was vigorously opposed by other classes. The influence and tact of Eusebius overcame all obstacles. The people warmly espoused Basil's cause; the bishops were compelled to give way, and the triumph of the orthodox cause was consummated by the arrival of the venerable Gregory, who, on learning that one vote was wanting for the canonical election of Basil, while his son was still hesitating full of scruples and refused to quit Nazianzus, left his bed for a litter, had himself carried to Caesarea at the risk of expiring on the way, and with his own hands consecrated the newly elected prelate, and placed him on his episcopal throne (Greg. Naz. Ep. 29, p. 793, Or. xix. 311, xx. 343) Basil's election filled the orthodox everywhere with joy. Athanasius, the veteran champion of the faith, congratulated Cappadocia on possessing a bishop whom every province might envy (Ath. ad. Pallad. p. 953, ad Joann. et Ant. p. 951). At Constantinople it was received with far different feelings. Valens regarded it as a serious check to his designs for the triumph of Arianism. Basil was not an opponent to be despised. He must be bent to the emperor's will or got rid of. As bp. of Caesarea his power extended far beyond the limits of the city itself. He was metropolitan of Cappadocia, and exarch of Pontus. In the latter capacity his authority, more or less defied, extended over more than half Asia Minor, and embraced as many as eleven provinces. Ancyra, Neocaesarea, Tyana, with other metropolitan sees, acknowledged him as their ecclesiastical superior.
Basil's first disappointment in his episcopate arose from his inability to induce
his dear friend Gregory to join him as his coadjutor in the government of his province
and exarchate. He consented at last for a while, but soon withdrew. Difficulties
soon thickened round the new exarch. The bishops who had opposed his election and
refused to take part in his consecration,
Basil had been bishop little more than twelve months when he was brought into
open collision with the emperor Valens, who was traversing Asia Minor with the fixed
resolve of exterminating the orthodox faith and establishing Arianism. No part of
Basil's history is better known, and in none do we more clearly discern the strength
and weakness of his character. "The memorable interview with St. Basil," writes
Dean Milman, "as it is related by the Catholic party, displays, if the weakness,
certainly the patience and toleration of the sovereign—if the uncompromising firmness
of the prelate, some of that leaven of pride with which he is taunted by St. Jerome
" (Hist. of Christianity, iii. 45). Valens had never relinquished the designs
which had been interrupted by the revolt of Procopius, and he was now approaching
Caesarea determined to reduce to submission the chief champion of orthodoxy in the
East. His progress hitherto had been one of uniform victory. The Catholics had everywhere
fallen before him. Bithynia had resisted and had become the scene of horrible tragedies.
The fickle Galatia had yielded without a struggle. The fate of Cappadocia depended
on Basil. His house, as the emperor drew near, was besieged by ladies of rank, high
personages of state, even by bishops, who entreated him to bow before the storm
and appease the emperor by a temporary submission. Their expostulations were rejected
with indignant disdain. A band of Arian bishops headed by Euippius, an aged bishop
of Galatia and an old friend of Basil's, preceded Valens's arrival with the hope
of overawing their opponents by their numbers and unanimity. Basil took the initiative,
and with prompt decision separated himself from their communion (Bas. Epp.
68, 128, 244, 251). Members of the emperor's household indulged in the most violent
menaces against the archbishop. One of the most insolent of these was the eunuch
Demosthenes, the superintendent of the kitchen. Basil met his threats with quiet
irony, and was next confronted by Modestus, the prefect of the Praetorium, commissioned
by the emperor to offer Basil the choice between deposition or communion with the
Arians. This violent and unscrupulous imperial favourite accosted Basil with the
grossest insolence. He refused him the title of bishop; he threatened confiscation,
exile, tortures, death. But such menaces, Basil replied, were powerless on one whose
sole wealth was a ragged cloak and a few books, to whom the whole earth was a home,
or rather a place of pilgrimage, whose feeble body could endure no tortures beyond
the first stroke, and to whom death would be a mercy, as it would the sooner transport
him to the God to Whom he lived. Modestus expressed his astonishment at hearing
such unusual language (Greg. Naz. Or. xx. 351; Soz. vi. 16). "That is," replied
Basil, "because you have never before fallen in with a true bishop." Modestus, finding
his menaces useless, changed his tone. He counselled prudence. Basil should avoid
irritating the emperor, and submit to his requirements, as all the other prelates
of Asia had done. If he would only yield he promised him the friendship of Valens,
and whatever favours he might desire for his friends. Why should he sacrifice all
his power for the sake of a few doctrines? (Theod. iv. 19). But flattery had as
little power as threats over Basil's iron will. The prefect was at his wit's end.
Valens was expected on the morrow. Modestus was unwilling to meet the emperor with
a report of failure. The aspect of a court of justice with its official state and
band of ministers prepared to execute its sentence might inspire awe. But judicial
terrors were equally futile (Greg. Nys. in Eunom. p. 315). Modestus, utterly
foiled, had to announce to his master that all his attempts to obtain submission
had been fruitless. "Violence would be the only course to adopt with one over whom
threats and blandishments were equally powerless" (Greg. Naz. Or. xx. p.
350). Such Christian intrepidity was not without effect on the feeble, impressionable
mind of Valens. He refused to sanction any harsh measures against the archbishop,
and moderated his demands to the admission of Arians to Basil's communion. But here
too Basil was equally inflexible. To bring matters to a decided issue, the emperor
presented himself in the chief church of Caesarea on the Epiphany,
a.d.372, after the service had commenced.
He found the church flooded with "a sea" of worshippers whose chanted psalms pealed
forth like thunder, uninterrupted by the entrance of the emperor and his train.
Basil was at the altar celebrating the Eucharistic sacrifice, standing, according
to the primitive custom, behind the altar with his face to the assembled people,
supported on either hand by the semicircle of his attendant clergy. "The unearthly
majesty of the scene," the rapt devotion of the archbishop, erect like a column
before the holy table, the reverent order of the immense throng, "more like that
of angels than of men," overpowered the weak and excitable Valens, and he almost
fainted away. When the time came for making his offering, and the ministers were
hesitating whether they should receive an oblation from the hand of a heretic, his
limbs failed him, and but for the aid of one of the clergy he would have fallen.
Basil, it would seem, pitying his enemy's weakness, accepted the gift from his trembling
hand (ib. p. 351) The next day Valens again visited the church, and listened
with reverence to Basil's preaching, and made his offerings, which were not now
rejected. The sermon over, Basil admitted the emperor within the sacred veil, and
discoursed on the orthodox faith. He was rudely interrupted by the cook Demosthenes,
who was guilty of a gross solecism. Basil smiled and said, "We have, it seems, a
Demosthenes who cannot speak
The issue of these unsuccessful assaults was to place Basil in a position of
inviolability, and to leave him leisure for administering his diocese and exarchate,
which much needed his firm and unflinching hand. His visitation disclosed many irregularities
which he sternly repressed. The chorepiscopi had admitted men to the lower orders
who had no intention of proceeding to the priesthood, or even to the diaconate,
but merely to gain immunity from military service (Ep. 54). Many of his suffragans
were guilty of simony in receiving a fee for ordination (Ep. 55). Men were
raised to the episcopate from motives of personal interest and to gratify private
friends (Ep. 290). The perilous custom of unmarried priests having females
(συνείσακται, subintroductae) residing
with them as "spiritual sisters" called for reproof (Ep. 55). A fanatic deacon,
Glycerius, who had collected a band of professed virgins, whom he forcibly carried
off by night and who wandered about the country dancing and singing to the scandal
of the faithful, caused him much trouble (Epp. 169, 170, 171). To heal the
fountain-head, Basil made himself as far as possible master of episcopal elections,
and steadily refused to admit any he deemed unworthy of the office. So high became
the reputation of his clergy that other bishops sent to him for presbyters to become
their coadjutors and successors (Ep. 81). Marriage with a deceased wife's
sister he denounced as prohibited by the laws both of Scripture and nature (Ep.
160). Feeble as was his health, his activity was unceasing. He visited every part
of his exarchate, and maintained a constant intercourse by letter with confidential
friends, who kept him informed of all that passed and were ready to carry out his
instructions. He pushed his episcopal activity to the very frontiers of Armenia.
In 372 he made an expedition by the express command of Valens, obtained by the urgency
of his fast friend count Terentius, to strengthen the episcopate in that country
by appointing fresh bishops and infusing fresh life into existing ones (Ep.
99). He was very diligent in preaching, not only at Caesarea and other cities, but
in country villages. The details of public worship occupied his attention. Even
while a presbyter he arranged forms of prayer (εὺχῶν
διατάξεις), probably a liturgy, for the church of Caesarea (Greg. Naz.
Or. xx. 340). He established nocturnal services, in which the psalms were chanted
by alternate choirs, which, as a novelty, gave great offence to the clergy of Neocaesarea
(Ep. 207). These incessant labours were carried out by one who, naturally
of a weak constitution, had so enfeebled himself by austerities that "when called
well, he was weaker than persons who are given over" (Ep. 136). His chief
malady, a disease of the liver, caused him repeated and protracted sufferings, often
hindering him travelling, the least motion bringing on a relapse (Ep. 202).
The severity of winter often kept him a prisoner to his house and often even to
his room (Ep. 27). A letter from Eusebius of Samosata arrived when he had
been 50 days ill of a fever. "He was eager to fly straight to Syria, but he was
unequal to turning in his bed. He hoped for relief from the hot springs" (Ep.
138). He suffered "sickness upon sickness, so that his shell must certainly fail
unless God's mercy extricate him from evils beyond man's cure" (Ep. 136).
At 45 he calls himself an old man. The next year he had lost all his teeth. Three
years before his death all remaining hope of
In 372 a harassing dispute with Anthimus, bp. of Tyana, touching ecclesiastical jurisdiction, led to the chief personal sorrow of Basil's life, the estrangement of the friend of his youth, Gregory of Nazianzus. The circumstances were these. Towards the close of 371 Valens determined to divide Cappadocia into two provinces. Podandus, a miserable little town at the foot of mount Taurus, was at first named as the chief city of the new province, to which a portion of the executive was to be removed. The inhabitants of Caesarea entreated Basil to go to Constantinople and petition for the rescinding of the edict. His weak health prevented this, but he wrote to Sophronius, a native of Caesarea in a high position at court, and to Aburgius, a man of influence there, begging them to use all their power to alter the emperor's decision. They could not prevent the division of the province, but did obtain the substitution of Tyana for Podandus (Epp. 74-76). Anthimus thereupon insisted that the ecclesiastical division should follow the civil, and claimed metropolitan rights over several of Basil's suffragans. Basil appealed to ancient usage in vain. Anthimus called a council of the bishops who had opposed Basil's election and were ready to exalt his rival. By flattery, intimidation, and even the removal of opponents, Anthimus strengthened his faction. Basil's authority was reduced to a nullity in one-half of his province (Greg. Naz. Or. xx. 355; Epp. 31, 33; Bas. Ep. 259). Basil appealed to his friend Gregory, who replied that he would come to his assistance, though Basil wanted him no more than the sea wanted water. He warned Basil that his difficulties were increased by the suspicions created by his intimacy with Eustathius of Sebaste and his friends, whose reputation for orthodoxy was more than doubtful (Greg. Naz. Ep. 25). On Gregory's arrival the two friends started together for the monastery of St. Orestes on mount Taurus, in the second Cappadocia, the property of the see of Caesarea, to collect the produce of the estate. This roused Anthimus's indignation, and despite his advanced age, he occupied the defile, through which the pack-mules had to pass, with his armed retainers. A serious affray resulted, Gregory fighting bravely in his friend's defence (Greg. Naz. Or. xx. 356; Ep. 31, Carm. i. 8). Basil erected several new bishoprics as defensive outposts against his rival. One of these was near St. Orestes at Sasima, a wretched little posting-station and frontier custom-house at the junction of three great roads, hot, dry, and dusty, vociferous with the brawls of muleteers, travellers, and excisemen. Here Basil, disregarding Gregory's delicate temperament, determined to place him as bishop. Gregory's weaker character bowed to Basil's iron will, and he was most reluctantly consecrated. But Anthimus appointed a rival bishop, and Gregory took the earliest opportunity of escaping from the unwelcome position which he could only have maintained at the risk of continual conflict, and even bloodshed. [Gregory Nazianzen; Anthimus.] A peace was ultimately patched up, apparently through the intercession of Gregory and the mediation of Eusebius of Samosata and the senate of Tyana. Anthimus was recognised as metropolitan of the new province, each province preserving its own revenues (Bas. Epp. 97, 98, 122). Gregory attributed Basil's action to a high sense of duty, but could never forget that he had sacrificed his friend to that, and the wound inflicted on their mutual attachment was never healed, and even after Basil's death Gregory reproaches him with his unfaithfulness to the laws of friendship. "This lamentable occurrence took place seven years before Basil's death. He had before and after it many trials, many sorrows; but this probably was the greatest of all" (Newman, Church of the Fathers, p. 144).
The Ptochotropheion, or hospital for the reception and relief of the poor, which Basil had erected in the suburbs of Caesarea, afforded his untiring enemies a pretext for denouncing him to Helias, the new president of the province. This establishment, which was so extensive as to go by the name of the "New Town," ἡ καινὴ πόλις (Greg. Naz. Or. xx. p. 359), and subsequently the "Basileiad" after its founder (Soz. vi. 34), included a church, a palace for the bishop, and residences for his clergy and their attendant ministers; hospices for the poor, sick, and wayfarers; and workshops for the artisans and labourers whose services were needed, in which the inmates also might learn and practise various trades. There was a special department for lepers, with arrangements for their proper medical treatment, and on these loathsome objects Basil lavished his chief personal ministrations. By such an enormous establishment Basil, it was hinted, was aiming at undue power and infringing on the rights of the civil authorities. But Basil adroitly parried the blow by reminding the governor that apartments were provided in the building for him and his attendants, and suggesting that the glory of so magnificent an architectural work would redound to him (Ep. 84).
Far more harassing and more lasting troubles arose to Basil from the double dealing
of Eustathius, the unprincipled and timeserving bp. of Sebaste.
[Eustathius of Sebaste.] Towards the
middle of June 372, the venerable Theodotus, bp. of Nicopolis, a metropolitan of
Lesser Armenia, a prelate of high character and unblemished orthodoxy, deservedly
respected by Basil, had invited him to a festival at Phargamon near his episcopal
see. Meletius of Antioch, then in exile in Armenia, was also to be there. Sebaste
was almost on the road between Caesarea and Nicopolis, and Basil, aware of the suspicion
entertained by Theodotus of the orthodoxy of Eustathius, determined to stop there
on his way, and demand a definite statement of his faith. Many hours were spent
on fruitless discussion until, at three in the afternoon of the second day, a substantial
agreement appeared to have been attained. To remove all doubt of his orthodoxy,
Basil next addressed himself to the Western churches. His first letter in 372
was written to Damasus, bp. of Rome, lamenting the heavy storm under which almost
the whole Eastern church was labouring, and entreating of his tender compassion,
as the one remedy of its evils, that either he, or persons like-minded with him,
would personally visit the East with the view of bringing the churches of God to
unity, or at least determining with whom the church of Rome should hold communion
(Ep. 70). Basil's letters were conveyed to Athanasius and Damasus by Dorotheus,
a deacon of Antioch, in communion with Meletius. He returned by way of Alexandria
in company with a deacon named Sabinus (afterwards bp. of Piacenza) as bearer of
the replies of the Western prelates. These replies were full of expressions of sympathy,
but held out no definite prospect of practical help. Something, however, was hoped
from the effect of Sabinus's report on his return to the West, as an eye-witness
of the lamentable condition of the Eastern church. Sabinus was charged with several
letters on his return to Italy. One, bearing the signatures of thirty-two Eastern
bishops, including besides Basil, Meletius of Antioch, Eusebius of Samosata, Gregory
Nyssen, etc., was addressed to the bishops of Italy and Gaul; another was written
in Basil's own name to the bishops of the West generally. There were also private
letters to Valerian of Aquileia and others. These letters have a most distressing
picture of the state of the East. "Men had learnt to be theorists instead of theologians.
The true shepherds were driven away. Grievous
The secret of the coldness with which the requests for assistance addressed by
the Eastern church were received by the West was partly the suspicion that was entertained
of Basil's orthodoxy in consequence of his friendship with Eustathius of Sebaste
and other doubtful characters, and the large-heartedness which led him to recognize
a real oneness of belief under varying technical formulas, but was principally due
to his refusal to recognize the supremacy of the bp. of Rome. His letters were usually
addressed to the bishops of the West, and not to the bp. of Rome individually. In
all his dealings Basil treats with Damasus as an equal, and asserts the independence
of the East. In his eyes the Eastern and Western churches were two sisters with
equal prerogatives; one more powerful than the other, and able to render the assistance
she needed, but not in any way her superior. This want of deference in his language
and behaviour offended not Damasus only, but all who maintained the supremacy of
Rome. Jerome accused Basil of pride, and went so far as to assert that there were
but three orthodox bishops in the East—Athanasius, Epiphanius, and Paulinus (ad
Pammach. 38). His appeals proving ineffectual, Basil's tone respecting Damasus
and the Western prelates changed. He began to suspect the real cause of the apathy
with which his entreaties for aid had been received, and to feel that no relief
could be hoped from their "Western superciliousness" (τῆς
δυτικῆς ὀφρύος), and that it was in vain to send emissaries to "one who was
high and haughty and sat aloft and would not stoop to listen to the truth from men
who stood below; since an elated mind, if courted, is sure to become only more contemptuous"
(Epp. 215, 239). But while his hope of assistance from the West lessened,
the need for it increased. The persecution of the orthodox by the Arians grew fiercer.
"Polytheism had got possession. A greater and a lesser God were worshipped. All
ecclesiastical power, all church ordinances, were in Arian hands. Arians baptized;
Arians visited the sick; Arians administered the sacred mysteries. Only one offence
was severely punished, a strict observance of the traditions of the Fathers. For
that the pious were banished, and driven to deserts. No pity was shewn to the aged.
Lamentations filled the city, the country, the roads, the deserts. The houses of
prayer were closed; the altars forbidden. The orthodox met for worship in the deserts
exposed to wind and rain and snow, or to the scorching sun " (Epp. 242, 243).
In his dire extremity he once more appealed to the West, now in the language of
indignant expostulation. "Why," he asks, "has no writing of consolation come to
us, no visitation of the brethren, no other of such attentions as are due to us
from the law of love? This is the thirteenth year since the war with the heretics
burst upon us. Will you not now at last stretch out a helping hand to the tottering
Eastern church, and send some who will raise our minds to the rewards promised by
Christ to those who suffer for Him?" (Ep. 242). These letters were dispatched
in 376. But still no help came. His reproaches were as ineffectual as his entreaties.
A letter addressed to the Western bishops the next year (377) proves that matters
had not really advanced a single step beyond the first day. We find him still entreating
his Western brethren in the most moving terms to grant him the consolation of a
visit. "The visitation of the sick is the greatest commandment. But if the Wise
and Good Disposer of human affairs forbids that, let them at least write something
that may comfort those who are so grievously cast down." He demands of them "an
authoritative condemnation of the Arians, of his enemy Eustathius, of Apollinaris,
and of Paulinus of Antioch. If they would only condescend to write and inform the
Eastern churches who were to be admitted to communion and who not, all might yet
be well" (Ep. 263). The reply brought back by the faithful Dorotheus overwhelmed
him with sorrow. Not a finger was raised by the cold and haughty West to help her
afflicted sister. Dorotheus had even heard Basil's beloved friends Meletius and
Eusebius of Samosata spoken of by Damasus and Peter of Alexandria as heretics, and
ranked among the Arians. What wonder if Dorotheus had waxed warm and used some intemperate
language
Foiled in all his repeated demands, a deaf ear turned to his most earnest entreaties, the council he had begged for not summoned, the deputation he had repeatedly solicited unsent, Basil's span of life drew to its end amid blasted hopes and apparently fruitless labours for the unity of the faith. It was not permitted him to live to see the Eastern churches, for the purity of whose faith he had devoted all his power, restored to peace and unanimity. "He had to fare on as he best might—admiring, courting, but coldly treated by the Latin world, desiring the friendship of Rome, yet wounded by her superciliousness—suspected of heresy by Damasus, and accused by Jerome of pride" (Newman, Church of the Fathers, p. 115).
Some gleams of brightness were granted to cheer the last days of this dauntless champion of the faith. The invasion of the Goths in 378 gave Valens weightier cares than the support of a tottering heresy, and brought his persecution of the orthodox to an end on the eve of his last campaign, in which he perished after the fatal rout of Hadrianople (Aug. 9, 378). One of the first acts of the youthful Gratian was to recall the banished orthodox prelates, and Basil had the joy of witnessing the event so earnestly desired in perhaps his latest extant letter, the restoration of his beloved friend Eusebius of Samosata (Ep. 268). Basil died in Caesarea, an old man before his time, Jan. 1, 378, in the 50th year of his age. He rallied before his death, and was enabled to ordain with his dying hand some of the most faithful of his disciples. "His death-bed was surrounded by crowds of the citizens, ready," writes his friend Gregory, "to give part of their own life to lengthen that of their bishop." He breathed his last with the words "Into Thy hands I commend my spirit." His funeral was attended by enormous crowds, who thronged to touch the bier or the hem of his funeral garments, or even to catch a distant glimpse of his face. The press was so great that several persons were crushed to death, almost the object of envy because they died with Basil. Even Jews and pagans joined in the general lamentations, and it was with some difficulty that the bearers preserved their sacred burden from being torn to pieces by those who were eager to secure a relic of the departed saint. He was buried in his father's sepulchre, "the chief priest being laid to the priests; the mighty voice to the preachers; the martyr to the martyrs" (Greg. Naz. Or. xx. 371, 372). In person he was tall and thin, holding himself very erect. His complexion was dark, his face pale and emaciated with close study and austerities; his forehead projecting, with retiring temples. A quick eye, flashing from under finely arched eyebrows, gave light and animation to his countenance. His speech was slow and deliberate. His manner manifested a reserve and sedateness which some of his contemporaries attributed to pride, others to timidity. Gregory says, "It was the self-possession of his character, and composure and polish, which they called pride," and refers not very convincingly to his habit of embracing lepers as a proof of the absence of superciliousness (Or. xx. 360). Basil's pride, indeed, was not the empty arrogance of a weak mind; but a well-grounded confidence in his own powers. His reserve arose partly from natural shyness—he jestingly charges himself with "the want of spirit and sluggishness of the Cappadocians" (Ep. 48)—partly from an unwillingness to commit himself with those of whom he was not sure. It is curious to see the dauntless opponent of Modestus and Valens charged with timidity. The heretic Eunomius after his death accused him of being "a coward and a craven skulking from all severer labours," and spoke contemptuously of his "solitary cottage and close-shut doors, and his flustered look and manner when persons entered unexpectedly" (Greg. Nys. adv. Eunom. i. p. 318). Philostorgius also speaks of Basil as "from timidity of mind withdrawing from public discussions " (H. E. iv. 12). The fact seems to be that Basil was like many who, while shewing intrepid courage when once forced into action, are naturally averse from publicity. He was a great lover of natural beauty, as shewn by his letters. The playful turn of his mind is also seen in many passages of his familiar letters, which sufficiently vindicate him from the charge of austerity of character. In manner he united Oriental gravity with the finished politeness of the Greeks, and sedateness with sweetness; his slightest smile was commendation, and silence was his only rebuke (Greg. Naz. Or. xx. 260, 261).
The voice of antiquity is unanimous in its praise of Basil's literary works (Cave, Hist. Lit. i. 239). Nor has the estimate of modern critics been less favourable. "The style of Basil," writes Dean Milman, "did no discredit to his Athenian education. In purity and perspicuity he surpasses most of the heathen as well as Christian writers of his age" (Hist. of Christianity, iii. 110).
The works of Basil which remain may be classed as: I. Expository, II. Dogmatic, III. Moral, IV. Epistolary, V. Liturgical.
I. Expository.—Cassiodorus records that Basil wrote commentaries on almost all the books of Holy Scripture. The greater part of these are lost. Those that remain are—
1. Hexaemeron.—Nine Homilies on the Six Days' Work of Creation. This is the most celebrated of all his works.
2. Seventeen Homilies on the Psalms.—These were preached ad populum.
The first, on the Psalms generally, was translated by Rufinus, and is found prefixed
to St. Augustine's Commentaries. The only other homilies that have reached us are
those on
3. Commentaries on the first Sixteen Chapters of Isaiah, a continuous work.
II. Dogmatic.
1. Five books against Eunomius.—Commended by Jerome (egregii libri), Gregory Nazianzen, and Photius (ἐξαὶρετοι λόγοι).
2. On the Holy Spirit, addressed to Amphilochius and written at his request.
3. On Baptism, two books.
4. Homilies.
III. Moral and Ascetic.
1. Homilies, against envy, drunkenness, anger, on fasting, etc. A very sensible admonition to a young man how to read the books of heathen writers with profit (Homil. 24), included among these homilies, has been frequently translated and separately published, among others by abp. Potter, 1694. Several homilies are in honour of local martyrs, St. Julitta, St. Barlaam, St. Mammas, etc.
2. On true Virginity, a treatise addressed to Letoius, bp. of Melitene, rejected by Garnier on internal evidence, but generally accepted.
3. Ascetic Writings.
IV. Epistolary.—In addition to those just mentioned we have a collection of no fewer than 365 letters addressed by Basil to his private and official correspondents, including two attributed to the emperor Julian and twelve to Libanius (cf. F. Loofs, Eustathius von Sebaste und die Chronologie der Basilianischen Briefe, Halle, 1897). Excerpts from some Letters of Basil from papyrus MSS. were published by H. Landwehr: Greek MS. from Fayoum, 1884.
V. Liturgical.—There is no reason to call in question the universal tradition of the East, that Basil was the composer of a liturgy. Those offices, however, which have come down to us under his name have been so largely interpolated at many different periods, that it is impossible to ascertain the correct text of the liturgy as drawn up by him. There are three chief editions of the Liturgy bearing Basil's name: (1) the Greek or Constantinopolitan, (2) the Syriac, translated into Latin by Masius, (3) the Alexandrian, found in Coptic, Greek, and Arabic, which versions concur in establishing one text. Of these, the Constantinopolitan furnishes the surest materials for ascertaining the genuine form.
The standard edition is the Benedictine, pub. at Paris, 1721-1730, by Julian Garnier, in 3 vols. fol., reprinted by Migne, Patr. Gk. vol. 29-32. In Pitra's Analecta (Paris, 1888) some Fragmenta Ascetica and Epitimia, and in Psalmos were ascribed to Basil. An English translation of some selected works and letters and useful Prolegomena are given in Post-Nicene Fathers (Wace and Schaff) by W. Blomfield Jackson, 1895. A revised text of the treatise On the Holy Spirit with notes and intro. is pub. by the Clarendon Press. A cheap popular Life by R. T. Smith is pub. by S.P.C.K. in their Fathers for Eng. Readers.
Basilius, the intimate friend of Chrysostom, with whom he resolved on the adoption of an ascetic life, and whose consecration to the episcopate he secured by a strange deception. His see is unknown, but was probably near Antioch.
Basilius of Cilicia, presbyter of Antioch and bp. of Irenopolis in Cilicia, c. 500; the author of an Ecclesiastical History in three books, from a.d.450 to the close of Justin's reign. Photius speaks disparagingly of it (Cod. 42). He also wrote a violent book against Joannes Scythopolitanus, and Photius (Cod. 107) says its object was to oppose the doctrine of the union of the two natures in Christ.
Basilius, bp. of Seleucia, in Isauria, and metropolitan, succeeded Dexianus, who attended the council at Ephesus, and therefore after 431. He is erroneously identified by Photius with the early friend of Chrysostom, who must have been considerably his senior (Tillemont, xv. p. 340). He is very unfavourably known from the vacillation he displayed with regard to the condemnation of Eutyches. He took a leading part in the council at Constantinople in 448, at which Eutyches was condemned; and the next year, when the fidelity of the acts of the council was called in question, was one of the commission appointed to verify them (Labbe, Concil. vol. iv. 182, 230). But at the "Robbers' Synod" held at Ephesus a few months later his courage gave way, and he acquiesced in the rehabilitation of Eutyches, and retracted his obnoxious language. Before long he returned to orthodoxy, and in 450 affixed his signature to the famous Tome of pope Leo, on the Incarnation. At the council of Chalcedon, 451, the imperial commissioners proposed his deposition, together with that of other prelates who had aided in restoring Eutyches. But Basil submitted, concurred in the condemnation of Eutyches, and his offence was condoned (ib. 553, 604, 787).
His extant works comprise 39 homilies (17 on O.T. and 22 on N.T. ), the titles
and subjects being given by Fabricius, Bibl. Graec. lib. v. c. 19, 10. Four
on
Beda, more correctly Baeda, The Venerable. [Note.—Though not properly coming within the period of this condensed ed., Dr. Stubbs's valuable art. is retained as Bede is the classical historian of the English Church for so much of our proper period.—Ed.] Bede was born on the estate given by Ecgfrith, king of Northumbria, to Benedict Biscop for the foundation of his sister monasteries of Wearmouth and Jarrow, probably, however, before the lands were so bestowed; for the Wearmouth estate was given in 674, and the Jarrow one in 682, whilst the birth of Bede seems satisfactorily fixed to 673. The place of his birth is uncertain, for whilst tradition and local history fix it at Jarrow, there is no positive evidence. Nor are the names of his parents preserved. He himself, writing, as may be reasonably concluded, immediately on the completion of his History in 731, describes himself then as in his 59th year; this would fix his birth in 673; but as he lived until 735, and the passage may have been added at any time between 731 and 735, his birth has been sometimes put as late as 677. Mabillon, however, whose arguments are sound and whose conclusion has been generally received, accepts 673. At the age of 7 Bede was handed over by his relations to the care of Benedict Biscop, who had not, in 680, begun the buildings at Jarrow, but had just returned from Rome bringing the arch-chanter John. Bede was educated in one or both of the sister monasteries, and after Benedict's death he passed under the rule of Ceolfrith. At the age of 19 he was ordained deacon by John of Beverley, then bp. of Hexham, and in his 30th year received the priesthood from the same prelate; as John ceased to be bp. of Hexham in 705, and the later date for Bede's birth would place his ordination as priest in 706 at the earliest, this conclusively favours the earlier date; in which case he was ordained deacon in 691 and priest in 702. From his admission to the joint monastery to his death he remained there employed in study and devotional exercises, and there is no evidence that he ever wandered further than to York, which he visited shortly before his death. In the valuable MS. Cotton, Tiberius A. xv. fo. 50, which is not later than the 10th cent., is preserved a letter of pope Sergius to Ceolfrith, desiring him to send to Rome "religiosum famulum Dei N. venerabilis monasterii tui," to assist in the examination of some points of ecclesiastical discipline. This letter was very early believed to refer to Bede; and by the time of William of Malmesbury had begun to be read, "religiosum Dei famulum Bedam, venerabilis monasterii tui presbyterum"; the name of Bede resting on the authority of William of Malmesbury only, and the word presbyterum on an interlineation in the Cotton MS. as well. If presbyterum be authentic, it is a strong argument against the identification of Bede, for he was not ordained priest until 702, and Sergius died in 701; but it is not essential to the sense, rests apparently on an interpolation, and if genuine may be a mistake of the pope. Intercourse between Wearmouth and Rome was nearly continuous at this time, and there is no more likely monk under Ceolfrith's rule than Bede. Some monks of the monastery went to Rome in 701 (Bede, de Temporum Ratione, c. 47), and brought a privilege from Sergius on their return (Hist. Abbat. c. 12), but Bede was not among them. The invitation was probably meant for Bede, and perhaps the acceptance of it was prevented by the death of Sergius. Whether Bede's studies were mainly at Wearmouth or at Jarrow is not important; as he died and was buried at Jarrow, he probably lived there chiefly, but the two houses were in strict union, and he was equally at home in both. Under the liberal and enlightened ministration of Benedict Biscop and Ceolfrith, he enjoyed advantages perhaps not elsewhere available in Europe, and perfect access to all existing sources of learning in the West. Nowhere else could he acquire at once the Irish, Roman, Gallican, and Canterbury learning; that of the accumulated stores of books which Benedict had bought at Rome and at Vienna; or the disciplinary instruction drawn from the monasteries of the continent as well as from the Irish missionaries. Amongst his friends and instructors were Trumbert, the disciple of St. Chad, and Sidfrid, the fellow-pupil of St. Cuthbert under Boisil and Eata; from these he drew the Irish knowledge of Scripture and discipline. Acca, bp. of Hexham and pupil of St. Wilfrid, furnished him with the special lore of the Roman school, martyrological and other; his monastic learning, strictly Benedictine, came through Benedict Biscop from Lerins and many other continental monasteries; and from Canterbury, with which he was in friendly correspondence, he probably obtained instruction in Greek, in the study of the Scriptures, and other refined learning. His own monastery offered rest and welcome to learned strangers like abbot Adamnan (Bede, H. E. v. 21), and Bede lost no opportunity of increasing his stores.
He describes the nature of his studies, the meditation on Scripture, the observance of regular discipline, the care of the daily singing in church, "semper aut discere, aut docere, aut scribere dulce habui." These were the occupations of his youth. After his ordination he devoted himself to selecting from the Fathers passages suitable for illustration and edification, and, as he says modestly, added contributions of his own after the pattern of their comments.
The list of his works given at the conclusion of his History, Bede seems to have
arranged in order of relative importance, not of their composition; and most of
them afford only very slight indications of the dates of writing. Probably the earliest
of his writings are the more elementary ones, on Orthography, the Ars Metrica
and the de Natura Rerum. The
Bede's attainments were very great. He certainly knew Greek (H. E. v. 24) and some Hebrew. He knew Vergil, Ovid, Lucan, Lucretius, Terence, and a host of smaller poets. Homer he quotes once, perhaps at second-hand. He knew nearly all the second-rate poets, using them to illustrate the Ars Metrica. The earlier Fathers were, of course, in familiar use. The diversity and extent of his reading is remarkable: grammar, rhetoric, poetry, hagiography, arithmetic, chronology, the holy places, the Paschal controversy, epigrams, hymns, sermons, pastoral admonition and the conduct of penitents; even speculations on natural science, on which he specially quotes Pliny, employed his pen, besides his great works on history and the interpretation of Scripture. On all these points his knowledge was thoroughly up to the learning of the day; his judgment independent and his conclusions sound. He must have had good teachers, a good library, and an insatiable desire for learning. These qualifications fitted him for the remarkable place he holds in literature.
By promoting the foundation of the school of York, he kindled the flame of learning in the West at the moment that it seemed to be expiring both in Ireland and in France. This school transmitted to Alcuin the learning of Bede, and opened the way for culture on the continent, when England was relapsing into barbarism under the terror of the Danes. It is impossible to read the more popular writings of Bede, especially the Ecclesiastical History, without seeing that his great knowledge was coupled with the humility and simplicity of the purest type of monasticism. Employed on a theme which, in the prevailing belief of miraculous stories, could scarcely be treated of without incurring the charge of superstition, he is eminently truthful. The wonders he relates on his own account are easily referred to natural causes; and scarcely ever is a reputed miracle recounted without an authority. His gentleness is hardly less marked. He is a monk and politician of the school of Benedict Biscop, not of that of Wilfrid. The soundness and farsightedness of his ecclesiastical views would be remarkable in any age, and especially in a monk. His letter to Egbert contains lessons of wisdom, clear perception of abuses, and distinct recommendation of remedies, which in the neglect of observance of them might serve as a key for the whole later history of the Anglo-Saxon church. It breathes also the purest patriotism and most sincere love of souls. There is scarcely any father whose personal history is so little known, and whose personal character comes out in his writings so clearly as does that of Bede in this letter, and in his wonderful History.
Loved and honoured by all alike, he lived in a period which, at least for Northumbria, was of very varied character. The wise Aldfrid reigned during his youth and early manhood, but many years of disquiet followed his death, and even the accession of his friend Ceolwulf in 731 did not assure him of the end of the evils, the growth of which, since king Aldfrid's death, he had watched with misgivings. His bishops, first John of Beverley, and after the few years of Wilfrid's final restoration, Acca his friend and correspondent, and his abbots, first Ceolfrith and then Huaetbert, were men to whom he could look up and who valued him. His fame, if we may judge from the demand for his works immediately after his death, extended wherever English missionaries or negotiators found their way, and must have been widespread during his life. Nearly every kingdom of England furnished him with materials for his history: a London priest searched the records at Rome for him; abbot Albanus transmitted him details of the history of the Kentish church; bp. Daniel, the patron of Boniface, supplied the West Saxon; the monks of Lastingham, the depositories of the traditions of Cedd and Chad, reported how Mercia was converted; Esi wrote from East Anglia, and Cynibert from Lindsey.
Soon after visiting Egbert at York in 734 his health began to fail; and by Easter,
735, he had become asthmatic. But he laboured to the last, and, like Benedict Biscop,
spent the time of unavoidable prostration in listening to the reading and singing
of his companions. When he could, he continued the work of translation, and had
reached the 9th verse of
Of the legendary or fictitious statements about Bede, the following are the most important: his personal acquaintance with Alcuin which is impossible; his education and sojourn at Cambridge, on which see Giles, PP. Eccl. Angl. i. lxx. seq.; his visits to Italy and burial at Genoa or at Rome, which seem to belong to another person of the same name, (ib. i. cvi.), and the legendary statements about his title of Venerable (ib. i. ci.). For a detailed investigation of these, and the alleged authorities for them, see Gehle's learned monograph, Disp. Hist. Theol. de Bed. Ven. (Leyden, 1838), pp. 2-4, 17-21, and for the fallacies as to the date of Bede's death, ib. pp. 31 seq.
Bede's own list of his works may be rearranged as follows:
(1) Commentaries on O.T.—viz.
(2) Commentaries on N.T.: St. Mark, 4 books; St. Luke, 6 books; 2 books of homilies on the Gospels; Acts, 2 books; a book on each Catholic Ep.; 3 books on the Apocalypse, Lessons on the whole N.T. except the Gospels.
(3) Letters: de Sex Aetatibus; de Mansionibus filiorum Israel; de eo quod ait Esaias "et claudentur, etc."; de Ratione Bissexti; de Aequinoctio.
(4) Hagiographies: on St. Felix, rendered from the poem of Paulinus; on Anastasius, a revised trans. from the Greek; on St. Cuthbert, in verse and prose; the abbots of Wearmouth and Jarrow; the History of the English Church; the Martyrology.
(5) Hymns and epigrams.
(6) Scientific books: de Natura Rerum, de Temporibus, de Temporum Ratione.
(7) Elementary books: on Orthography, Ars Metrica, Schemato, and Trope.
Besides these he wrote translations into English, none of which are extant, from the Scriptures; Retractationes on the Acts; the Letter to Egbert; and a book on penance is ascribed to him.
Bede's collected works, including many not his, were pub. at Paris, 1544; Basle, 1563; Cologne, 1612, 1688; and by Dr. Giles (Lond. and Oxf.) in 1843; and in Migne's Patr. xc.–xcv.
All study of Bede must henceforth begin with Mr. C. Plummer's monumental edition of the historical writings Baedae Opera Historica (Clarendon Press, 1896). It contains the Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum, the Historia Abbatum, the Ep. ad Egbertum, and the anonymous Historia Abbatum. An excellent introduction presents a critical survey of Bede's works with large references in footnotes to modern authorities. The student should consult the index in vol. ii. 418 for the frequent allusions scattered throughout the two vols. to the various writings of Bede. For the text of works other than historical reference must still be made to Migne's Patr. Lat. (vols. 94-95), or to Dr. J. A. Giles's Patres Ecclesiae Anglicanae (vols. 1-12). A critical edition of, at all events, the Biblical words of Bede is still a desideratum. Dr. Giles edited some of the smaller treatises 50 years ago, and Mr. Edward Marshall published Bede's Explanation of the Apocalypse in 1878; but with these exceptions few, if any, of his writings have in recent years appeared separately. In the 16th and 17th cents. homilies and other works were frequently printed. Reference may be made on this point to the art. Bede in the 4-vol. ed. of this Dict. Translations of the historical books were made by Dr. Giles in 1840, Mr. Gidley in 1870, and by Miss A. M. Sellar in 1907. The last named is the most useful for the student. It is a revision of Dr. Giles, and his work is in turn based upon Mr. Stevens (1723). The notes in Mayor and Lumby's ed. of H. E. iii. and iv. (Camb. Univ. Press) are learned and important. Reference should also be made to Lives of Bede by Bp. Browne (1879) and Canon H. D. Rawnsley (1904), and to the general treatment of Bede and his times in Dr. Bright's Chapters from Early English Church Hist. (pp. 335-338), and Dr. W. Hunt's History of the English Church (vol. i. pp. 205-208). A monograph on "Place Names in the English Bede and the Localization of the MSS.," by Thomas Miller, was contributed to Quellen und Forschungen zur Sprach- und Culturgeschichte der germanischen Völker (Strassburg, 1896). The important question of the chronological order of Bede's works is discussed by Mr. Plummer, op. cit. (i. cxlv.-clix.).
Benedictus of Nursia. St. Benedict, abbot of Monte Cassino ("Abbas Casinensis"), called "patriarch of the monks of the West," lived during the troubled and tumultuous period after the deposition of Augustulus, when most of the countries of Europe were either overrun by Arians or still heathen. There were many monks in southern Europe, but without much organization till Benedict reformed and remodelled the monastic life of Europe (Mab. Ann. I. i.). The principal, almost sole, authority for the life of St. Benedict are the Dialogues of Gregory the Great. The genuineness of these has been questioned, but without sufficient cause.
Benedict was born about a.d.480
at Nursia (Norcia), anciently belonging to the Sabines ("frigida Nursia," Virg.),
an episcopal city in the duchy of Spoleto in Umbria. His parents were of the higher
class ("liberiori genere," Praef. Dial.). A later writer gives their names,
Euproprius and Abundantia (Petr. Diac. de Vir. Ill. i.). The ruins of the
ancestral palace are shewn at Norcia, with a crypt, the reputed birthplace of Benedict
(Mab. Ann. i. 4). He was sent as a boy to be educated at Rome; but soon,
shocked by the immorality of his companions, fled, followed by his nurse (Cyrilla;
Petr. D. de Vir. Ill. i.), to Ahle (Effide), on the Anio (Teverone), about
forty miles from Rome (Dial. ii. 1). Thence he retired to a cave at
It was in the vicinity of Monte Cassino that Benedict confronted and rebuked the ferocious Totila (a.d.542) at the head of his victorious Ostrogoths (Dial. ii. 14, 15), and that he was wont to cheer his solitude by brief and rare interviews with his beloved sister, Scholastica, herself a recluse at no great distance (ib. 33). He is said to have been summoned to a synod at Rome (a.d.531) by Boniface II. (Cave, Hist. Litt. on the authority of a codex in Bibl. Vat. by Ant. Scrip. Mon. Cas., Eleg. Abb. Cas. p. 25). His death is variously computed from 539 (Schol. Bened. in Honor. August. iii. 30 ap. Fabr. Bibl. Eccl.) to a.d.543 (Trithem, de Vir. Ill. c. 300, ap. Fabr.; cf. Clint. Fast. Rom. and Mab. AA. SS. O.S.B. Praef.). Some few writers assign a yet later date. His sister (his twin-sister according to Trithemius, but cf. Mab. Ann. iii. 14) shortly predeceased him. She is called abbess by Bertharius, Abb. Cas. in the 8th cent. (ib.); but probably lived alone (cf. Greg. M. Dial. iii. 7, 14), or as one of a sisterhood. The words "ad cellam propriam recessisset" are ambiguous (Dial. ii. 34; cf. Act. Sanct. Feb. 10).
The character of St. Benedict may be best estimated from his Regula Monastica,
if, as indeed is reasonable to suppose, it was his composition. In contrast to monastic
rules already in existence, chiefly of Eastern origin, it breathes a spirit of mildness
and consideration, while by the sanction for the first time given to study it opened
the way for those literary pursuits which afterwards developed themselves so largely
within convent walls. The account of the great Reformer's tender affection for his
sister, and of his withdrawal before opposition at Subiaco, seems to give verisimilitude
to the traditionary portraits of him, as of gentle though dignified aspect. His
demeanour before Totila, the strict rule under which he kept others as well as himself
(Dial. ii. 23, etc.), and his severity in repressing the slightest disobedience
(24, 28, etc.) testify to his practical insight into character (20), as well as
to his zeal and courage. In Dial. iii. 161 he is said (like Anthony) to have
Some, probably not all, of the remains of St. Benedict were transferred from
his shrine at M. Cassino to the Benedictine abbey at Floriacum (Fleury), on the
Loire, in the 7th cent. or at a later date (Mab. Acta, ii. 339). The question
is discussed at length in AA. SS. Boll. 21
For his life, see Greg. M. Dial. lib. ii. in Migne's Patr. lxvi.,
also in Mabillon's Acta Sanctorum O.S.B. Saec. i., in Muratori, Script.
Rer. Italic. iv., and elsewhere. Vita S. Benedicti (in verse), by Marcus
Poeta, said to be a disciple of St. Benedict, in Mab. AA. SS. Saec. i.; cf.
Pauli Diac. Histor. Langobard. i. 26; see also Grégoire le Grand, la vie
de St. Benoit, etc., par Jos. Mege, Par. 1734, 4to; Mab. Ann. O.S.B.
i. viii., Acta Sanctorum (Bolland.), 21
Benedictus I., pope, called by the Greeks Bonosus (Evagr. Sc. H. E. v. 16), son of Boniface, a Roman, was elected successor to John III. on June 3, 574 (Jaffé, Regesta Pont.; the dates given by Baronius are erroneous; cf. Clinton, F. R. ii. 543, on the causes of discrepancy in the pontifical chronology). During his pontificate Italy was harassed by the invasion of the Lombards. Though they never actually penetrated into the city of Rome, they ravaged the suburbs, violated the cemeteries, and persecuted the Christians. Misery and famine ensued, and Rome was only relieved eventually by a corn fleet from Egypt, dispatched at the pope's request by the emperor Justin. Benedict died in July 578, and was buried on the last day of that month in St Peter's. He was succeeded by Pelagius II. (Anastas. Liber. Pontif.; cf. Paul. Diac. de Gestis Long. ii. 10, ap. Muratori, i.). According to Ciacconius (Vitae Pont. Rom.) his memory was eulogized by Gregory the Great. His restoration of certain lands to the Abbot of San Marco at Spoleto rests on the same authority (Greg. Op. ii. 950, ed. Bened.); see generally Baronius, sub annis 575-577; Labbe, Concil. vol. v.).
Bertha (Bercta), wife of Ethelbert, king of Kent. She was daughter of Caribert, king of Paris, by his wife Ingoberga (Greg. Turon. iv. 26, ix. 26), and lost her father in 575, her mother in 589. The date of her marriage is unknown, but it was probably after the death of her mother, although Bede speaks of the king receiving her "a parentibus." Ethelbert was still a heathen, and on his marriage it was made a condition that his wife should be allowed to enjoy the exercise of her own religion, and should be attended by a bishop. Liudhard, or Letard, who is called by the Canterbury historians bp. of Senlis (Thorn, ed. Twysden, 1767), was chosen to accompany her, and the remains of the church of St. Martin, at Canterbury, were allotted for Christian worship (Bede, H. E. i. 26). It was partly, no doubt, by her influence that Ethelbert was induced to receive the Roman mission and to be baptized. Pope Gregory, in 601, when sending Mellitus to reinforce Augustine's company, addressed a letter to Bertha, in which he compliments her highly on her faith and knowledge of letters, and urges her to make still greater efforts for the spread of Christianity. He also ascribes the conversion of the English mainly to her, and compares her to the empress Helena (St. Greg. Epp. xii. 29; Haddan and Stubbs, Councils, iii. 17, 18). The date of her death is unknown. She was buried in the porch of St. Martin, in the church of SS. Peter and Paul (Bede, H. E. ii. 5). Ethelbert seems to have married again after her death. She was the mother of Eadbald, who succeeded to the throne on Ethelbert's death, and of Ethelburga, who, in 625, was married to Edwin, King of Northumbria. As her son was unbaptized in 616, it is probable that she found considerable difficulty in promoting Christianity in her own family, or else that she died whilst her children were very young. Elmham (ed. Hardwick, p. 110) says she took part in founding the monastery of St. Augustine, at Christmas, 604, but this is merely traditional; and the latest trustworthy trace of her is St. Gregory's letter of 601.
Beryllus, bp. of Bostra,
Blandina, martyr, a female slave, reckoned as the chief among the martyrs of Lyons, in that, although weakest in body, she suffered longest and most bravely the most various and prolonged torture. Among other things she was stretched upon a cross and thrown to wild beasts, which, however, refused to touch her; and finally she was tied up in a net and gored to death by a bull. (Eus. H. E. v. 1; Eucher. Lugdun. Hom. inter Hom. Euseb. Emesen. xi.; Greg. Tur. de Glor. Martt. xlix.; Baron. June 2.)
Boëthius, (Βοέτιος, Procop.) Anicus
Manlius Severinus.
(1) The wife of Boëthius was unquestionably Rusticiana, the daughter of the senator
Symmachus (Cons. Phil. ii. 3, 4; Procop. Goth. iii. 20), by whom he
had two sons, Aurelius Anicius Symmachus and Anicius Manlius Severinus, who were
consuls a.d.522 (Cons. Phil.
ii. 3, 4); but tradition makes him to have been also the husband of Elpis,
a Sicilian lady and the authoress of two hymns in the Breviary [Elpis],
and by her to
(2) According to his own statement, Boëthius was imprisoned (Cons. Phil. x. ii. metr. 24) at a distance of 500 miles from Rome (ib. i. 4); according to other accounts he was simply exiled, a confusion which no doubt arose from the epitaph of the said Elpis, in which she is said (Burm. Anth. Lat. tom. ii. epigr. 138) to have followed her husband into banishment.
(3) His fall and death is mixed up by Paulus Diaconus and other writers, who are followed among modern writers by Bähr (Rom. Lit. p. 162) and Heyne (Censar. Ingenii, etc., Boeth.), with the constrained embassy of pope John to Constantinople on behalf of the Arians of the East, which is said to have resulted in the suspicion of his treachery and finally in his death; whereas Boëthius was put to death, according to others (Anonym. Vales., etc.), before the embassy, or at least before the return of the pope, a.d.525, and as he himself implies (Cons. Phil. i. 4), on suspicion of conspiracy, not against Arianism, but for the restoration of the liberty and power of the senate.
(4) Two distinct accounts exist of his execution, one stating that he was beheaded at Ticinum (Anast. Vit. Pontif. in Johanne I.; Aimoin, Hist. Franc. ii. 1), where he was imprisoned, according to popular tradition, in a tower still standing at Pavia in 1584 (Tiraboschi, iii. l. 1, c. 4); another relating (Anonym. Vales. p. 36, in Gronov. ed. Amm. Marcell.) that he was confined along with Albinus in the baptistery of a church, and soon afterwards executed "in agro Calventiano," first being tortured by a cord tightly twisted round his forehead, and then beaten to death with a club.
(5) He is claimed by the church as a saint and martyr under the name of Severinus, the friend of St. Benedict (Tritenhem, ap. Fabric. Bibl. Lat. iii. 15), and the worker of a miracle at his death (Martianus Rota, vid. Boëth. in usum Delphin.), but of all this his contemporaries knew nothing, and no hint of it appears until three centuries after his death, when he also becomes the author of four dogmatic treatises on the mysteries of the Trinity.
Whether or not this double tradition has grown out of the history of two distinct individuals, there can be little doubt that to obtain a true estimate of the character and writings of Boëthius, the author of the Consolatio must be distinguished from Severinus, saint and martyr, or whoever else was the writer of the above-mentioned theological works. It remains for us briefly to notice the most authentic facts of the philosopher's life, and to inquire how far his thoughts were coloured by the contemporaneous influence of Christianity, or exercised an influence in their turn upon the religious thought of the Middle Ages.
Boëthius was born between the years a.d.470-475, as is inferred from his contemporary Ennodius (Eucharisma de Vitâ suâ), who says that he himself was sixteen when Theodoric invaded Italy, a.d.490. As a wealthy orphan (Cons. Phil. ii. 3) Boëthius inherited the patrimony and honours of the Anician family, was brought up under the care of the chief men at Rome (ib. ii. 3), and became versed in the erudition of his own country and likewise in that of Greece. In the words of his friend Cassiodorus, "The geometry of Euclid, the music of Pythagoras, the arithmetic of Nicomachus, the mechanics of Archimedes, the astronomy of Ptolemy, the theology of Plato, and the logic of Aristotle," were translated and illustrated for the benefit of the Romans by his indefatigable pen (Var. i. Ep. 45). Nor was he less distinguished for his virtue. His purse was ever open to the poor of Rome (Procop. Goth. I. i.). He exerted his authority and eloquence on behalf of the oppressed provincials (Cons. Phil. i. 4). Such conspicuous merit was at first appreciated by Theodoric. He received the title of patrician while still a youth (ib. i. 3), became consul a.d.510, and princeps senatus (Procop. Goth. I. i.), was employed in the important station of master of the offices (Anonym. Vales. p. 26), in which post his scientific knowledge and mechanical skill were turned to ample account (Cassiod. Ep. i. 10, 45, ii. 40), and reached the summit of his fortune on the day when, supported by his two sons, who had just been inaugurated in the consulship, he pronounced a panegyric upon Theodoric and gratified the populace with a largess (Cons. Phil. ii. 3). But a reverse was at hand. The philosopher had exerted himself to rescue the state from the usurpation of ignorance; the senator had opposed his integrity to the tyranny and avarice of the barbarians who did not in general share the moderation of their leader. His expression, "palatini canes" (ib. i. 4), shews his uncompromising spirit against their iniquities; and it is not surprising that the courage and sympathy he shewed in pleading the cause of Albinus, a senator who was accused of "hoping the liberty of Rome" (ib.), joined to other similar conduct, and misrepresented by his foes, at length poisoned the mind of Theodoric, who seems to have appointed one Decoratus, a man of worthless character, to share and control the power of his favourite (ib. iii. 4). As to the existence of any widespread conspiracy to overthrow the Ostrogothic rule there is but very faint evidence, and against this must be set down his own indignant self-justification (ib. i. 4). A sentence of confiscation and death was passed upon him by the senate without a trial; he was imprisoned in the Milanese territory, and ultimately executed in one of the ways named above, probably about the 50th year of his age, a.d.520-524. His father-in-law, Symmachus, was involved in his ruin (Procop. Goth. I. i.), and his wife, Rusticiana, reduced to beggary (ib. iii. 20). The remorse of Theodoric, which came too late to save "the last of the Romans," is the natural and tragic finish to a story which has too many parallels in history.
It was during his imprisonment that Boëthius composed his Consolation of Philosophy,
a work described by Gibbon as "a golden volume, not unworthy of the leisure of Plato
or Tully." It is a dialogue in prose and verse (a species of composition suggested
probably by the medleys of Petronius and Capella)
His works are: de Consolatione Philosophiae libri v.; in Porphyrii Isagogen a Victorino Translatam Dialogi ii.; in eandem a se ipso Latine Translatam libri v.; in Categorias Aristotelis libri ii.; in Ejusdem Librum περὶ ἑρμηνείας lib. i.; Editionis secundae libri vi.; Analyticorum Aristotelis Priorum et Posteriorum libri iv.; Topicorum Aristotelis libri viii.; in Aristotelis Topica libri viii. (not extant); Introductio in Syllogismos Categoricos; de Syllogismis Hypotheticis libri ii.; de Divisione; de Definitione; de Differentiis Topicis libri iv.; in Topica Ciceronis libri vi.; Elenchorum Sophisticorum libri ii.; de Arithmeticâ libri ii.; de Musicâ libri v.; de Geometriâ libri ii.; also two short treatises entitled respectively "de Rhetoricae Cognatione," and "Locorum Rhetoricorum Distinctio," discovered by cardinal Mai in a MS. of the 11th cent. Doubtful works: de Unitate et Uno; de Bono, de Hebdomadibus; all of which are dedicated to pope John.
The most complete ed, of his works is in Migne's Patr. Lat., which is a collation of the best edd. The best edd. of the Consolatio are those of Theod. Obbarius (Jenae, 1843) and R. Peiper (Leipz. 1871), the latter including the theological works and prolegomena. The most interesting trans. is that into Anglo-Saxon by Alfred the Great, edited by W. J. Sedgefield (Lond. 1899). See also G. Boissier, "Le Christianisme de Boëce" in Journal des savants (Paris, 1899).
The chief ancient authorities for the life of Boëthius are the epistles of his contemporaries Cassiodorus and Ennodius, and the History of Procopius. The best modern authorities are Hand, in Ersch and Gruber's Encyclop.; and for an opposite view of his religious faith, Gustave Baur, de Boëth. Christianae Fidei Assertore (Darmst. 1841); Heyne, Censura Boëth. de Cons. Phil. (Gotting. 1805), in Opusc. Academ. vi. 142 ; the "Prologomena de Boëthii vitâ et scriptis" to the ed. of the Cons. Phil. by Obbarius; A. Hildebrand, Boëthius und seine Stelling zum Christenthum (Regussburg, 1885); and H. F. Stewart, Boëthius, an Essay (Edin. 1891).
Bonifacius I., pope and saint, successor of Zosimus, a Roman, son of a
priest, Jocundus, has been identified with Boniface the priest, the papal representative
at Constantinople during the time of Innocent I. (Baronius s.a. 405, § 15,
cf. Bianchi-Giovini, Storia dei Papi, i. 353). Zosimus died on Dec. 26, 418.
On the 28th Boniface was elected bishop in the Church of St. Theodora by a majority
of the clergy and people, and consecrated next day in the church of St. Marcellus.
Previously, however, a small body of the clergy, contrary to the command of the
prefect Symmachus, had shut themselves up in the Lateran, and as soon as the burial
of Zosimus took place, proclaimed Eulalius the archdeacon pope. Three bishops (including
the bp. of Ostia) assisted at the consecration of Eulalius, nine at that of Boniface.
Symmachus reported to the emperor Honorius in favour of Eulalius. Honorius decided
accordingly, and ordered Boniface to quit the city, but ultimately pronounced in
his favour. This was the third disputed election (see full account, with all the
documents, in Baronius s.a. 419; Jaffé, Regesta). Personally, Boniface
is described as an old man at the time of his appointment, which he was unwilling
to accept, of mild character, given to good works (Anastasius, Lib. Pont.).
In the contest against Pelagius, Boniface was an unswerving supporter of orthodoxy
and Augustine. [Pelagius]
Two letters of the Pelagians had fallen into the pope's hands, in both of which
Augustine was calumniated. Boniface sent them promptly by the hands of Alypius to
Augustine himself, that he might reply to them. His reply, contained in the "Quatuor
libri contra duas Epp. Pelagianorum" (Opp. x. 411, Ben. ed.; cf. Repr.
ii. 61 in vol i.), is addressed to Boniface, and bears testimony to the kindness
and condescension of his character. Boniface was strenuous in enforcing the discipline
of the church. Thus he insisted that Maximus, bp. of Valence, should be brought
to trial for
Bonifacius II., pope, successor to Felix IV., of Roman birth but Gothic parentage, son of Sigisbald or Sigismund, was elected bp. of Rome on Sept. 17, 530, and consecrated five days later in the basilica of Julius (Jaffé, Regesta Pont.). At the same time a rival party in the basilica of Constantine elected and consecrated Dioscorus. The Roman church was saved from schism by the death of Dioscorus a few weeks afterwards; but Boniface carried his enmity beyond the grave, and anathematized his dead rival for simony (cf. Cassiodorus, Var. 9, Ep. 5). This anathema was subsequently removed by Agapetus I. It has been conjectured (by Baronius, Labbe, Cave, etc.) that the double election was brought about by Athalaric the Gothic king, that he might have an opportunity to intervene after the example of Theodoric, and place a partisan of his own upon the papal throne. [Theodoricus (3); Felix III. (cf. Gieseler, Eccl. Hist. i. § 115, p. 340 Eng. trans. and reff.).] The pontificate of Boniface is chiefly remarkable for the bold measure proposed and carried by him at a council at St. Peter's, by which he was empowered to nominate his own successor. Accordingly he nominated the deacon Vigilius (subsequently pope, 537), and obtained the consent of the clergy thereto. Shortly afterwards, however, another council met and annulled the previous decree as contrary to the canons. Boniface acknowledged his error and publicly burned the document with his own hands. Some (e.g. Bianchi-Giovini, Storia dei Papi, ii. 165) have conjectured that Boniface acted throughout as the tool of the unprincipled Vigilius; others (e.g. Baronius, Milman, etc.) that the object of Boniface was to prevent for the future the interference of the Gothic king, and that it was the Gothic king that compelled him to rescind the decree. It would have been equally difficult, however, to have brought the clergy and people of Rome to tolerate such a scheme. Of the pontificate of Boniface there is little else to record. A petition was presented to him (in which he is styled "Universal Bishop") by Stephen, archbp. of Larissa, metropolitan of Thessaly, complaining of the encroachments of the patriarch of Constantinople, who had suspended Stephen from his office. The result of the council held is unknown, but there can be little doubt that Boniface followed the policy of his predecessors in this matter and asserted the authority of the Roman see over the whole of the province of Illyria (see documents in Labbe, Conc. iv. 1690 seq., also Bonifacius I.). He died in Oct. 532, and was buried on the 17th in St. Peter's. He was succeeded by John II. (see generally Anastasius, Lib. Pont.; Labbe, Conc. iv. 1682 sqq.; Baronius, sub annis; Migne, Patr. lxv.).
Bonosus, the founder of the sect of the Bonosiani, was bp. of Sardica
in Illyria at the end of the 4th cent. (Tillemont, x. 754). Bonosus is only known
to us as holding the same views with Helvidius with regard to the perpetual virginity
of the mother of our Lord, and as to His brethren, whom he affirmed to have been
the natural offspring of Joseph and Mary. At the synod of Capua, convened by Valentinian,
a.d.391, to settle the rival claims
of Flavian and Evagrius to the see of Antioch, opportunity was taken to lay an accusation
against Bonosus. The synod was unwilling to consider the question, and transferred
it to Anysius, the bp. of Thessalonica and metropolitan, and his suffragans, who,
as a neighbour of Bonosus, might be supposed to be more fully acquainted with the
merits of the case (Labbe, ii. 1033). Bonosus was condemned for heretical teaching,
deposed,
Bosphorius, bp. of Colonia in Cappadocia Secunda, a confidential friend and correspondent of Gregory Nazianzen and Basil the Great. His episcopate was prolonged through at least 48 years (Pallad. c. 20, p. 203), and must have commenced in 360. From the letters of Gregory we learn that he and Bosphorius had lived together in youth, laboured together, and grown old together (Greg. Ep. 141, 227). He had great influence over the gentler nature of Gregory, who speaks of him with the highest respect, both for the purity of his faith and the sanctity of his life, as well as for his successful exertions in bringing back wanderers to the truth, acknowledging the benefit he had derived, both as hearer and teacher, from him (Ep. 164, 225). He persuaded Gregory to remain at Nazianzus after his father's death, and to accept the unwelcome charge of the see of Constantinople. Gregory bitterly complained of his unscrupulous importunity, but yielded (Ep. 14, 15). In 383 Bosphorius was accused of unsoundness in the faith—a charge which greatly distressed Gregory, who wrote urgently in his behalf to Theodore of Tyana, Nectarius, and Eutropius (Ep. 225, 227, 164). Basil addressed to him a letter denying the charge of having excommunicated his bp. Dianius (Ep. li.). He attended the second oecumenical council at Constantinople in 381 (Labbe, ii. 956). Palladius speaks with gratitude of the sympathy shewn by him towards the bishops banished in 406 for adherence to Chrysostom's cause (Pallad. c. 20, p. 203).
Brigida (5), V., abbess of Kildare—Feb. 1, 523. The designation "Fiery Dart" seems peculiarly appropriate for "the Mary of Ireland," who, although her fame on the continent is eclipsed by the greater reputation there of her namesake the widow-saint of Sweden, yet stands forth in history with a very marked individuality, though the histories that have come down to us are mainly devoted to a narrative of the signs and wonders which God wrought by her. As to her Acts, Colgan has published six Lives in his Trias Thaumaturga, and the Bollandists five. It is more difficult to trace the historical points in St. Bridget's life than to recount the legendary accretions which testify to a basis of fact, could we but find it after so many centuries. In the legend there is no little beauty, and in almost all we find an undercurrent of true human feeling and deep Christian discernment. (See some of them given at length in Bp. Forbes's Kal. Scott. Saints, 288 seq., from Boëce, Breviary of Aberdeen, and Colgan's Tr. Thaum. For a full and critical account of her life, see Lanigan, Eccl. Hist. Ir. i. 68, 335, and chaps. viii. and ix. passim; Todd, Book of Hymns, i. 65 seq.; O'Hanlon, Ir. Saints, ii. 1 seq.; Baring-Gould, Lives of the Saints, ii. 14 seq.) Her chief residence was the monastery of Kildare, "cella quercus," which she founded; but affiliated houses of both men and women ("de utroque sexu") were raised all over the country, she being abbess above all other abbesses, and the bishop with her at Kildare being similarly above all bishops in her other monasteries. Montalembert (Monks of the West, Edin. ii. 393-395) gives an account of St. Brigida and her monasteries, and places her birth at a.d.467 and her death at a.d.525. He says, "There are still 18 parishes in Ireland which bear the name of Kilbride or the Church of Bridget" (ib. ii. p. 395, n.). The Irish annals, however, vary as to the date of her death, but the most probable, and resting on highest authority, is a.d.523 (O'Conor, Rer. Hib. Scrip. iv. 13; Bp. Forbes, Kal. Scott. Saints, 287). In Scotland the cultus of this saint was very extensive, her dedications being chiefly found in the parts nearest to Ireland and under Irish influence. (For a short list see Bp. Forbes, Kal. Scott. Saints, 290-291.)
C
Caecilia (1), St., a Roman lady, one of the four principal virgins and martyrs of the Western Church, who is commemorated in both the Latin and Greek churches on Nov. 22, but of whom we have hardly any authentic account.
The veneration paid to her can be traced to a very early period. Her martyrdom
and that of her three companions is referred to in nearly all the most ancient Latin
breviaries and missals—e.g. in the Sacramentary of pope Gregory; the breviary
and missal of Milan ascribed to St. Ambrose; the Mozarabic or Spanish liturgy, with
proper prayers and prefaces; and a grand office for her feast is contained in the
Gallican missal, which is believed to have been in use in Gaul from the 6th cent.
down to the time of Charlemagne. Her name appears in the Martyrology attributed
to Jerome, in that of Bede, and in all the others, and her martyrdom is placed at
Rome. Yet it is very difficult, says Tillemont, to find her true place in the chronology.
The account of her life and martyrdom by Symeon Metaphrastes, to be found in Surius, is of no authority. The narrative is full of marvels and improbabilities, and the internal evidence alone is quite sufficient to prove its legendary character, though some critics have of late endeavoured to uphold its credibility, and to refer its compilation in its present form to the commencement of the 5th cent. (cf. Ceillier, Hist. des Auteurs Sacrés, vol. ii. Paris, 1859, and see below). There can be little doubt that these Acts of St. Caecilia were composed to be read in the church of the saint on the day of her feast. According to the legend, she was born at Rome of a noble family. She resolved, from love to her Lord, to devote herself to Him by a vow of perpetual virginity. Her parents wished her to marry Valerian, a young Roman, who at that time was not a Christian. She went through the marriage ceremonies; but when alone with her young husband, told him of her vow, and Valerian allowed her to keep it. At her entreaty, he sought out the retreat of Urban, and received baptism at his hands. On returning to his spouse, wearing the white robe of a neophyte, he found her praying in her chamber, and an angel of God at her side. In answer to Valerian's prayer, the angel promised that his brother, Tiburtius, should become a Christian, and foretold that both brothers should receive the crown of martyrdom. In a.d. 230 Turcius Almachius, prefect of the city, took advantage of the emperor's absence to give free vent to his hatred of the Christians, and daily put many to death. Valerian and Tiburtius were soon brought before his tribunal. After being scourged, the two brothers were commanded to offer incense to the gods. On refusing, they were condemned to be beheaded and given in charge to Maximus. So moved was he by their exhortations that in the night he and all his family, together with the lictors, believed and were baptized. On the morrow his prisoners were beheaded at the place called Pagus Triopius on the Via Appia at the fourth mile from Rome. When the news reached the prefect that Maximus also had become a Christian, he ordered him to be scourged to death with leaden balls. Soon afterwards he sent his officers to Caecilia and bade her sacrifice to the gods. As she refused, he commanded her to be shut up in her bath, and that the furnace should be heated with wood seven times hotter than it was wont to be. But a heavenly dew falling upon the spouse of Christ refreshed and cooled her body, and preserved her from harm. A day and a night the prefect waited for news of her death. Then he sent one of his soldiers to behead her; but though the sword smote her neck thrice, the executioner could not cut off her head, and he departed, leaving her on the floor of her bath bathed in blood. For three days longer she lived, never ceasing to exhort the people whom she loved to continue steadfast in the Lord, and watching over the distribution of her last alms. Having given her house to the church, she gave up her spirit into the hands of the living God. Urban and his deacons buried her in the cemetery of Calixtus on the Via Appia near the third milestone. Her house he consecrated to God as a church for ever. It is alleged that her body was found at Rome by pope Paschal I. (a.d. 821), in the cemetery of Praetextatus, adjoining that of Calixtus on the Via Appia, and that it was removed by him to the church of St. Caecilia, which he was then rebuilding, and which stands, as is said, on the site of her house, at the extremity of the Trastevere. Here, it is said, her body was again discovered at the end of the 16th cent. in the time of Clement VIII. Baronius has given a long account of the circumstances connected with this pretended discovery, of which he was a witness (s. ann. 821).
The legend of this saint has furnished the subject of several remarkable pictures. The oldest representation of her is a rude picture or drawing on the wall of the catacomb called the cemetery of San Lorenzo, of the date probably of the 6th or 7th cent. (See d’Agincourt, plate xi.) In the 13th cent. Cimabue painted an altar-piece, representing different episodes in the life of the saint for the church dedicated to her at Florence. In both these she appears with the martyr's crown. In fact, before the 15th cent. St. Caecilia is seldom depicted with her musical instruments. She has generally the martyr's palm and the crown of red or white roses. When she came to be regarded as the patron saint of musicians is unknown, nor have we any record of her use of instruments of music. The most celebrated representation of St. Caecilia as patroness of this art is the picture by Raphael (c. a.d. 1513), now in the gallery of Bologna.
In 1584, in the time of pope Pius V., an academy of music was founded at Rome, and placed under the tutelage of St. Caecilia. Thenceforward she came to be more and more regarded as queen of harmony, and Dryden's well-known ode has rendered her familiar to us in this character.
For a more detailed account, we may refer to the following: de Vitis Sanctorum,
ed. Surius (Venice, 1581), tom. vi. p. 161, s.d. Nov. 22; Acta Sanctorum,
by the Bollandists, s.d. April 14, p. 204; Baronii Annales s. an.
a.d. 821; Tillemont, vol. iii. pp. 259–689;
S. Caeciliae Acta a Laderchio (Rome, 1722), 2 vols. 4to, incorporating the
work of Bosio, with large additions; Sacred and Legendary Art, by Mrs. Jameson,
3rd ed. (Lond. 1857), pp. 583–600; Ceillier, Histoire des Auteurs
Here may be added the ingenious explanation, given by bp. Fitzgerald, of how St. Caecilia became regarded as the patron of music. She is described as steeling her heart at her marriage festivities against all the allurements to sensual pleasure, and among these, special mention is made of the "symphonia instrumentorum" to which she refused to hearken; but "organis cantantibus die nuptiarum" she made melody in her heart to God, saying, "May my heart and body be undefiled." The necessities of the pictorial art demanded that each saint should be depicted with an appropriate and distinctive symbol. Bp. Fitzgerald suggests that St. Caecilia was hence represented in early pictures with the organ prominent in her Acts; and that she was thence imagined to be a musician by those who did not understand that she was only represented with an organ as other saints are depicted with the instrument of torture by which they suffered. We may certainly believe that Dryden's "drew an angel down" had its origin in a misunderstanding of pictures. The Acts relate that on her wedding night she told Valerianus that she was under the protection of an angel who would punish him if he did not respect her chastity, and whom he could see for himself if he would be baptized. This no doubt is the angel who appears in pictures of St. Caecilia, and there is no ground for the idea that the angel came down to listen to her music.
Erbes (Zeitschrift f. Kirchengeschichte, ix. 1) thinks that the Acts of St. Caecilia are not earlier than the end of the 5th cent. They not only exhibit a use of St. Augustine's work on the Trinity which appeared in a.d. 416, but coincidences in language, as well as in substance, make it probable that the whole story of Caecilia is derived from the story of Martinianus and Maxima told by Victor Vitensis, I. 30. This would bring down the date of the Acts to c. a.d. 490. Erbes remarks that the original day of commemoration of St. Caecilia was Sept. 16: Nov. 22 really commemorates the dedication of the church of St. Caecilia, which probably took place under Sixtus III. between 434 and 440. Concerning the neighbourhood of the burial-place of St. Caecilia in the catacombs to that of certain popes, Erbes holds that in the year 236 a suitable burial-place was being prepared for the body of Pontianus, then brought from Sardinia, as well as for that of Anteros who had died in Rome, that the site was furnished by the Caecilian family, and that in order to make room for the two bishops the body of Caecilia was moved to an adjacent side chamber. As to how Caecilia suffered martyrdom we have no authentic information.
Caecilianus (2), first archdeacon, then (a.d. 311) bp., of Carthage. Of importance in connexion with the Donatist controversy. When archdeacon, he resolutely supported his bishop Mensurius in opposing the fanatical craving for martyrdom. The Christianity of N. Africa exhibited an extravagance in this respect which reached its height after Diocletian's persecution. Men courted death that they might be honoured as martyrs and confessors; some, without doubt, in a spirit which commands our respect, but others in a spirit which fostered the supposition that the martyr's cross would wash away for eternity the misery, follies, sins, and crimes of a whole life.
On the death of Mensurius, Caecilian was nominated as his successor. The part he had taken against the would-be martyrs was then brought up against him. The religious world of Carthage divided itself broadly into two sections, the moderate and rigoristic parties, or the supporters and opponents of the principles of Caecilian. At the head of the latter was a devout and wealthy lady named Lucilla, who had been severely rebuked by the archdeacon for superstitious veneration for martyrs' relics. The rigoristic party wished to fill the vacant see with one of their own followers. Caecilian's party hastened matters, and the archdeacon was consecrated by Felix, bp. of Aptunga; whether in the presence of any Numidian bishops or not seems uncertain. Secundus, primate of Numidia and bp. of Tigisis, was presently invited to Carthage by the rigoristic party. He came, attended by 70 bishops, and cited Caecilian before them. Felix of Aptunga was denounced as a "traditor" (i.e. one who had delivered up the sacred writings in his possession), and consequently it was claimed that any ordination performed by him was invalid. Caecilian himself was charged with unnecessary and heartless severity to those who had visited the confessors in prison; he was denounced as a "tyrannus" and a "carnifex." He declined to appear before an assembly so prejudiced; but professed his willingness to satisfy them on all personal matters, and offered, if right was on their side, to lay down his episcopal office, and submit to re-ordination. Secundus and the Numidian bishops answered by excommunicating him and his party, and ordaining as bishop the reader Majorinus, a member of Lucilla's household.
The church of N. Africa now became a prey to schism. The party of Caecilian broke
off from that of Majorinus, and the Christian world was scandalized by fulminations,
excommunications, invectives, charges, and countercharges. Both parties confidently
anticipated the support of the state; but Constantine, now emperor of this part
of the Roman world, took the side of the Caecilianists. In his largesse to the Christians
of the province, and in his edicts favourable to the church there, he expressly
stipulated that the party of Majorinus should be excluded: their views were, in
his opinion, the "madness" of men of "unsound mind." The rigoristic party appealed
to the justice of the emperor, and courted full inquiry to be conducted in Gaul—at
a distance, that is, from the spot where passions and convictions were so strong
and one-sided. A council met a.d. 313 at
Rome, in the Lateran, presided over by Melchiades (Miltiades), bp. of Rome, who
had as his assessors the bishops of Cologne, Arles, and seventeen others. Caecilian
appeared with ten bishops; Donatus, bp. of Casae Nigrae, in Numidia, headed the
party of Majorinus. The personal charges against
The temper displayed by the victors was not calculated to soothe the conquered; and an appeal was at once made from the council to the emperor himself. Constantine was irritated; but, after some delay, ordered the discussion of the question before himself personally. This occurred at Milan (a.d. 316). The emperor confirmed the previous decisions of Rome and Arles, and followed up his judgment by laws and edicts confiscating the goods of the party of Majorinus, depriving them of their churches, and threatening to punish their rebellion with death.
From this time the schism in the N. African church lost its purely personal aspect, and became a stern religious contest on questions of discipline. [Donatism.] Caecilian lived to c. a.d. 345. (For authorities, etc., see Donatism.)
Caesarius (2), St., of Nazianzus, physician, son of Gregory bp. of Nazianzus, brother of St. Gregory of the same place, and youngest of the family, born probably c. a.d. 330. His death occurred in a.d. 368 or 369. The name is simply a derivative from Caesar, originally adopted in compliment to the reigning family.
Authorities.—The funeral oration by his brother, St. Gregory Nazianzen (the 7th, in some ed. the 10th); two letters addressed by Gregory to Caesarius and one to the Praeses Sophronius (numbered 17, 18, 19, or, more commonly, 50, 51, 52), and a few lines in the Carmen de Vitâ Suâ of the same. Photius, Bibliotheca Cod. 210 (p. 168 ed. Dekker, Berolini, 1824).
Life.—According to the testimony of his brother, Caesarius owed much to the careful training received from his parents. He betook himself to Alexandria, "the workshop of every sort of education," for better instruction in physical science than he could obtain in Palestine. There he behaved as a model student, being very careful in the matter of companionship, and earnest in pursuit of knowledge, more especially of geometry and astronomy. This last-named science he studied, says his panegyrist, in such wise as to gain the good without the evil—a remark readily intelligible to those who are aware how deeply a fatalistic astrology was at that period associated with the study of astronomy.
Refusing a post of honour and emolument at Byzantium, he came home for a time, but returned to the court and was much honoured by Julian. There is a slight, but not perhaps irreconcilable, discrepancy between the funeral oration delivered by Gregory and the letter (17 or 51) which Gregory addressed to his brother. The oration seems to depict Caesarius as from the first spurning all offers of Julian, but the letter severely rebukes Caesarius for becoming a member of the imperial household, and taking charge of the treasury. Such a step is called a scandal in a bishop's son, and a great grief to his mother. Caesarius, however, finally avowed himself a Christian, and broke with Julian. His conduct, together with that of Gregory, caused Julian to exclaim, "Oh happy father! oh unhappy sons!" Under subsequent emperors, more especially under Valens, Caesarius more than regained his former honours, and became a quaestor of Bithynia. A remarkable escape from a terrible earthquake at Nicaea, apparently c. a.d. 367 or 368, to which many distinguished men fell victims, induced Caesarius, at his brother's suggestion, to arrange for retirement from worldly cares. He received Baptism, and soon after died.
The Πύστεις or Quaestiones (sive Dialogi) de Rebus Divinis, attributed to this physician, may be safely ascribed to some Caesarius. But the name was not an uncommon one, and some considerations seem to shew that the author was not Caesarius of Nazianzus. Photius treats the supposed authorship as merely a current unexamined tradition, and the book refers to Maximus, who lived subsequently.
Caesarius (3), St., sometimes called of Châlons (Cabillonensis seu Cabellinensis) from his birthplace Châlons-sur-Saône; but more usually known as Caesarius of Arles (Arelatensis) from his see, which he occupied for forty years. He was certainly the foremost ecclesiastic in the Gaul of his own age. The date of his birth lies between a.d. 468 and 470; the date of his death is Aug. 27, 542.
Authorities.—(1) The biography, written by his admiring disciple, St.
Cyprian, bp. of Toulon (Tolonensis) with the aid of other ecclesiastics (ed.
by d’Achery and Mabillon in the Acta Sanctorum Ord. S. Benedicti, Venet.
1733, tom. i. p. 636, et sqq., also in the Bollandists' Acta Sanctorum under
date of Aug. 27). (2) His will, first published by Baronius (Annal.
tom. vi. ad ann. 508) from archives preserved at Arles; also given by Surius,
l.c.; a document of some interest for the student of Roman law, but thought
by
Life.—Caesarius was born at Châlons of pious parents. His sister Caesaria afterwards presided over the convent which he founded, and to her he addressed his Regula ad Virgines. At the age of thirteen he betook himself to the famous monastery of Lerins (Lerinum), where he rapidly became master of all which the learning and discipline of the place could impart. Having injured his health by austerities, he was sent to Arles (Arelate) to recruit. There the bp. Eonus, having made his acquaintance, ordained him deacon and then presbyter. For three years he presided over a monastery in Arles; but of this building no vestige is now left.
At the death of Eonus the clergy, citizens, and persons in authority proceeded, as Eonus himself had suggested, to elect Caesarius, sincerely against his own wish, to the vacant see. He was consecrated in a.d. 502, being probably about 33 years of age. In the fulfilment of his new duties he was courageous and unworldly, but yet exhibited great power of kindly adaptation. He took great pains to induce the laity to join in the sacred offices, and encouraged inquiry into points not made clear in his sermons. He also bade them study Holy Scripture at home, and treat the word of God with the same reverence as the sacraments. He was specially zealous in redeeming captives, even selling church ornaments for this purpose.
A notary named Licinianus accused Caesarius to Alaric as one who desired to subjugate the civitas of Arles to the Burgundian rule. Caesarius was exiled to Bordeaux, but was speedily, on the discovery of his innocence, allowed to return. He interceded for the life of his calumniator. Later, when Arles was besieged by Theodoric, apparently c. a.d. 512, he was again accused of treachery and imprisoned. An interview with the Ostrogothic king at Ravenna in a.d. 513 speedily dispelled these troubles, and the remainder of his episcopate was passed in peace.
The directions of Caesarius for the conduct of monks and nuns have been censured as pedantic and minute. They certainly yielded to the spread of the rising Benedictine rule, but must be judged by their age and in the light of the whole spirit of monasticism.
As the occupant of an important see, the bishop of Arles exercised considerable influence, official as well as personal. Caesarius was liberal in the loan of sermons, and sent suggestions for discourses to priests and even bishops living in Spain, Italy, Gaul, and France (i.e. the province known as the Isle of France). The great doctrinal question of his age and country was that of semi-Pelagianism. Caesarius, though evidently a disciple of St. Augustine, displayed in this respect considerable independence of thought. His vigorous denial of anything like predestination to evil has caused a difference in the honour paid to his memory, according as writers incline respectively towards the Jesuit or Jansenist views concerning divine grace.
The most important local council over which Caesarius presided was that of Orange. Its statements on the subject of grace and free agency have been justly eulogized by modern historians (see, e.g., Canon Bright's Church History, ch. xi. ad fin.). The following propositions are laid down in canon 25: "This also do we believe, in accordance with the Catholic faith, that after grace received through baptism, all the baptized are able and ought, with the aid and co-operation of Christ, to fulfil all duties needful for salvation, provided they are willing to labour faithfully. But that some men have been predestinated to evil by divine power, we not only do not believe, but if there be those who are willing to believe so evil a thing, we say to them with all abhorrence anathema. This also do we profess and believe to our soul's health, that in every good work, it is not we who begin, and are afterwards assisted by Divine mercy, but that God Himself, with no preceding merits on our part, first inspires within us faith and love." On the express ground that these doctrines are as needful for the laity as for the clergy, certain distinguished laymen (illustres ac magnifci viri) were invited to sign these canons. They are accordingly subscribed by 8 laymen, and at least 12 bishops, including Caesarius. [Pelagianism.]
As a preacher, Caesarius displayed great knowledge of Holy Scripture, and was eminently practical in his exhortations. Besides reproving ordinary vices of humanity, he had often to contend against lingering pagan superstitions, as auguries, heathen rites on the calends, etc. His sermons on O.T. are not critical, but dwell on its typical aspects.
Some rivalry appears to have existed in the 6th cent. between the sees of Arles
and Vienne, but was adjusted by pope Leo, whose adjustment was confirmed by Symmachus.
Caesarius was in favour at Rome. A book he wrote against the semi-Pelagians, entitled
de Gratiâ et Libero Arbitrio, was sanctioned by pope Felix; and the canons
passed at Orange were approved by Boniface II. The learned antiquary Thomassin believed
him to have
Caesarius (7). Among the works attributed to Chrysostom is a treatise entitled ad Caesarium Monachum Epistola contra Apollinaristas.We only possess it in a Latin translation, though a few fragments of the Greek original are found in Anastasius and John Damascene and elsewhere. This tract, the literary history of which is very curious, is of disputed authenticity. If it is genuine, Caesarius had embraced a religious life from his childhood and become a monk; his piety had secured Chrysostom's affection, and at one time he had lived with him. Meeting with some Apollinarists, he purchased a book by Apollinarius which led him eagerly to embrace those views. The intelligence caused great grief to Chrysostom, then in exile at Cucusus, who sent him this letter to refute the Apollinarian heresy. It contains a celebrated passage illlustrating the doctrine of the two distinct natures in the one person of Jesus Christ by reference to the holy Eucharist, in which he speaks of the nature of bread as remaining in that which by the sanctifying grace of God is freed from the appellation of bread and thought worthy to be called the body of the Lord. This passage was adduced in controversy about the year 1548 by Peter Martyr, who deposited a transcript of it in archbp. Cranmer's library. After Cranmer's death this document was lost, and Martyr was accused of having forged it (Perron, de l’Euchar. 381–3). His reputation was cleared by the rediscovery by Emeric Bigot, in a Florentine library, of doubtless the very MS. which Martyr, himself a Florentine, had used. Bigot in 1680 printed the epistle with Palladius's Life of Chrysostom. Previous to publication, through the influence of two censors of the Sorbonne, Louis XIV. ordered the leaves containing the letter to be cancelled. For an account of the mutilation see Mendham's Index of Pope Gregory XVI. xxxii.–xxxiv. But Bigot having made known his discovery to literary friends, Allix (preface to Anastasius in Hexaemeron, 1682) protested against the suppression, and the cancelled leaves were printed by le Moyne, Varia Sacra, 1685, by Wake, 1686, and by Basnage, 1687. The Jesuit Harduin published the epistle in 1689, accepting it as Chrysostom's, and vindicating the consistency of its doctrine with that of his church. It is accepted as genuine by Tillemont and Du Pin. The genuineness was first assailed by Le Quien (1712) in the preface to his edition of John of Damascus, and his arguments were adopted and enlarged by Montfaucon. Maffei found a Greek fragment also at Florence, professing to be from Chrysostom, the first sentence of which is identical with one in this letter, but proceeding to illustrate its doctrine by two similes not found in the Latin. The extract was printed by Basnage in Canisius's Lectiones Antiquae (Antwerp, 1725), pp. 283–287. The second paragraph may be taken from a different work, but the MS. gives no indication of a change of author. Perhaps the Latin does not represent the whole of the letter. Against the genuineness it is urged that Caesarius is not mentioned elsewhere by Chrysostom, though the letter implies that they had been intimate from youth; that the style (if so little of the Greek allows us to judge) is rugged and abrupt, and the tone more scholastic than is common with Chrysostom; that the earliest Greek author who quotes it as Chrysostom's is of the 7th cent., though we should expect it to have been used in the Eutychian disputes, and quoted in the Acts of the 4th, 5th, and 6th councils. Le Quien also urged that language is used which is not heard of until employed by Cyril of Alexandria in controversy with Nestorius. Montfaucon, however, has produced precedents for much of this language from Athanasius, and has clearly proved that the letter was directed not against Eutychianism, but against Apollinarianism; and with much probability he identifies the work assailed with a work of Apollinarius quoted by Eulogius (ap. Photium, Cod. 230, p. 849). This being so, we are more inclined to accept the letter as written while the Apollinarian disputes were raging than, as Montfaucon conjectures, forged a century or two afterwards for use in the Eutychian controversy, since one of the arguments against its genuineness is that there is no evidence that it ever was so used. On the controversy as to the genuineness, see the authorities referred to by Fabricius, Bibl. Gr., ed. Harles, i. 699 ; Chrys. iii. 747–760, and xiii. 496, ed. Migne; iii. 736–746, ed. Montfaucon; Tillemont, vii. 629, and xi. 340–343; Routh, Opuscula, ii. (479–488).
Cainites. [Carpocrates.]
Caius (2), an ecclesiastical writer at the beginning of the 3rd cent., according to late authority, a presbyter of the Roman church. Eusebius mentions but one work of his, to which he refers four times (H. E. ii. 25, iii. 28, 31, vi. 20), and from which he gives some short extracts. This was a dialogue purporting to be a report of a disputation held at Rome during the episcopate of Zephyrinus (a.d. 201–219) between Caius and Proclus, a leader of the sect of Montanists. [Proclus.]
This dialogue is mentioned by the following writers, who may, however, have only known it from the account given by Eusebius:—Hieron. de Vir. Ill. 59; Theod. Haer. Fab. ii. 3; iii. 2, where the present text, doubtless by a transcriber's error, reads Patroclus instead of Proclus (Niceph. Call. H. E. iv. 12, 20; Photius, Bibl. 48). Only the last of these attributes any other work to Caius. Theodoret says that he wrote against Cerinthus, but is probably referring to a part of the dialogue in question.
In the short fragments preserved, Proclus defends the prophesyings of his sect
by appealing to the four daughters of Philip, who with their father were buried
at Hierapolis; Caius,
There had been much speculation respecting Caius himself (s.v. D. C. B. 4-vol. ed.); and Lightfoot, in his Apostolic Fathers (Clement of Rome, vol. ii. p. 377), questions his existence. But Dr. Gwynn, of Dublin, pub. in Hermathena VI. some fragments of Capita adv. Caium, written by Hippolytus, which he had discovered in Cod. Mus. Brit. Orient. 560. These passages shew that he had attacked the Apocalypse of St. John, and treated the book as inconsistent with the Holy Scriptures. Harnack (Herzog.3) thinks it not improbable that he had treated the Apocalypse as a work of Cerinthus; and as he would be at one in this opinion with the Alogi of Asia Minor, a connexion between him and them may be supposed. Nothing more is known with certainty of him (cf. Zahn, Gesch. des N. T. Kanons, ii. 985 seq.).
Caius (3). Pope from Dec. 17 (16?) a.d. 283 (9 or 10 days after the death of his predecessor Eutychianus), to Apr. 22, a.d. 296, i.e. for 12 years 4 months 1 week (Pontifical, Bucher, p. 272), but only for 11 years according to Anastasius (c. 24) and to most Latins, and for 15 years according to Eusebius, who speaks of him as a contemporary (H. E. vii. 32; Chron. 284). He is probably the same as Caius the deacon, imprisoned with pope Stephen, a.d. 257 (Anastas. c. 24). Just as he was raised to the chair, the stern old Roman Carus died mysteriously in a thunderstorm in the East, and his profligate son Carinus succeeded to the empire at Rome. These events would seem to make a persecution, such as is assigned to this period by various martyr Acts, not in itself improbable, and though the Acts in question are untrustworthy (see Tillemont, iv. 565), we are hardly justified in taking Eusebius for a witness to the contrary, as far as concerns the West. The probability is confirmed by the delay of the funeral of Eutychianus till July 25, 284 (v. Rossi, ii. 378). The persecution is not represented as general, but as aimed at a few obnoxious devotees, and Caius does not appear as leading, accompanying, or inciting them, but only as exercising a fatherly supervision. Probably the persecution continued for some time under Diocletian. The early Pontifical, as well as Anastasius, makes Caius of Dalmatian origin and cousin to this emperor. The Acts of St. Susanna confirm this, but are untrustworthy (Till. iv. 760). Caius is said in the early Pontifical to have avoided persecution by hiding in the crypts. During his latter years the Church must have enjoyed peace. He is said by Anastasius to have established the 6 orders of usher, reader, exorcist, subdeacon, deacon, and presbyter, as preliminary stages necessary before attaining the episcopate, and also to have divided Rome into regions assigned to the deacons. He is said to have sent Protus and Januarius on a mission to Sardinia (Mart. Rom. Baron. Oct. 25). He died in peace according to the 6th-cent. Pontifical, and is not called a martyr by any one earlier than Bede and Anastasius. He was succeeded by Marcellinus. A decretal is ascribed to him. From a confusion between the calends of March and of May in the Mart. Hieron., Rabanus assigns his death, and Notker his burial, to Feb. 20 (Rossi, ii. 104). His commemoration on July 1 in the Mart. Hieron. is unexplained (ib. p. 105). He was the last of the 12 popes buried in the crypt of Sixtus, in the cemetery of Callistus (ib. p. 105). He is therefore mentioned again, Aug. 9, at which date a copy of the inscription set up by Sixtus III. was placed in the margin of the ancient martyrology (ib. pp. 33–46).
Calandio or Calendio (Καλανδίων), succeeded Stephen II. as bp. of Antioch, a.d. 481. He owed his promotion to the episcopate to the emperor Zeno and Acacius, bp. of Constantinople; but the exact circumstances of his appointment are uncertain. There is a large body of evidence (not, however, to be admitted without grave question) that Calandio's election was of the same uncanonical character as that of his predecessor in the see [Stephen II..]; and that being at Constantinople on business connected with the church of Antioch at the time of the vacancy of the see, he was chosen bishop, and ordained by Acacius; but the letter of pope Simplicius to Acacius, dated July 15, a.d. 482, conveying his sanction of Calandio's election (Labbe, Conc. iv. 1035), suggests a possible confusion between the election of Calandio and of Stephen II.
Calandio commenced his episcopate by excommunicating his theological opponents.
He refused communion with all who declined to anathematize Peter the Fuller, Timothy
Calligonus, eunuch and chamberlain to Valentinian II., insulted Ambrose, a.d. 385 (Ambr. Ep. xx. (1), iii. p. 859). He conveyed a message, or reported a saying, of the emperor's, and added, "While I am alive, dost thou contemn Valentinian? I will remove thy head from off thee." Ambrose answered, "God grant thee to fulfil thy threat; for I shall suffer what bishops suffer, and thou wilt do what eunuchs do. And would that God would avert them from the church, that they might turn all their weapons on me." Calligonus was afterwards put to death on a peculiarly infamous charge (Augustine, contra Julianum, vi. 14, vol. x. 845). Tillemont (x. 175) supposes that these events were in the mind of Ambrose when he wrote the 6th chapter of his book on Joseph. This is very probable, but the further inference that that book was written two years later seems wholly erroneous. The event that occurred after two years was the usurpation of Maximus. It is possible that Ambrose encountered two eunuchs. Cf. also de Broglie, l’Eglise et l’Empire, vi. 173.
Callistus (1) (i. q. formosissimus; later spelt Calistus, but Calixtus first in 11th cent., Bunsen's Hippolytus, i. 131, note), the successor of pope Zephyrinus in a.d. 218, said to have been a Roman, and the son of Domitius.
Nothing was known of Callistus, except that the Martyrologium Romanum contained a tradition of his martyrdom, till the discovery of the Philosophumena in 1850. This work, which first appeared under the name of Origen, but is now ascribed to Hippolytus, almost certainly the contemporary bp. of Portus, gives an account of the life of Callistus which is scarcely credible respecting one of the bishops of Rome, who had before been honoured as a saint and martyr. Accordingly, much controversy has sprung up round the names of Callistus and Hippolytus. If Hippolytus is to be believed, Callistus was an unprincipled adventurer; if Callistus can be defended, grave doubt is thrown upon the veracity of Hippolytus. Bunsen and Wordsworth adopt the former view; Döllinger the latter, in an ingenious treatise translated by Dr. Plummer (T. &; T. Clark, 1876). The story as told by Hippolytus is lifelike and natural, and, however much we may allow for personal rancour, we cannot but believe it to be substantially true.
He tells us that Callistus was originally a slave in the household of a rich Christian called Carpophorus. His master intrusted to his charge a bank in the Piscina Publica, where Callistus induced his fellow-Christians to deposit their savings upon the security of the name of Carpophorus. The bank broke, and Callistus fled, but Carpophorus tracked him to Portus, and found him on board an outward-bound ship. The slave threw himself overboard in despair, but was picked up, and delivered to his master, who brought him back and put him to the pistrinum, or mill worked by the lowest slaves, for a punishment. After a time, however, he was set at liberty, and again attempted suicide, and for this purpose raised a riot in a synagogue of the Jews. By them he was brought before Fuscianus, the praefectus urbi, who, in spite of the fact that Carpophorus claimed him as his slave, condemned him, as a disturber of public worship allowed by the Roman laws, to be sent to the mines of Sardinia (Philosophumena, ed. Miller, pp. 286, 287).
His supposed desire for death certainly seems an inadequate motive for raising the riot in the Jewish synagogue. Döllinger supposes that, while claiming his debts at the hands of members of the Jewish synagogue, his zeal for religion impelled him to bear witness for Christ, and that thus his exile to Sardinia was a species of martyrdom for Christianity (Döllinger, Hippolytus u. Kallistus, p. 119). The date of his exile is proximately fixed, since Fuscianus served the office of praefectus urbi between a.d. 188 and a.d. 193 (Bunsen's Hippolytus, i. 138). Some time after, proceeds Hippolytus, Marcia, the Christian mistress of Commodus, persuaded the emperor to grant an amnesty to Christians undergoing punishment in Sardinia; and Callistus, at his own entreaty, was released, although his name was not on the list (supplied by the then bp. Victor) of those intended to benefit by Marcia's clemency. Callistus reappeared in Rome, much to the annoyance of Victor, for the outrage on the synagogue was recent and notorious. He therefore sent him to Antium, making him a small monthly allowance (Philosophumena, p. 288). Milman dates this c. a.d. 190, in the very year of Victor's accession (Lat. Christ. i. 55, note).
That Carpophorus's runaway slave should be of such importance that the pope should
buy him off with an allowance, and insist upon
Now (a.d. 202) for the first time Callistus became a power in the Roman church. To Hippolytus, who held a double position in that church [HIPPOLYTUS], he became especially obnoxious. Being set over the Roman clergy, he was over Hippolytus, who was the presbyter of one of the Roman cardines or churches; but as a presbyter himself, he was inferior ecclesiastically to one who was also the bp. of Portus. Hippolytus claims to have detected Callistus's double-dealing from the first; but tells us that Callistus, aspiring to be bp. of Rome himself, would break openly with neither party. The question which now divided the church was that of the Monarchia, or how to reconcile the sovereignty of the Father with the Godhead of the Son. Callistus, who had obtained a complete ascendancy over the mind of Zephyrinus, according to Hippolytus an ignorant and venal man, took care to use language now agreeing with the Sabellians, now with Hippolytus. But he personally sided with Sabellius, called Hippolytus a Ditheist, and persuaded Sabellius, who might otherwise have gone right, to coalesce with the Monarchians. His motive, says Hippolytus, was that there might be two parties in the church which he could play off against each other, continuing on friendly terms with both (Phil. p. 289).
We find from Tertullian that Zephyrinus began, no doubt under Callistus's influence, the relaxation of discipline which he himself afterwards carried further when he became bishop. Under Zephyrinus the practice first obtained of allowing adulterers to be readmitted after public penance (de Pudicitiâ, i. 21; Döllinger, pp. 126–130). Zephyrinus died in a.d. 218, and Callistus was elected bishop instead; and Hippolytus does not scruple to avow that by this act the Roman church had formally committed itself to heresy. He regards his own as the orthodox church, in opposition to what he henceforth considers as only being the Callistian sect (Phil. pp. 289, 292). Yet the first act apparently of Callistus as bishop was towards conciliating his rival. He threw off, perhaps actually excommunicated (ἀπέωσε), Sabellius. But he only did this, says Hippolytus, to proclaim a heresy quite as deadly as the other. If he is to be believed, he is right in thus characterizing it. The Father and the Son, Callistianism said, were one; together they made the Spirit, which Spirit took flesh in the womb of the Virgin. Callistus, says Hippolytus indignantly, is as Patripassian as Sabellius, for he makes the Father suffer with the Son, if not as the Son (ib. pp. 289–330).
Hippolytus brings against him several other grave accusations of further relaxing the bonds of church discipline (ib. pp. 290, 291)—e.g. (1) He relaxed the terms of readmission into the church: accounting no sin so deadly as to be incapable of readmission, and not exacting penance as a necessary preliminary. (2) He relaxed the terms of admission into orders, ordaining even those who had been twice or thrice married; and permitting men already ordained to marry freely. (3) He also relaxed the marriage laws of the church, thereby bringing them into conflict with those of the state; and Hippolytus says that a general immorality was the consequence. Döllinger, however, pertinently observes that Hippolytus does not even hint a charge of personal immorality against Callistus (Döllinger, Hippolytus und Kallistus, p. 195). (4) He allowed second baptisms, which perhaps means that a repetition of baptism was substituted for the penance which had been necessary at the readmission of grievous sinners into the church. This is the only accusation which Döllinger meets with a distinct contradiction, on the ground that no such practice was known in the later Roman church (p. 189). Yet it surely is not as inconceivable as it seemed to him that later bishops of Rome might have reversed the acts of their predecessor.
Callistus is said to have died in a.d. 223 (Eus. H. E. vi. 20). Tradition tells us that he was scourged in a popular rising, thrown out of a window of his house in Trastevere, and flung into a well. This would account for no epitaph being found to Callistus in the papal crypt of his own cemetery in the catacombs. E. Rolffs, in Texte und Untersuch. (1893), xi. 3; P. Battifol, Le Décret de Callist. in Etudes d’Hist. et de Théol. (Paris, 1902), pp. 69 seq.
Caprasius (2), St., presbyter at Lérins (l’Isle de St. Honorat). Having a great desire to become a hermit, he distributed his goods to the poor and with St. Honoratus ultimately fixed on the isle of Lérins, described as a frightful desert where nothing was to be seen but serpents and other venomous creatures. There Honoratus built a monastery, into which he received many monks from the neighbouring countries. It was under the discipline of Caprasius and Honoratus, who are said to have made it the home of saints. Hilarius describes their new monastery as being distinguished for chastity, faith, wisdom, justice, truth. They also built in the island a church, of which Honoratus became minister. Caprasius died c. 430, and is commemorated on June 1. (Acta Sanctorum, Jun. 1, p. 77; Hilar. Arelat. de Vita S. Honorati, cap. ii. Patr. Lat. l. p. 1255; Eutherius Lugd. de Laud. Eremi, 42, Patr. Lat. 1. p. 711; Sidonius Apoll. Carm. § 384, Patr. Lat. lviii. p. 721; Ceillier, Hist. des Auteurs Sacrés et Ecclés. t. viii. p. 439.)
Capreolus, bp. of Carthage, known in connexion with the council of Ephesus, a.d. 431. N. Africa at that time being ravaged by the Vandals under Genseric, it was impossible to convene the bishops to appoint representatives from the church of Carthage at the council. The bishop, however, in his zeal for the catholic doctrine, dispatched an elaborate letter in its defence, which is extant, both in Greek and Latin. There is also extant an other letter by Capreolus on this controversy, written in answer to inquiries addressed to him from Spain, by Vitalis and Constantius. Both letters are in Migne, vol. liii. p. 843. Also a fragment of the letter which he addressed to Theodosius, who convoked the council, is quoted by Ferrandus in his letter to Pelagius and Anatolius, c. 6, Patr. Migne, lxvii. 925. The Sermo de Tempore Barbarico, on the Vandal invasion of Africa, usually attributed to St. Augustine, and other sermons in which Augustine describes the Vandal ravages, are considered by Tillemont (xvi. 502) to have been written by Capreolus (Hardouin, i. 1419–1422; Fleury, xxv. 41; Till. xii. 559, xiii. 901, xiv. 376, 399, xvi. 495, 502, 789), but this is doubtful.
Tillemont supposes Capreolus to have succeeded to the see of Carthage shortly before the death of Augustine (430), as the letter convoking the council of Ephesus seems to have been addressed to him and to Augustine (xii. 559). Another object of his letter to Ephesus was to implore the council not to re-open the question of the Pelagian heresy. When his letter was read, Cyril and all the bishops exclaimed, "That is what we all say; that is what we all wish," and they ordered it to be inserted in the Acts of the council (Vinc. Lerin. c. 31; Labbe, Conc. iii. 529). He is probably the "priest" in Africa in the time of Aspar, mentioned in the Book of Promises, ascribed to Prosper (i. 4, c. 6).
It is instructive to note the importance that he attaches to the descent of the
God-man into Hades. Chaps. 5–12 are taken up with answering the new error. He quotes
The death of Capreolus is generally dated c. a.d. 435. His burial was commemorated in the calendar of Carthage between July 21 and 30; the note of the day is lost.
Caracalla, the nickname of M. Aurelius Severus Antoninus Bassianus, son of Lucius Septimius Severus, born April 4, 188, declared Caesar a.d. 196, three years after his father's accession; succeeded to the empire in conjunction with his brother Geta, Feb. 211, sole emperor after slaying his brother in his mother's arms a.d. 212, in Gaul 213, in Germany and on the Danube 214, at Antioch and Alexandria 215, marched against Parthia 216, killed on the way from Edessa to Carrhae, April 8, 217. His mother, according to contemporary authorities, was Julia, a Syrian woman, whom Severus had married because of certain prophecies. Spartianus, in the time of Constantine, assures us that Julia was his stepmother, and that his mother was Severus's first wife Marcia. This would make his story somewhat less horrible, but compels the historian at the cost of some inconsistency to refer his birth to 174, or earlier.
The principal authorities are Tertullian, addressing Scapula, governor of Africa, in 211; the sober, contemporary, and apparently impartial, narrative of Herodian (bks. vii. viii.); the abridgment, by the very late compiler Xiphilinus, of the 77th book of the contemporary historian Dion Cassius, with which the compiler seems to have incorporated fragments of other works of a like early date; the narrative written for Constantine by Lampridius Spartianus in the Historia Augusta; laws, coins, inscriptions (see Clinton), and especially a record in the Digest, bk i, tit. 5, l. 17, from the 22nd book of Ulpian.
Dion charges him with inheriting all the worst features of the races from which he sprang; on his father's side, the braggart levity of the Gaul and the truculence of the African; on his mother's, the tricksiness of the Syrian. Tertullian (ad Scap. c. 4) calls him Antoninus, and informs us that "his father Severus had a regard for Christians; . . . and Antoninus . . . was brought up on Christian milk. And, moreover, Severus knew most illustrious men and most illustrious women to be of this sect, and not only did not hurt, but honoured [exornavit or, more probably, exoneravit, exonerated] them by the witness he bore them, and withstood the raging populace." It has been inferred that the young prince was not only brought up amid Christian influences, but had a Christian wet-nurse.
We can easily conceive how injurious it must have been for the child to find the Christians in the palace screened, while yet he was taken to see shows of wild beasts where Christians were thrown to them to devour. Spartianus tells us that he was a most charming child, quick at learning, engaging with his prattle, and of a very tender heart. "If he saw condemned criminals thrown to the beasts, he cried, or looked away, which more than won the hearts of the people. At seven years of age, when he heard that a boy that was his playmate had been severely beaten for Jewish superstition, it was a long while before he would look at his own father or the boy's father again, or at the people who had him flogged. By his own intercession he restored their ancient rights to the people of Antioch and Byzantium, who had helped Niger against his father. It was for his cruelty that he took an aversion to Plautianus. But all this was only while he was a boy [sed haec puer]." The "Jewish superstition" has been interpreted, with great probability, to mean Christianity. The Plautianus mentioned was, teste Herodian, a vile tyrant, all-powerful with Severus, whose daughter Caracalla was compelled to marry, much against his will, in the hope of reforming him from certain low tastes, such as won him the favour of the city populace.
Spartianus tells us that when Caracalla emerged from boyhood, before his accession, he was so changed, so stern, that no one would have known him; whereas his brother Geta, who had been an unpleasing child, was very much improved as he grew up. His narrative, and the abridgment of Dion, afford no clue to the enmity that sprang up between the brothers, and deeper principles seem to have been involved than mere fraternal jealousy. Caracalla's early life was such as to teach him heart-hardening dissimulation; Tertullian, while the brothers yet ruled jointly, urges at once the uncertainty of human life, and the probability that Caracalla would favour the Christians; and it is the fact that his victory coincided with a general and prolonged cessation of a long and cruel persecution.
We cannot tell whether he had any higher motives than a mean malice and uneasy envy in his murder of his brother, and whether the mother, for whose sake he claimed to have done it and whom he would not allow to utter or even listen to a complaint, ever forgave him. The incredible charge of incest was afterwards brought against them. But there is little doubt as to the results of the deed. He did not become a Christian, and the ancient gods of the state were the last to whom he had recourse. He patronised Philostratus, who wrote for his mother and for him the Life of Apollonius of Tyana. He thus fostered one of the chief counterfeits of Christianity. He gathered round. him all who professed to read the future, and he worshipped the spirits of the dead. But they could not rid his ears of his brother's dying cry, μῆτερ, μῆτερ, τεκοῦσα, τεκοῦσα, βοήθει, σφάζομαι. He continued to court the city populace, and enriched Rome with magnificent baths, which even in ruins are the most superb monuments of refined luxury. But his fits of savagery must have made it hard for him to continue a favourite of the populace. Henceforth he relied mainly on his army, and sought ease of mind in excitement. Both necessities involved expense. Whatever impulse he gave to the corruption of the capital, he himself contentedly shared the roughest privileges of the soldiers. But that alone could not secure their affection. In the first day of his crime he had lavished the wealth his father had been eighteen years in acquiring. New sources of revenue were needed.
It is the method that Caracalla adopted to raise a revenue that gives him his main claim to a place in the catalogue of men whose lives affected the Christian church. His act, as Gibbon has shewn, marked an era in the decline of the empire. But more than that, it affected very greatly the position of Christians in all future persecutions. It is this indeed mainly that enables us to pronounce with certainty that the act was his, and belonged to no earlier date. "All who are in the Roman world," says Ulpian, "have been made citizens of Rome by an institution of the emperor Antoninus." "A most grateful and humane deed!" exclaims Augustine (de Civ. Dei, v. 17, vol. vii. 161), and immediately subjoins the proviso that made the boon so equivocal. At a stroke the Roman world was pauperized. Every citizen resident in the capital was entitled to receive every month, at a cheap rate—the indigent quite gratuitously—a certain amount of corn or bread. This was one of the chief drains upon the revenue, and one of the main causes of extortion in the provinces. But Augustus laid a tax on citizens from which aliens were exempt, a tax which made the franchise in many cases a burden to be declined rather than a boon to be coveted, a duty of five per cent. on all bequests. Nerva and Trajan, however, exempted the passage of moderate inheritances from parent to child, or vice versâ (Plin. Paneg. 37, 38). Caracalla, by raising the provincials to the franchise, did not free them from the tribute they owed before, but imposed this additional burden, which he doubled in amount, and which involved the odious intrusion of the tax-gatherer in seasons of domestic bereavement. The act seems to synchronize with a congiarium or largess to the populace in a.d. 214. Thenceforward Caracalla's laws, wherever promulgated, seemed to be dated at Rome. Oppressive as were the effects of the act, it seems yet to have been welcomed. It was but fair, thought Augustine, that rustics who had lands should give food to citizens who had none, so long as it was granted as a boon and not extorted as a right.
But besides its effects as a financial measure, Caracalla's act broke down the barriers of society; annulled, as far as any imperial institution could, the proud old sovereign commonwealth, the queen of nations, whose servants and ministers the emperors had ever professed to be; opened the command of armies to unlettered barbarians; removed the bars to the influx of Greek and Syrian and Egyptian corruption into Rome; reduced the subjects to a level, above which only the emperor, the minion of the army, towered supreme.
In earlier times St. Paul's Roman citizenship had stood him in good stead; and in the story of the martyrs in Gaul under M. Aurelius the Roman citizens had been reserved till the emperor's will was known. A boon now so widely diffused could scarcely retain the same value. But we hear no more of Christians being crucified, unless they were slaves, or first reduced to slavery. Unutterably horrible as the tortures devised against them were, they were no longer commonly thrown to the beasts as a show. They suffered by the sword at last, and all their tortures were such as might befall any citizen of Rome who transgressed the mandate of the emperor. [D. C. A. Persecution; Torture.] Thus martyrdom, instead of the obstinacy of an abject alien superstition, became the bold and cheerful resistance of free citizens to the arbitrary will of one who, when he began to torture, became a barbarous tyrant.
Caritas. Charity with her virgin sisters, Faith and Hope, and their mother
Wisdom, seem to have been the names of real martyrs. The names were very natural
ones for Christians to give to their children. On the Aurelian Way, in the church
of St. Pancras, lay Sophia with her three daughters: Sapientia, with her daughters
Fides, Spes, and Charitas, as William of Malmesbury calls them; but the Latin names
nowhere else occur in this order, the Greek names, when given in full, always do.
Carpocrates (Καρποκράτης, Irenaeus; Καρποκρᾱς, Epiphanius and Philaster, both probably deriving this form from the shorter treatise against heresies by Hippolytus), a Platonic philosopher who taught at Alexandria early in the 2nd cent., and who, incorporating Christian elements into his system, became the founder of a heretical sect mentioned in one of our earliest catalogues of heresies, the list of Hegesippus, preserved by Eusebius (H. E. iv. 22). These heretics are the first of whom Irenaeus expressly mentions that they called themselves Gnostics; Hippolytus first speaks of the name as assumed by the Naassenes or Ophites (Ref. v. 1). Of all the systems called Gnostic, that of Carpocrates is the one in which the Hellenic element is the most strongly marked, and which contains the least of what is necessarily Jewish or Oriental. He is described as teaching with prominence the doctrine of a single first principle: the name μοναδικὴ γνῶσις, given by Clement of Alexandria (Strom. iii. 2) to the doctrine of the school which he founded, is made by Neander to furnish the key to the whole Carpocratian system; but possibly is only intended to contrast with the doctrine of the Valentinian teachers, who thought it necessary to provide the first Being with a consort, in order that emanations from Him might be conceivable. Carpocrates taught that from the one unknown unspeakable God different angels and powers had emanated, and that of these the lowest in the series, far below the unbegotten Father, had been the makers of the world. The privilege of the higher souls was to escape the rule of those who had made the world; even by magical arts to exercise dominion over them, and ultimately, on leaving the world, to pass completely free from them to God Who is above them. Jesus he held to be a mere man naturally born of human parents, having no prerogatives beyond the reach of others to attain. His superiority to ordinary men consisted in this, that His soul, being steadfast and pure, remembered those things which it had seen in the revolution (τῇ περιφορᾷ) in which it had been carried round with the unbegotten God, and therefore power [or a "power"] had been sent from God enabling Him to escape the makers of the world. Though brought up in Jewish customs, He had despised them, and therefore had received powers enabling Him to destroy the passions which are given to men as a punishment. But in this there was nothing special: others might be the equals or the superiors not only of Peter or Paul, but of our Lord Himself. Their souls, too, might remember the truths they had witnessed; if they despised the rulers of the world as much as Jesus did, they would be given the same privileges as He, and higher if they despised them more. Thus the Carpocratians gave honour, but not an exclusive honour, to Christ. They had pictures of Him, derived, it was said, from a likeness taken by Pilate's order; and images, which they crowned and treated with other marks of respect; but this they did also in the cases of Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, and other philosophers.
In the opening statement concerning the making of the world, the doctrine ascribed to Carpocrates is almost identical with that ascribed to Saturninus; but in the next paragraph the language is distinctly taken from the myth in Plato's Phaedrus, in which human knowledge is made to be but a recollection of what the soul had seen when carried round with the gods in their revolution, and permitted to see the eternal forms of things.
The doctrine of the duty of despising the rulers of the world received among
the Carpocratians an interpretation which enabled them to practise immorality without
scruple. Things in themselves were indifferent; nothing was in its own nature good
or evil, and was only made so by human opinion. The true Gnostic might practise
everything—nay, it was his duty to have experience of all. A doctrine concerning
the transmigration of souls which was taught by other Gnostic sects, and which harmonized
well with Platonic teaching, was adopted by the Carpocratians in the form that a
soul which had had its complete experience passed at once out of the dominion of
the rulers of the world, and was received up to society with the God above them:
those which had not were sent back to finish in other bodies that which was lacking
to them; but all ultimately would be saved. But as was also taught by the Basilidians
of Irenaeus and by the Ophites, salvation belonged to the soul alone; there would
be no resurrection of the body. In conformity with this theory was interpreted the
text from the Sermon on the Mount, "Agree with thine adversary quickly." The "adversary"
(whom, Epiphanius tells us, they named Abolus, a corruption, doubtless, from the
Diabolus of Irenaeus) was one of the world-making angels, whose office it was to
conduct the soul to the principal of these angels, "the judge." If he found that
there were acts left undone, he delivered it to another angel, "the officer," to
shut it up "in prison"—i.e. in a body—until it had paid the last farthing.
The doctrine that we ought to imitate the freedom with which our Lord despised the
rulers of the world raises the question, Did Carpocrates intend to impute immorality
to Him? On this point Carpocrates
A more trifling heathen belief about the Christians generally seems to have been
true of the Carpocratians, viz. that they knew each other, by secret bodily marks
(notaculo corporis, Minucius Felix, cc. 9, 31); for
the Carpocratians marked their disciples by cauterizing them in the back of the
lobe of the right ear. It appears from Heracleon (Clem. Alex. p. 995, Eclog.
ex Script. Proph. xxv.) that this was a baptismal ceremony, intended to represent
the "baptism with fire," predicted of our Lord by the Baptist. This confirms the
evidence as to the use of at least St. Matthew's Gospel by the Carpocratians furnished
by Epiphanius (Haer. xxx. p. 138) and by the use made of the Sermon on the
Mount. Celsus probably refers to this rite (Origen, v. 64) when he says that Christians
gave to certain others of them the opprobrious name
ἀκοῆς καυστήρια. Origen, however, supposes
that
Mention has already been made of the cultivation of magic by the Carpocratians, and their pretension to equal the miraculous powers of our Lord. Hippolytus, in the fourth book of the Refutation, gives us several specimens of wonders exhibited by magicians, not very unlike feats performed by professional conjurors to-day. It was easy for Irenaeus to shew (ii. 32) how very unlike these transient wonders were to be permanent miracles of healing effected by our Lord, and which, as he claimed, continued in the church.
According to Neander, the Carpocratian system sees in the world's history one struggle between the principles of unity and of multiplicity. From one eternal Monad all existence has flowed, and to this it strives to return. But the finite spirits who rule over several portions of the world counteract this universal striving after unity. From them the different popular religions, and in particular the Jewish, have proceeded. Perfection is attained by those souls who, led on by reminiscences of their former condition, soar above all limitation and diversity to the contemplation of the higher unity. They despise the restrictions imposed by the mundane spirits; they regard externals as of no importance, and faith and love as the only essentials; meaning by faith, mystical brooding of the mind absorbed in the original unity. In this way they escape the dominion of the finite mundane spirits; their souls are freed from imprisonment in matter, and they obtain a state of perfect repose (corresponding to the Buddhist Nirwana) when they have completely ascended above the world of appearance.
With respect to the Carpocratians, the primary authorities are Irenaeus (i. 25, ii. 31–34), Clem. Alex. (Strom. iii. 2); Tertullian (de Anima, 23, 35), who appears to have drawn his information from Irenaeus; Philaster (35) and Pseudo-Tertullian (9), who represent the earlier treatise of Hippolytus; Epiphanius (27), who weaves together the accounts of Hippolytus and of Irenaeus; and Hippolytus, who in his later treatise (vii. 20) merely copies Irenaeus, with some omissions, thereby suggesting that he was not acquainted with the work of Irenaeus when he wrote the earlier treatise. He certainly had at that time other sources of information, for he mentions three or four points not found in Irenaeus—e.g. he emphasizes the Carpocratian doctrine of the unity of the first principle, tells of emanations from that principle of angels and powers, gives a different version of the excellence of Jesus, and says that Carpocrates denied the resurrection of the body. It is not impossible that Justin's work on heresies may have furnished some materials for Irenaeus. In any case Irenaeus probably added much of his own, for the pains he has taken with the confutation make it probable that in his time the sect was still active at Rome.
We cannot assign an exact date to Carpocrates; but there are affinities between
his
Cassianus (2) Julius, a heretical teacher who lived towards the end of
the 2nd cent., chiefly known to us by references to his writings made on two occasions
by Clemens Alexandrinus. In the first passage (Strom. i. 21, copied by Eusebius,
Praep. Ev. x. 12) Clement engages in a chronological inquiry to shew the
greatly superior antiquity of Moses to the founders of Grecian philosophy, and he
acknowledges himself indebted to the previous investigations made by Tatian in his
work addressed to the Greeks, and by Cassian (spelt Casianus in the MS. of
Clement, but not in those of Eusebius) in the first book of his Exegetica.
Vallarsi (ii. 865) alters without comment the Cassianus of previous editors into
Casianus, in Jerome's Catalogue 33, a place where Jerome is not using Clement directly,
but is copying the notice in Eusebius (H. E. vi. 13). Jerome adds that he
had not himself met the chronological work in question. In the second passage (Strom.
iii. 13, seq.) Cassian is also named in connexion with Tatian. Clement is, in this
section, refuting the doctrines of those Gnostics who, in their view of the essential
evil of matter, condemned matrimony and the procreation of children; and after considering
some arguments urged by Tatian, says that similar ones had been used by Julius Cassianus
whom he describes as the originator of Docetism (ὁ
τῆς δοκήσεως ἐξάρχων), a statement which must be received with some modification.
[Docetae.] He
quotes some passages from a treatise by Cassian on Continence (περὶ
ἐγκρατείας, ἢ περὶ εὐνουχίας), in which he wholly condemned sexual intercourse,
and referred its origin to instigations of our first parents by the serpent, alleging
in proof
Another specimen of Cassian's arguments in this treatise is preserved in Jerome's
Commentary on
The Docetism of Cassian was closely connected with his Encratism, for it was an obvious answer of the orthodox to his doctrine on Continence, that if the birth of children were essentially evil, then our Lord's own birth was evil, and His mother an object of blame. This was met by a denial of the reality of our Lord's body. Cassian also taught that man had not been originally created with a body like ours, but that these fleshly bodies were the "coats of skin" in which the Lord clothed our first parents after the Fall. This notion, probably derived from Valentinus (Iren. I. v. p. 27), had considerable currency. References for it will be found in Huet's Origeniana, ii. Qu. 12, viii., and Beausobre, Manichéisme, ii. 135).
Theodoret (Haer. Fab. i. 8) enumerates among the followers of Valentinus one Cossian, by whom, no doubt, Julius Cassianus is intended; for many greater inaccuracies in the names are in the present text of Theodoret, and Theodoret would have found authority in Clement for classing Cassian with Valentinus.
The coincidences between Tatian and Cassianus seem too close to be accidental, but we have not data to determine their relative priority. If Cassian were really the founder of the sect called Docetae, he must have been some time antecedent to Serapion (Eus. H. E. vi. 12). His country may have been Egypt (cf. Harnack, Gesch. der Alt. Chr. Lit. pp. 201–204). [Docetae; Encratites.]
Cassianus (6), bp. of Autun. The date we assign him will vary according as we attach more weight to the ancient Life of him, which professes to be based on a contemporary record (Acta SS. Aug. 5, vol. ii. p. 64), as Ruinart prefers to do, or to a casual statement by Gregory of Tours, who was shewn his tomb (Glor. Conf. 74, 75), as do Tillemont and the Bollandists. The Life tells us that he was born of noble parents in Alexandria, and brought up by a bp. Zonis; that he made his house a Christian hospital in the time of Julian, liberated his slaves, and built a church to St. Lawrence at Orta in Egypt, at which place he was made bishop against his will in the time of Jovian, a.d. 363.
The tomb of Cassian was famous. A stain in the form of a cross appeared on it, which is said to have prompted Germanus to hold a conversation with the saint in his tomb. He asked him how he did, and the saint answered that he was at rest. This is told in his Life, and may explain the great eagerness to obtain dust scraped from the stones of his tomb, which was almost bored through in consequence, as testified by Gregory.
Cassianus (11) Johannes has been called the founder of Western monachism and of the semi-Pelagian school. More exactly, he was the first to transplant the rules of the Eastern monks into Europe, and the most eminent of the writers who steered a course between Pelagianism and the tenets of St. Augustine. Like St. Chrysostom, St. John Damascene, and others, he is usually designated by his agnomen. His birth is dated between a.d. 350 and 360; his birthplace is not known. Gennadius calls him "Scytha" (Fabric. Biblioth. Eccles. s.v.); but this may be merely a corruption from Scetis or Scyathis, where Cassian resided for some time among the monks of Nitria. His parents, of whose piety he speaks gratefully (Coll. xxiv. 1), sent him to be educated in a monastery at Bethlehem; and there he would have frequent intercourse with pilgrims from the West. This cannot have been, as some have thought, the monastery of St. Jerome, for that was not then in existence, nor does Cassian ever refer to Jerome as his teacher. Here Cassian became intimate with Germanus, the future companion of his travels. The fame of the Egyptian monks and hermits reached Cassian and his friend in their cells. About a.d. 390 they started, with leave of absence for seven years, to study by personal observation the more austere rules of the "renuntiantes," as they were called, in the Thebaid. At the end of seven years they revisited Bethlehem; and thence returned very soon to the Egyptian deserts (Coll. xvii. 31). Thus Cassian collected the materials for his future writings. Besides other voluntary hardships, he speaks of the monks having to fetch water on their shoulders a distance of three or four miles (Coll. xxiv. 10). Evidently in his estimation, as in that of his contemporaries generally, the vocation of a solitary is holier than even that of a coenobite.
About a.d. 403 we find Cassian and Germanus at Constantinople, perhaps attracted by the reputation of Chrysostom. By him Cassian was ordained deacon, or, as some think, appointed archdeacon; and in his treatise de Incarnatione (vii. 31) he speaks of Chrysostom with affectionate reverence. Cassian and his friend were entrusted with the care of the cathedral treasures; and, after the expulsion of Chrysostom, they were sent by his adherents on an embassy to Rome c. a.d. 405 to solicit the intervention of Innocent I. No further mention is made of Germanus; nor is much known of Cassian during the next ten years. Probably he remained at Rome after Chrysostom died, a.d. 407, until the approach of the Goths under Alaric, and thus acquired a personal interest in the Pelagian controversy.
After quitting Rome it has been inferred from a casual expression in the de Institutis (iii. i) that Cassian visited the monks of Mesopotamia; some say that he returned for a time to Egypt or Palestine; and by some he is identified with Cassianus Presbyter. Probably Cassian betook himself from Rome to Massilia (Marseilles). In this neighbourhood he founded two monasteries (one afterwards known as that of St. Victor) for men and women respectively. Tillemont says that the rule was taken from the fourth book of the de Institutis; and that many monasteries in that part of Gaul owed their existence to this foundation. As Cassian is addressed in the Epistola Castoris as "abbas," "dominus," and "pater" it is argued, but not with certainty, that he presided over his new monastery. Here he devoted himself to literary labours for many years, and died at a very great age, probably between a.d. 440 and 450.
The de Institutis Renuntiantium, in twelve books, was written c. 420 at the request of Castor, bp. of Apta Julia, in Gallia Narbonensis (Praef. Inst.). Books i.–iv. treat of the monastic rule; the others of its especial hindrances. The former were abridged by Eucherius Lugdunensis. The Collationes Patrum in Scithico Eremo Commorantium, in which Cassian records his Egyptian experiences, were evidently intended to complete his previous work; his purpose being to describe in the de Institutis the regulations and observances of monachism; in the Collationes its interior scope and spirit: in the former he writes of monks, in the latter of hermits. The Collationes were commenced for Castor, but after his death Collat. i.–x. were inscribed to Leontius, a kinsman of Castor, and Helladius, bishop in that district; xi.–xvii. to Honoratus, abbat of Lerins, and Eucherius, bp. of Lugdunum (Lyons); xviii.–xxiv. to the monks and anchorets of the Stoechades (Hyères). The Collationes have been well called a "speculum monasticum:" St. Benedict ordered them to be read daily; they were highly approved also by the founders of the Dominicans, Carthusians, and Jesuits. But the orthodoxy of the Collationes, especially of iii. and xiii., on the subject of Grace and Freewill, was impugned by St. Augustine and Prosper of Aquitania. [Pelagianism.] An attempt was made by Cassiodorus and others to expurgate them. Cassian's last work, de Incarnatione Christi (cf. i. 3, v. 2), was directed against the Nestorian heresy, c. 429, at the suggestion of Leo, then archdeacon and afterwards pope. Probably Cassian was selected for this controversy as a disciple of Chrysostom, the illustrious predecessor of Nestorius in the see of Constantinople (Inc. vii. 31). The treatises de Spirituali Medicinâ Monachi, Theologica Confessio, and de Conflictu Virtutum ac Vitiorum are generally pronounced spurious.
Cassian is remarkable as a link between Eastern and Western Christendom, and
as combining in himself the active and the contemplative life. It is difficult to
overestimate his influence indirectly on the great monastic system of mediaeval
Europe. His writings have always been in esteem with monastic reformers; especially
at the revival of learning in the 15th cent. Even his adversary Prosper calls him
"insignis ac facundus." Cassian shews a thorough knowledge
of the Holy Scriptures; often with a good deal of quaintness in his application
of it. His style, if not so rich in poetic eloquence as that of his great opponent,
is clear and forcible; and he is practical rather than profound. His good sense
manifests itself in his preface to the Instituta, where he announces his
intention to avoid legendary wonders and to regard his subject on its practical
side. He insists continually on the paramount importance of the intention, disclaiming
the idea of what is called the "opus operatum"—for instance,
on
On the subject of Predestination Cassian, without assenting to Pelagius, protested against what he considered the fatalistic tendency of St. Augustine. In the Collationes he merely professes to quote the words of the Egyptian "fathers"; and in the de Incarnatione he distinctly attacks Pelagianism as closely allied with the heresy of Nestorius (i. 3, vi. 14). Still, it is certain from the tenor of his writings that Cassian felt a very strong repugnance to any theory which seemed to him to involve an arbitrary limitation of the possibility of being saved. It has been well said that St. Augustine regards man in his natural state as dead, Pelagius as sound and well, Cassian as sick. [Pelagianism.]
The best critical ed. of Cassian's works is in the Corp. Scr. Eccl. Lat. xiii. xvii., ed. by Petschenig. In Schaff and Wace's Post-Nicene Library there is a translation of most of them, with valuable prolegomena and notes by Dr. Gibson, Bp. of Gloucester.
Cassiodorus (or rather, Cassiodorius) Magnus Aurelius, senator, and chief minister to the Ostrogothic princes of Italy, born at Scylacium (Squillace) in Bruttium, 469–470, of a noble, wealthy, and patriotic family. Cassiodorus was brought up under circumstances highly favourable to his education, which included the study of grammar, rhetoric, dialectic, music, arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, mechanics, anatomy, Greek, and the sacred Scriptures. His learning and accomplishments early attracted the notice of Odoacer, the first barbarian ruler of Italy, by whom he was made "comes privatarum," and subsequently"comes sacrarum largitionum" (Var. i. 4). After the final defeat of Odoacer by Theodoric at Ravenna, 493, Cassiodorus retired to his patrimonial estate in Bruttium, and secured the wavering allegiance of the provincials to the cause of the new ruler; for this service he was appointed by Theodoric to the official government of Lucania and Bruttium. Happy in the art of ruling to the satisfaction of the governed without neglecting the interests of his master, he was summoned, upon the conclusion of his prefecture, to Ravenna, and advanced successively to the dignities of secretary, quaestor, master of the offices, praetorian prefect, patrician, and consul. Meanwhile he enjoyed an intimacy with the prince, which, reflected as it is in his Varieties, has given to that work much of the character and value of a state journal. Illiterate himself, Theodoric employed the eloquent pen of his minister in all public communications, and spent his leisure time in acquiring from him erudition of various kinds (Var. ix. 24). It would seem to have been the ambition of Cassiodorus, whose genius for diplomacy was consummate, to bring about a fusion between the Arian conquerors and the conquered Catholic population of Italy, to establish friendly relations with the Eastern empire, and possibly to create at Rome a peaceful centre to which the several barbaric kingdoms which had established themselves in Gaul, Spain, and Africa might be attracted. The progress of Theodoric to the capital, where the schism between pope Symmachus and his rival, Laurentius, was then raging, a.d. 500, was probably planned by him in view of this result (Var. xii. 18, 19; cf. Gibbon, Decl. and Fall, c. 39); but the temper of Theodoric's declining years must have disappointed the hopes of Cassiodorus, and in 524 he resolved to divest himself of his honours, and to seek shelter in his Calabrian retreat from the storm which proved fatal to his co-senators, Boëthius and Symmachus. After the death of Theodoric, 525, Cassiodorus again became conspicuous as the trusted adviser of his daughter Amalasuntha, widow of Eutaric, who acted as regent for her son Athalaric (Var. ix. 25). By his influence the Goths were kept in subjection to the new rule, notwithstanding the Roman proclivities of Amalasuntha as displayed in the education of the young prince. The threatened danger of an invasion by Justinian was likewise averted by the ready aid of his purse and pen (Procop. B. G. i. 3). Upon the enforced acceptance by Amalasuntha of Theodatus as co-regent, Cassiodorus again submitted to circumstances (Var. x. 6, 7), and wrote letters soliciting the goodwill of the senate and the emperor (x. 1, 2, 3). He was then praetorian prefect and continued to serve under Theodatus after the untimely death of Athalaric and the treacherous murder of Amalasuntha. One is tempted to suspect the nobleness of a character which, no matter how infamous the ruler, could accommodate itself with such singular tact to every change of government; but Cassiodorus was no mere time-server. His writings shew him to have been animated by a truly patriotic spirit; and if he adapted himself skilfully to the varying humours of the court, it was that he might be able to alleviate the misfortunes of his conquered countrymen.
Upon the triumph of Belisarius and the downfall of the Ostrogoths, Cassiodorus,
now 70 years of age, withdrew to his native province and founded the monastery of
Viviers at the foot of Mount Moscius, which he describes (xii. 15). For 50 years
he had laboured to preserve authority from its own excesses, to soften the manners
of the Goths and uphold the rights of the Romans; but, weary of the superhuman task,
turned to the cloister for repose and freedom. His activity, however, was not satisfied
with the ordinary occupations of monastic life. Hence while the summit of the mountain
was set apart for the hermits of the community (monasterium castellense),
there sprang up at its base, beneath his own immediate auspices, a
Of his extant writings, the twelve Books of Varieties, consisting principally of letters, edicts, and rescripts, are the only work of real importance; apart, however, from the study of these pages, it is hardly possible to obtain a true knowledge of the Italy of the 6th cent. The very style of the writer, possessing, as it does, a certain elegance, yet continually deviating from pure idiom and good taste, is singularly characteristic of the age which witnessed the last flicker of Roman civilization under the Ostrogothic rule. It is as though the pen of Cicero had been dipped in barbaric ink. The general result is artificial and bizarre; but though his meaning is frequently obscured by his rhetoric, his manner is not as unpleasing as is often asserted. It will be sufficient to enumerate here the other writings of Cassiodorus, a more detailed account of which is given in Smith's D. of G. and R. Biogr. (2) Historiae Ecclesiasticae Tripartitae, libri xii., being an epitome of the ecclesiastical histories of Sozomen, Socrates, and Theodoretus, as digested and translated by Epiphanius Scholasticus. (3) Chronicon, chiefly derived from Eusebius, Jerome, and Prosper. (4) Computus Paschalis. (5) Expositio in Psalmos, principally borrowed from St. Augustine. (6) Expositio in Cantica Canticorum, of doubtful authenticity. (7) De Institutione Divinarum Literarum, an interesting work as illustrating the enlightened spirit which animated the monastic life of Viviers. (8) Complexiones in Epistolas Apostolorum, in Acta, et in Apocalypsin, first brought to light by the Marquis Scipio Maffei at Florence, in 1721. (9) De Artibus ac Disciplinis Liberalium Literarum. (10) De Oratione et de Octo Partibus Orationis, of doubtful authenticity. (11) De Orthographia. (12) De Anima. Of the lost writings of Cassiodorus the most important appears to have been de Rebus Gestis Gothorum, libri xii., of which we have the abridgment of Jornandes.
The best ed., together with an appendix containing the commentaries discovered by Maffei, is in Migne's Patr. vols. lxix. lxx.
Catharine (Catharina, Catherine, etc.), St., virgin and martyr of Alexandria. Tillemont writes, in the 17th cent., that it would be hard to find a saint more generally reverenced, or one of whom so little was known on credible authority, and adds that no single fact about her is certain (Mém. eccl. vii. pp. 447, 761; cf. Papebrocius, as quoted in Baron. Ann. Eccl. ed. Theiner, iii. ad ann. 307).
The earliest mention of St. Catharine in the Eastern church (v. Menology of Basil) under the name of Ηἱκαθαρίνα (possibly a corruption of ἡ καθαρίνη, dim. of καθαρός, pure), is about the end of 9th cent. (Tillem. u.s.; Baillet, Vies des Saints, tom. viii. Nov. 25); in 13th cent. she appears in the Latin Martyrologies (Baillet, ib.), the crusaders having brought her fame to Europe among other marvels from the East. Some time in the 8th or 9th cent. the monks on Mount Sinai disinterred the body, as they were eager to believe, of one of those Christian martyrs whose memory they cherished. Eusebius relates how a lady of Alexandria—he omits her name—was one of the victims of Maximinus early in 4th cent. (H. E. xiii. 14). It was easy to identify the corpse as that of the anonymous sufferer, to invent a name for it, and to bridge over the distance between Alexandria and Mount Sinai. Simeon Metaphrastes, a legendist of Constantinople in 10th cent., gives a long account of St. Catharine's martyrdom, with horrible details of her tortures, an exact report of her dispute in public with the philosophers of the city and of the learned oration by which she converted them and the empress Faustina and many of the court, and how her corpse was transported to Mount Sinai by angels (Martin, Vies des Saints, tom. iii. pp. 1841, seq.). But the whole story is plainly unhistorical, even apart from the significant fact that there is no external testimony to its authenticity. For in Eusebius the emperor's exasperation is provoked, not, as in the legend, by a refusal to abjure Christianity and to sacrifice to his gods, but by a refusal to gratify his guilty passion; and the punishment inflicted is merely exile, not torture and death. Even Baronius, who suggests emendations to make the legend more probable, hesitates to accept it as historical, while his commentator, with Tillemont and Baillet, abandons altogether the hopeless attempt to reconcile Simeon Metaphrastes with Eusebius.
The martyrdom of St. Catharine is commemorated in the Latin and Greek calendars
on Nov. 25; the discovery ("invention") of her body on Mount Sinai on May 13 in
the French Martyrology (Baillet, u.s.). In England her festival was promoted
from the 2nd class (on which field labour, though no other servile work, was permitted)
to the 1st class of holy-days in 13th cent. (Conc. Oxon.
a.d. 1222, c. 8; Conc. Vigorn.
a.d. 1240, c. 54), and retained as a black-letter
day at the Reformation. It was left untouched in Germany at the retrenchment of
holidays in a.d. 1540. In France it was gradually
abolished as a holiday, although the office was retained in 17th cent. (Baillet,
u.s.). In Europe during the middle ages her name was held in great reverence.
Louis IX. of France erected in Paris a costly church in her name; and the famous
Maid of Orleans claimed her special favour and tutelage
See Tillem. Mém. eccl.; Baronius (Caesar), Annales Ecclesiastici (Barri Ducis, 1864, 4to, tom. iii.); Bollandus Joannes, Les Actes des saints, etc. (Lyons, Besançon, 1865, 8vo, Nov. 25); Life of St. Catharine, with its Latin original from the Cotton MSS., ed. with Intro., etc., by E. Einenkel (Lond. 1884); Life and Martyrdom of St. Cath. of Alex. (Roxburghe Club, No. 90, Lond. 1884).
Caulacau [Basilides.]
Celsus (1). Of the personal history of this, the first great polemical adversary of Christianity, we know nothing with certainty; and even Origen, from whom the whole of our knowledge of Celsus is derived, had received the work of Celsus, entitled ἀληθὴς λόγος, or the True Discourse, without any hint of the history or date of its author.
But questions far more interesting than personal ones are raised by his attack on Christianity, of which enough has been preserved by Origen in his contra Celsum to convey to us a very tolerable idea of its nature. We must be on our guard at once against disparaging it too much, and against thinking too highly of its ability. Origen, indeed, who to all appearance is a very fair antagonist, speaks of it with contempt. But Celsus was not a mere polemical assailant; he was a philosopher on his own account, and held in certain respects by no means unenlightened opinions. He had strong faith in reason. "What evil is it," he asks, "to be learned and to have cultivated the intellect with the best pursuits, to be and to appear wise? What obstacle are these things to the knowledge of God? Do not they rather lead and assist to the attainment of truth?" Nor had that similarity between the human and the animal frame, which the natural science of our own day insists upon, escaped his notice. Hence he deduces that ants "converse, have reason, notions of general truths, speech," etc. (iv. 84), and even that they have knowledge of God. It would be hard, again, to cavil at his ideas of the Divine Nature; he speaks of men "burning with the love of it" (i. 8); he is intolerant of the association of it with anything that is mortal or perishable. He was not free from superstition; he believed in magic, and declared that serpents and eagles were more skilled in it than men (iv. 86). Baur says that "in acuteness, in dialectical aptitude, in many-sided cultivation, at once philosophic and general, Celsus stands behind no opponent of Christianity." Admitting that this panegyric is not groundless, we must add, that in vital insight Celsus was deficient. As an opponent of Christianity, the chief characteristic of Celsus is a strong, narrow, intolerant common sense. To him Christianity is an "exitiabilis superstitio"; he gives credence to every story against it on which he can lay his hands; he dwells with coarse jocularity on the Jewish tradition of Panthera and the Virgin Mary (i. 28, sqq.); he unearths a certain Diagramma, a figure symbolizing the world, and consisting of a circle called Leviathan enclosing ten other circles, apparently used in the rites of some sect more or less approximating to the Christians (vi. 22). He has no idea of regarding Christianity from the inside, and of inquiring into the reason of its influence; he uses jest for argument, and interprets everything in a bad sense. Treating of the flight of Jesus into Egypt, and afterwards (as he alleges) before the betrayal, he asks, "Had God need to fly from His enemies? Does fear belong to God?"
From such instances it is evident that Celsus wholly misapprehended the force
of the doctrine that he was attacking. There are cases, indeed, in which he shews
himself more acute. He challenges the evidence of Christianity, and asks, "Who saw
the dove lighting on the head of Jesus after His baptism?" As to the Resurrection,
he makes the remark which has been copied by Renan and others, that it was Mary
Magdalene, "a fanatical woman," who was the first witness of the resurrection, according
to all the accounts (ii. 55); and remarks on the disbelief invariably given to such
accounts as those of the resurrection of Zamolxis, Pythagoras, Orpheus, Protesilaus,
Hercules, and Theseus. But the most remarkable portions of his attack are those
directed against the general character of Christianity. He dwells on the numerous
sects of Christians, all of whom said, "Crede, si salvus fieri velis,"
and asks how one is to judge between so many? Origen does not deny the fact, but
maintains that it is a proof of the importance of that on which they debated, and
further that they all set forth Jesus alone as the means of salvation (vi. 11).
Celsus accuses the Christians of lawlessness, and of keeping wholly to themselves,
and not caring for those outside. He complains vehemently of them as discouraging
learning, wisdom, and thought; as rejecting the authority of reason; as being the
patrons of sinners, whereas to the heathen mysteries only "the holy and virtuous"
were invited. He makes a great point of the opposition between the morality of the
Old and New Testaments, in respect of the earthly success which is the crowning
happiness of the former, and so strongly reprobated by the latter. Finally, he maintains
that no revelation of the Supreme Being can be made; but that, if it could be
The form of Celsus's work, the ἀληθὴς λόγος, is well known. He begins with a dialogue between a Jew and a Christian, in which the Jew sets forth his objections to Christianity. But he had not any partiality for Judaism. He treats Moses and the Jewish Scriptures with a contempt which amusingly contrasts with the uncritical reverence which he pays to the Galactophagi of Homer, the Druids, and the Getae, whom he terms "wise and ancient nations" (i. 16); and with which he accepts the stories of Linus and Musaeus, though afterwards he rejects those of Perseus and Amphion (i. 64). In one of the most unpleasing passages of his work, he compares Jews and Christians to a set of worms or frogs squabbling in the mud, and saying, "God is, and we are next to Him, and it is for our sake that the whole world is made; and God will come and take us up to heaven, except those who are bad, whom He will burn with fire."
The work of Origen against him is, as a whole, of much controversial merit and philosophical breadth. Origen, indeed, like Celsus, is not free from the superstitions of his time; thus he defends the star whose appearance is told in the second chapter of St. Matthew by a reference to comets, which, he remarks, portend future events, such as wars and pestilences. But, on the whole, there are few works of the ancient Fathers which can be read with more pleasure and profit. F. C. Baur has written an elaborate critique on Celsus in his work on Christendom and the Christian Church in the First Three Centuries (Tübingen, 1853). But especially valuable is Prof. Theodor Keim's monograph (Celsus's Wahres Wort. Zürich, 1873). Dr. Kelm gathers together, and translates, the fragments of Celsus contained in Origen; and adds disquisitions of much interest, both on Celsus himself and on two of his contemporaries, Lucian of Samosata and Minucius Felix. Both Baur and Kelm rate Celsus too highly; but the general tendency of Christian writers has naturally been to underrate him. The date of Celsus's treatise is fixed by Keim as a.d. 177 or 178. (Cf. Renan, Marc-Aurèle; Pelagaud, Étude sur Celse (Lyons, 1828); Aubé, Histoire des Persécutions (Paris, 1878); Lightfoot, Apost. Fath. II. i. pp. 513 ff.)
Cerdo (1) (Κέρδων), a Gnostic teacher of the first half of the 2nd cent., principally known as the predecessor of Marcion. Epiphanius (Haer. 41) and Philaster (Haer. 44) assert him to have been a native of Syria, and Irenaeus (i. 27 and iii. 4) states that he came to Rome in the episcopate of Hyginus. This episcopate lasted four years, and Lipsius (Chronologie der römischen Bischöfe) places its termination a.d. 139–141. Bearing in mind the investigations of M. Waddington concerning the year of Polycarp's martyrdom, we prefer the earlier date, if not a still earlier one, and would put Cerdo's arrival at Rome as early as a.d. 135.
According to the account of Irenaeus, Cerdo had not the intention of founding a sect apart from the church. He describes him as more than once coming to the church and making public confession, and so going on, now teaching his doctrine in secret, now again making public confession, now convicted in respect of his evil teaching, and removed, or, as some think, voluntarily withdrawing himself, from the communion of the brethren (ἀφιστάμενος τῆς τῶν ἀδελφῶν συνοδίας). Epiphanius seems inaccurate in giving a heading to a sect of Cerdonians. Preceding writers speak only of Cerdo, not of Cerdonians; and probably his followers were early merged in the school of Marcion, who is said to have joined himself to Cerdo soon after his arrival in Rome.
Apparently Cerdo left no writings, nor is there evidence that those who report his doctrine had any knowledge of it independent of the form it took in the teaching of his Marcionite successors. Consequently we can not now determine with certainty how much of the teaching of Marcion had been anticipated by Cerdo, or what points of disagreement there were between the teaching of the two. Hippolytus, in his Refutation (x. 19), makes no attempt to discriminate between their doctrines. Tertullian, in his work against Marcion, mentions Cerdo four times, but only as Marcion's predecessor. Irenaeus says that Cerdo taught that the God preached by the law and the prophets was not the Father of our Lord; for that the former was known, the latter unknown; the former was just, the latter good. Pseudo-Tertullian's account (Haer. 16) may be regarded as representing that in the earlier treatise of Hippolytus, which was also used by Philaster and Epiphanius. Thus we learn that Cerdo introduced two first principles (ἀρχαί) and two gods, the one good, the other evil, the latter the creator of the world. It is an important difference that to the good god is opposed in the account of Irenaeus a just one; in that of Hippolytus, an evil one. In the later work of Hippolytus already cited, Cerdo is said to have taught three principles of the universe, ἀγαθὸν, δίκαιον, ὕλην. Ps.-Tertullian goes on to say that Cerdo rejected the law and the prophets, and renounced the Creator, teaching that Christ was the son of the higher good deity, and that He came not in the substance of flesh but in appearance only, and had not really died or really been born of a virgin; and that Cerdo only acknowledged a resurrection of the soul, denying that of the body. He adds, but without support from the other authorities, that Cerdo received only the Gospel of St. Luke, and that in a mutilated form; that he rejected some of Paul's epistles and portions of others, and completely rejected the Acts and the Apocalypse. There is every appearance that Ps.-Tertullian here transferred to Cerdo what in his authority was stated of Marcion. For a discussion of his other doctrines see Marcion.
Cerinthus, a traditional opponent of St. John. It will probably always
remain an open question whether his fundamentally Ebionite sympathies inclined him
to accept Jewish rather than Gnostic additions. Modern scholarship has therefore
preferred to view his doctrine as a fusing together and incorporating in a single
system tenets collected from Jewish, Oriental, and Christian sources; but the nature
of that doctrine is sufficiently clear, and
Cerinthus was of Egyptian origin, and in religion a Jew. He received his education in the Judaeo-Philonic school of Alexandria. On leaving Egypt he visited Jerusalem, Caesarea, and Antioch. From Palestine he passed into Asia and there developed τῆς αὐτοῦ ἀπωλείας βάραθρον (Epiph. xxviii. 2). Galatia, according to the same authority, was selected as his headquarters, whence he circulated his errors. On one of his journeys he arrived at Ephesus, and met St. John in the public baths. The Apostle, hearing who was there, fled from the place as if for life, crying to those about him: "Let us flee, lest the bath fall in while Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is there."
The value of this and other such traditions is confessedly not great—that of the meeting with St. John in the bath is told of "Ebion" as well as of Cerinthus;—but a stratum of fact probably underlies them, and they at least indicate the feeling with which the early "Churchmen" regarded him. Epiphanius, by whom the majority are preserved, derived the principal portion of his statements partly from Irenaeus, and partly, as Lipsius has shewn with high probability, from the now lost earlier work of Hippolytus on heresies.
His doctrines may be collected under the heads of his conception of the Creation, his Christology, and his Eschatology. His opinions upon two of these points, as preserved in existing works, support the usual view, that Cerinthus rather than Simon Magus is to be regarded as the predecessor of Judaeo-Christian Gnosticism.
Unlike Simon Magus and Menander, Cerinthus did not claim a sacred and mystic power. Caius the Presbyter can only assert against him that he pretended to angelic revelations (Eus., Theod.). But his mind, like theirs, brooded over the co-existence of good and evil, spirit and matter; and his scheme seems intended to free the "unknown God" and the Christ from the bare imputation of infection through contact with nature and man. Trained as he was in the philosophy of Philo, the Gnosis of Cerinthus did not of necessity compel him to start from opposition—in the sense of malignity—of evil to good, matter to spirit. He recognized opposition in the sense of difference between the one active perfect principle of life—God—and that lower imperfect passive existence which was dependent upon God; but this fell far short of malignity. He therefore conceived the material world to have been formed not by "the First God," but by angelic Beings of an inferior grade of Emanation (Epiph.). More precisely still he described the main agent as a certain Power (δύναμις) separate and distinct from the "Principality" (ἡ ὑπὲρ τὰ ὅλα αὐθεντεία, v. Suicer, Thes. s.v. αὐθ.) and ignorant of τὸν ὑπὲρ πάντα θέον. He refused in the spirit of a true Jew to consider the "God of the Jews" identical with that author of the material world who was alleged by Gnostic teachers to be inferior and evil. He preferred to identify him with the Angel who delivered the Law (Epiph. and Philastr.). Neander and Ewald have pointed out that these are legitimate deductions from the teaching of Philo. The conception is evidently that of an age when hereditary and instinctive reverence for the law served as a check upon the system-maker. Cerinthus is a long way from the bolder and more hostile schools of later Gnosticism.
The Christology is of an Ebionite cast and of the same transition character. It must not be assumed that it is but a form of the common Gnostic dualism, the double-personality afterwards elaborated by Basilides and Valentinus. Epiphanius, the chief source of information, is to many a mere uncritical compiler, sometimes following Hippolytus, sometimes Irenaeus. Now it is Christ Who is born of Mary and Joseph (Epiph. xxviii. 1), now it is Jesus Who is born like other men, born of Joseph and Mary; He differs from others only in being more righteous, more prudent, and more wise; it is not till after baptism, when Jesus has reached manhood, that Christ, "that is to say, the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove," descends upon Jesus from above (ἄνωθεν ἐκ τοῦ ἄνω Θεοῦ· ἀπὸ τῆς ὑπὲρ τὰ ὅλα αὐθεντείας, Iren.), revealing to Him and through Him to those after Him the "unknown Father." If, as Lipsius thinks (p. 119), Irenaeus has here been influenced by the later Gnostic systems, and has altered the original doctrine of Cerinthus as given in Hippolytus, that doctrine would seem to be that he considered "Jesus" and "Christ" titles given indifferently to that One Personality Which was blessed by the descent of the Holy Spirit, the Power on high (ἡ ἄνωθεν δύναμις). This Power enables Jesus to perform miracles, but forsakes Him at His Passion, "flying heavenwards." So, again, it is Jesus, according to one passage of Epiphanius, Who dies and rises again, the Christ being spiritual and remaining impassible; according to a second, it is Christ Who dies, but is not yet risen, nor shall He rise till the general resurrection. That passage, however, which allows that the human body of Jesus had been raised from the dead separates its author completely from Gnostic successors.
The Chiliastic eschatology of Cerinthus is very clearly stated by Theodoret, Caius, Dionysius (Eus.), and Augustine, but not alluded to by Irenaeus. His silence need perhaps cause no surprise: Irenaeus was himself a Chiliast of the spiritual school, and in his notes upon Cerinthus he is only careful to mention what was peculiar to his system. The conception of Cerinthus was highly coloured. In his "dream" and "phantasy" the Lord shall have an earthly kingdom in which the elect are to enjoy pleasures, feasts, marriages, and sacrifices. Its capital is Jerusalem and its duration 1000 years: thereafter shall ensue the restoration of all things. Cerinthus derived this notion from Jewish sources. His notions of eschatology are radically Jewish: they may have originated, but do not contain, the Valentinian notion of a spiritual marriage between the souls of the elect and the Angels of the Pleroma.
Other peculiar features of his teaching may be noted. He held that if a man died
unbaptized, another was to be baptized in his stead and in his name, that at the
day of resurrection he might not suffer punishment and be made subject to the
ἐξουσία κοσμοποίος (cf.
The Cerinthians (known also as Merinthians) do not appear to have long survived. If any are identical with the Ebionites mentioned by Justin (Dial. c. Tryph. 48), some gradually diverged from their master in a retrograde direction (Dorner, p. 320); but the majority were engulfed in sects of greater note. One last allusion to them is found in the ecclesiastical rule applied to them by Gennadius Massiliensis: "Ex istis si qui ad nos venerint, non requirendum ab eis utrum baptizati sint an non, sed hoc tantum, si credant in ecclesiae fidem, et baptizentur ecclesiastico baptismate" (de Eccles. Dogmatibus, 22; Oehler, i. 348).
The following primary and secondary authorities upon Cerinthus may be mentioned: Irenaeus, adv. Haer.; S. Hippolytus, Refutatio omn. Haeres. ("Philosophumena"); Theod. Haeret. Fab. Comp.; Epiphanius, Epit. Panar., Haer.; Philastrius, de Haeret., Corp. Haeresolog.; Augustine, de Haer. lib. viii.; Pseudo-Tertullian, Lib. adv. omn. Haeres. x.; Eus. Hist. Eccles.; Neander, Ch. Hist.; Ewald, Gesch. d. Volk. Israel; Gieseler, Eccles. Hist.; Lipsius, Zur Quellen-Kritik d. Epiphanius; Dorner, Die Lehre v. d. Person Christi; Milman, Hist. of Christianity; Robertson, Hist. of Christ. Ch.; Westcott, Canon of N.T., p. 243 (ed. 1866); Zahn, Gesch. der N.T. Canons, vol. i. 220–262, vol. ii. 973 etc.
Christopher, St. (Χριστοφόρος), a martyr of universal fame, baptized by St. Babylas, the martyr-bp. of Antioch, who suffered (c. 250) under Decius in Lycia. From early times the untrustworthy character of some of the popular stories of him has been acknowledged. Usuard (a.d. 876) thus commemorated him (July 25) after St. James, according to the common Western use, in his Martyrologium: "At Samos in Licia. After he had been scourged with iron rods, and then delivered from the broiling flames by the virtue of Christ, his head was at last severed from his body, which had fallen full of arrow-wounds, and the martyr's witness was complete."
For the legends respecting him (including the very familiar, but quite unauthentic, one of his bearing the Christ-child), see D. C. B. (4-vol. ed., s.v.), and two simple works written respectively by the late Archd. Allen and W. G. Pearse (S.P.C.K.).
Chromatius, bp. of Aquileia, one of the most influential Western prelates of his day, the friend and correspondent of Ambrose, Jerome, Rufinus, and other leading ecclesiastics, and a warm supporter of Chrysostom against his Oriental assailants. He was a native of Aquileia, where he resided under the roof of his widowed mother, together with his brother Eusebius and his unmarried sisters. Jerome, writing c. a.d. 374, congratulates the mother on her saintly offspring (Hieron. Ep. xliii. [vii.]). He was still a presbyter when he took part in the council held at Aquileia, against the Arians Palladius and Secundianus, a.d. 381 (Ambrose, Gest. Concil. Aquil. tom. ii. pp. 834, § 45; 835, § 51; 843, § 76). On the death of Valerian, Chromatius became bishop of his native city. The date is placed by Baronius towards the end of a.d. 388.
It was at his request that St. Ambrose expounded the prophecy of Balaam in an epistolary form (Ambros. Ep. lib. i. ep. 50, § 16). To his importunities, together with those of Heliodorus, bp. of Altino, and the liberality with which they both contributed to the expenses, we owe several of Jerome's translations of and commentaries on the books of O.T. (e.g. Tobit, Prov., Eccl., Cant., and Chron.). In a.d. 392 he dedicated to Chromatius his two books of Commentaries on Habakkuk (Prolog. ad Habacc.), and c. 397 yielded to his urgency and undertook the translation of Chronicles (Praef. in Paralip.).
Chromatius was also an early friend of Rufinus, who, whilst an inmate of the
monastery at Aquileia, received baptism at his hands c.
a.d. 371 (Rufin. Apolog. in Hieron.
lib. i. p. 204). When, on the publication of Rufinus's translation of Origen's
de Principiis, the friendship between Jerome and Rufinus was exchanged for
violent animosity, Chromatius maintained his friendship with both, and did his best
to reconcile them. Chromatius imposed on Rufinus the task of translating the
Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius into Latin, together
In the persecution of Chrysostom, Chromatius warmly embraced his cause. The position he held in the West is shewn by Chrysostom's uniting his name with those of Innocent bp. of Rome and Venerus bp. of Milan in the protest addressed to the Western church (Pallad. c. ii. ad fin.). Chromatius sent Chrysostom a letter of sympathy by the hands of the Western deputation (ib. c. iv.), and a.d. 406 received from him a letter of grateful thanks (Chrys. Ep. clv.). Chromatius also wrote in Chrysostom's behalf to Honorius, who forwarded his letter to his brother Arcadius as an evidence of the sentiments of the Western church (Pallad. c. iii. iv.). He died c. 407.
We have under his name 18 homilies on "the Sermon on the Mount," commencing with
a Tractatus Singularis de Octo Beatitudinibus, followed by 17 fragments of
expositions on
Chrysippus, one of four brothers, Cappadocians by birth, of whom two others were named Cosmas and Gabriel, as recorded by Cyril of Scythopolis. They left their native country for Jerusalem, that they might be instructed by the celebrated abbat Euthymius. In 455 Chrysippus was made the superior of the monastery of Laura, and subsequently of the church of the Resurrection, by the patriarch Juvenal. He was raised to the presbyterate, and on the elevation of his brother Cosmas, who had held the office, to the see of Scythopolis, was appointed "guardian of the Holy Cross," which he held till his death. Chrysippus was a copious author, and according to Cyril, who praises him as θαυμαστὸς συγγραφεύς, "left many works worthy of all acceptation," very few of which are extant. A "laudatio Joannis Baptistae," delivered on the occasion of his festival, is printed in a Latin translation by Combefis (Biblioth. Concionat. vii. 108). Fabricius mentions a Homilia in Deiparam, printed in the Auctarium Biblioth. Patr. (Paris, 1624), vol. ii. p. 424, and a Laudatio Theodori Martyris, which appears to be lost. Photius (Cod. 171) records his having read in a writing of Chrysippus a statement relating to the baptism of Gamaliel and Nicodemus by SS. Peter and John, and the martyrdom of the latter, which Chrysippus had derived from a fellow-presbyter, Lucian, to whom it had been revealed in a dream, together with the localities in which their bodies and that of St. Stephen were to be found. This is a very early example of the dreams indicating the position of valuable relics which we meet with so frequently in the middle ages, by which the failing fortunes of a religious house were revived, or the rival attractions of another establishment emulated (Cyrill. Scythop. Vit. S. Euthym.; Cave, Hist. Lit. i. 444; Combefis, Bibl. Conc. i. 8.)
Chrysogonus (1), martyr in the persecution of Diocletian, whose name was inserted in the Canon of the Mass from a very early period, which shews his importance, though little is now known of him. In the Menology he is commemorated along with Anastasia, Dec. 22. He was of "great Rome," "a man that feared God," "teacher of the Christians"; "and when persecution was set on foot he was arrested and cast into prison." "Diocletian, staying at Nice, wrote to Rome that all the Christians should die, and that Chrysogonus should be brought bound to Nice, and when he was brought he beheaded him." For Nice we should probably read Nicomedia. In these acts it is easy to trace the effects of the first and second of Diocletian's edicts. Chrysogonus evidently was not one of the traditors, so numerous at Rome under the first edict, Feb. a.d. 303. Hence, when by the second edict, not long after, all the clergy were committed to jail, he exercised great influence from his prison on the faithful, still for the most part unscathed and at large. The question is to what we are to refer the statement about the decree that all Christians should be killed, and that Chrysogonus should be brought to Bithynia. His passion is assigned to Dec. 22. By the third edict, on the great anniversary festival of the emperor on the 21st, the clergy were to sacrifice if they were to be included in the general release of prisoners; if not, torture was to be employed to induce them. But there were no general orders for the arrest of all Christians. The rescript of Trajan was still in force. But the great festival must have brought to light many a recusant. They might not be executed, but if they died under torture it was strictly legal. When, in the spring of a.d. 304, the fourth edict appears, it sets forth no new penalties; it merely interprets the previous decrees in all the grim pregnancy of their meaning: "certis poenis intereant."
It may well be that the constancy of men like Chrysogonus, under their tortures, was among the things that drove Diocletian mad; and that he left word at his hurried departure from Rome (Dec. 22, a.d. 303), "Send him after me." The martyrdom is assigned by several Western authorities to Aquileia or the neighbouring Aquae Gradatae in Friulia. The day to which it is almost universally assigned in the West, from the Calendar of Carthage onwards, is Nov. 24. Anastasia's commemoration in the West is on Dec. 25, and in some of the Hieronymian martyrologies her passion is assigned to Sirmium, which was probably the scene of Diocletian's illness. But Usuard tells that she was transported to the little isle Palmaruola (about lat. 41°, long. 31°) in the Tyrrhene sea.
Chrysologus, Petrus, archbp. of Ravenna,
a.d. 433–454, said to have been born at Forum
Cornelii (Imola), according to Agnellus, in the episcopate of Cornelius, by whom
he was brought up (Serm. 165), ordained deacon, and made
oeconomus of the church. The ordinary account of Peter's elevation
to the see of Ravenna, which is repeated by successive biographers with ever-increasing
definiteness of statement, does too much violence to the facts of history to be
worthy of credit. The improbabilities of the story are exposed by Tillemont, and
it is stigmatized by Dupin as "a groundless tale related by no credible author."
It is, however, given so circumstantially by
In the 176 sermons of his still extant we look in vain for traces of the golden eloquence to which he owed his surname. They are very short, written in brief simple sentences; his meaning is always clear, and his language natural; but there is nothing in them calculated to touch the heart or move the affections. His fame as a preacher evidently depended more on voice and manner than on matter. His sermons are almost all on subjects from the gospels, usually the parables and miracles, commencing with a course of six on the prodigal son. Many other works ascribed to him, including commentaries on Scripture, and letters against the Arians, have all perished by fire, partly in the siege of Imola, by Theodoric, c. a.d. 524; partly in the conflagration of the archbishop's library at Ravenna, c. a.d. 700.
Tillemont, xv. 114 seq.; Cave, Hist. Lit. i. 432; Migne, Patr. Lat. lii. pp. 9–680; Herzog, Real-Encyc. ii. 695.
Chrysostom, John (Ἰωάννης Χρυσόστομος). The surname "golden-mouthed," given to the great preacher of Antioch, and bp. of Constantinople, on account of the magnificent brilliancy of his eloquence (cf. Petrus Chrysologus), has entirely superseded his personal name John, which alone is found in contemporary or closely subsequent writers. When the epithet was first applied is unknown. There is no trace of it in his lifetime, but it was in common use before the end of the 5th cent.
Chrysostom was born at Antioch probably A.D. 347. He was of good family; his father Secundus filling the post of "magister militum" (στρατηλάτης), one of the eight men of distinguished rank—illustres viros (Veget. de Re Militari, ii. 9)—who commanded the imperial armies. His mother, Anthusa, was also a lady of good family (Pallad. p. 40; Socr. vi. 3) Anthusa, while John was an infant, was left a widow at the age of twenty, refused all offers of marriage, and devoted herself to the education of her boy and the care of his property (de Sacerdot. lib. i. c. 55). Her unremitting devotion to her maternal duties excited admiration even from the heathen (Ep. ad Vid. Jun. i. c. 2, p. 340).
St. Chrysostom's life may be conveniently divided into five epochs: (a) His life as a layman at Antioch till his baptism and admission as a reader, a.d. 347–370; (b) his ascetic and monastic life, a.d. 370–381; (c) his career as deacon, presbyter, and preacher at Antioch, a.d. 381–398; (d) his episcopate at Constantinople, a.d. 398–404; (e) exile, a.d. 404–407.
(a) Life as a Layman at Antioch.—The intellectual power manifested at a very early age marked him out as fitted for one of the learned professions. The bar was chosen, and at about 18 years of age he began to attend the lectures of the celebrated sophist Libanius, the intimate friend and correspondent of the emperor Julian, and tutor of Basil the Great, who had come to end his days in his native city of Antioch. The genius and ability of the pupil excited the greatest admiration in his master, who, being asked on his deathbed, c. a.d. 395, which of his pupils he thought worthiest to succeed him, replied, "John, if the Christians had not stolen him from us" (Soz. H. E. lib. viii. c. 2). When Chrysostom commenced practice as an advocate, his gift of eloquence speedily displayed itself. His speeches were listened to with delight, and were highly praised by Libanius, no mean judge of rhetoric. A brilliant career was opening before the young man, leading to all that men most covet, wealth, fame, high place. But a change, gradual but mighty, came over his spirit, and like another young student of the neighbouring province of Cilicia, "the things that were gain to him he counted loss for Christ." Like Timothy at the knees of Eunice, "from a child" Chrysostom had learnt from his devout mother the things that were "able to make him wise unto salvation," and his soul revolted at the contrast between the purity of the gospel standard and the baseness of the aims and viciousness of the practices prevalent in the profession he had chosen. To accept a fee for making the worse appear the better cause seemed to his generous and guileless soul to be bribed to lie—to take Satan's wages—to sin against his own soul. His disinclination to the life of a lawyer was much increased by the influence of the example of his intimate friend Basil, the companion of his studies and the sharer of all his thoughts and plans. The two friends had agreed to follow the same profession; but when Basil decided on adopting a monastic life, and to follow, in Chrysostom's words, "the true philosophy," Chrysostom was unable at once to resolve to renounce the world, to the attractions of which his ardent nature was by no means insensible, and of which he was in some danger of becoming a slave. He was "a never-failing attendant at the law courts, and passionately enamoured of the theatre" (de Sacerdot. lib. i. c. 14, p. 363). His friend Basil's adoption of an ascetic life at first caused an interruption of their intercourse. But life was intolerable separated from his second self. He renewed his intimacy with Basil. The pleasures and pursuits of the world became distasteful to him, and he soon resolved to abandon it altogether, quitting mother and home, and finding some sacred retreat where he and his friend could devote themselves to strict ascetism (ib. c. 4). This decisive change—Chrysostom's conversion we should now call it—was greatly promoted by the acquaintance he formed at this period with the mild and holy Meletius, the orthodox and legitimate bp. of Antioch, who had recently returned to his see after one of his many banishments for the faith. Meletius quickly observed the intellectual promise of the young lawyer, and, enamoured of the beauty of his disposition, sought frequent opportunities of intercourse, and in a prophetic spirit declared the greatness of his future career (Pallad. p. 40). Up to this time Chrysostom, though the child of Christian parents, had remained unbaptized, a not unfrequent practice at this epoch. The time for public profession of his faith was now come, and after a probation of three years, Meletius baptized him, and ordained him reader. This was in a.d. 369 or 370, when Chrysostom was about 23 years old (Pallad. p. 41).
(b) Ascetic and Monastic Life.—Baptism restored the balance which
Chrysostom tells us had been so seriously disturbed by Basil's
Upon some of these associates, however, his influence began to tell. Two of his
fellow pupils under Libanius, Maximus,
afterwards bp. of Seleucia, and Theodorus,
bp. of Mopsuestia, adopted the ascetic life under the superintendence of
Diodorus and
Carterius, who presided over a monastery in or near Antioch. From Diodorus Chrysostom
learnt the clear common-sense mode of interpreting Holy Scripture (repudiating the
allegorizing principle), of which he and Theodore became such distinguished representatives.
The inability of his friend Theodore to part definitely with the world, and stifle
natural instincts, was the occasion of the composition of Chrysostom's earliest
extant treatises. Theodore's love for a girl named Hermione led him to leave the
ascetic brotherhood and return to secular life. Chrysostom's heart was deeply stirred
at this. He regarded it as a sin to be repented of and forsaken if Theodore would
not forfeit salvation. He addressed two letters to him full of impassioned eloquence,
earnestly calling him to penitence and amendment. His fervid remonstrances succeeded.
Theodore gave up his engagement, and finally abandoned the world (ad Theodorum
Lapsum,
We now come to a passage in Chrysostom's life which we must condemn as utterly
at variance with truth and honour. Yet we must bear in mind that the moral standpoint
of the Fathers was on this point different from our own. It was generally held that
the culpability of an act of deception depended upon its purpose, and that if this
was good the deception was laudable. Chrysostom himself says, "There is a good deceit
such as many have been deceived by, which one ought not even to call a deceit at
all," instancing that of Jacob, "which was not a deceit, but an economy" (Homil.
vi. in
About a.d. 374 Chrysostom carried into effect his resolution of devoting himself to an ascetic life, and left his home for a monastic community on one of the mountain ranges S. of Antioch. As there is no reference in any of his writings to any opposition from his mother, it is probable that her death had left him free. After four years spent in unremitting austerities, he left the society of his kind, and, dwelling in a mountain cavern, practised still more rigid self-discipline (Pallad. p. 41). At the end of two years his health so completely gave way that he was forced to return to his home in Antioch. To these austerities may be attributed that debilitated frame, weakness of digestion, and irritability of temperament, to which his constant physical sufferings and many of his chief difficulties and calamities are not remotely traceable.
(c) A Preacher and Presbyter at Antioch.—Chrysostom did not return
to Antioch to be idle. He was ordained deacon by Meletius
a.d. 381, shortly before the latter left
to preside over the oecumenical council of Constantinople (Pallad. p. 42). Meletius
died during the session of the council, and his successor Flavian raised Chrysostom
to the presbyterate early in a.d. 386 (ib.).
During his five years' diaconate he had gained great popularity by his aptness to
teach, and his influence had made itself widely felt at Antioch. While deacon he
composed the de Virginitate; the Ep. ad Viduam Juniorem, addressed
to the young widow of Therasius (c. 381); its sequel de non Iterando Conjugio;
and the orations de Martyre Babyla. After his ordination he preached his
first sermon before the bishop, and a vast crowd was gathered by the fame of his
eloquence (Sermo, cum Presbyt. fuit Ordinatus, de se ac de Episcopo, deque Populi
Multitudine). The succeeding ten years, embracing Chrysostom's life as a presbyter
at Antioch, were chiefly devoted to the cultivation of the gift of pulpit eloquence
on which his celebrity mainly rests. It was during this period that "the great clerk
and godly preacher," as our First Homily terms
These events occurred in the spring of A.D. 387. For ten years longer Chrysostom continued as a preacher and teacher at Antioch. To this period may be assigned his commentaries on Gen. and Pss., St. Matt. and St. John, Acts, Rom., Con, Gal., and Eph. Those on Tim. i., ii., Tit., and on the other Epp. of St. Paul, are considered by Tillemont to have been certainly delivered at Constantinople (Till. Mém. eccl. tom. xi. pp. 92–97, 370–376).
(d) Episcopate of Constantinople.—Chrysostom's residence at Antioch ended in a.d. 397. In Sept. the bp. of Constantinople, the amiable and indolent Nectarius, died. The vacant see was one of the most dignified and influential in the church. Public expectation was excited as to his successor. The nomination rested with the emperor Arcadius, but virtually with the prime minister Eutropius. Passing by numerous candidates, he determined to elevate one who had no thought of being a candidate at all, John of Antioch, whose eloquence had impressed him during a recent visit to Antioch on state business. Chrysostom's name was received with delight by the electing prelates, and at once unanimously accepted. The difficulty lay with Chrysostom himself and the people of Antioch. The double danger of a decided "nolo episcopari" on Chrysostom's part and of a public commotion among the Antiochenes was overcome by stratagem. Asterius, the "comes orientis," in accordance with secret instructions from Eutropius, induced Chrysostom to accompany him to a martyr's chapel outside the city walls. There he was apprehended by the officers of the government, and hurried over the 800 miles under military escort from stage to stage, and reached his imperial see a closely guarded prisoner. His remonstrances were unheeded; his inquiries met with obstinate silence. Resistance being useless, Chrysostom felt it more dignified to submit. He was consecrated Feb. 26, 398, by Theophilus, patriarch of Alexandria. The duty was very unwelcome, for Theophilus had left no stone unturned to secure the nomination of Isidore, a presbyter of Alexandria. The ceremony was witnessed by a vast multitude, assembled to listen to the inaugural sermon of one of whose eloquence they had heard so much. This "sermo enthronisticus" is lost (Socr. H. E. vi. 2; Soz. H. E. viii. 2; Pallad. p. 42).
Constantinople soon learnt the difference between the new bishop and his predecessor.
Chrysostom at once disfurnished the episcopal residence, and disposed of the costly
But while his relations with his clergy were becoming increasingly embittered, he stood high in favour with the people, who flocked to his sermons, and drank in greedily his vehement denunciations of the follies and vices of the clergy and aristocracy (Socr. vi. 4, 5). He was no less popular with Arcadius and his empress, the Frankish general's daughter, Eudoxia, who was beginning to supplant the author of her elevation, the eunuch Eutropius, and to make her feeble partner bow to her more powerful will. For a time the bishop and the empress, between whom was afterwards so uncompromising an hostility, vied with one another in expressions of mutual admiration and esteem. Towards the latter part of 398, not long after Chrysostom had taken possession of his see, the relics of some anonymous martyrs were translated by night with great ceremony to the martyry of St. Thomas, on the seashore of Drypia, about nine miles from the city, which the empress had instituted in a fit of religious excitement. So lengthened was the procession and so brilliant the torches, that Chrysostom compares it to a river of fire. The empress herself in royal diadem and purple, attended by nobles and ladies of distinction, walked by the side of the bishop, in the rear of the chest enclosing the sacred bones. It was dawn before the church was reached and Chrysostom began his sermon. It was full of extravagant laudations of Euxodia and of ecstatic expressions of joy, which afterwards formed a ground of accusation against him (Homil. Dicta Postquam Reliquiae, etc. vol. xii. pp. 468–473). The next day the emperor with his court visited the shrine, and, laying aside his diadem, reverenced the holy martyrs. After the departure of Arcadius Chrysostom delivered a second enthusiastic homily in praise of his piety and humility (Homil. Dicta Praesente Imperatore, ib. pp. 474–480).
At the same period the largeness of Chrysostom's heart and the sincerity of his Christian love were manifested by his care for the spiritual state of the numerous Goths at Constantinople. Some were Catholics, but the majority were Arians. He had portions of the Bible translated into their vernacular, and read by a Gothic presbyter to his countrymen in the church of St. Paul, who afterwards addressed them in their own tongue (Homil. 8, vol. xii. pp. 512–526). Chrysostom himself frequently preached to them by an interpreter. He ordained native readers, deacons, and presbyters, and dispatched missionaries to the Gothic tribes who still remained on the banks of the Danube, and consecrated a bishop from among themselves named Unilas (Theod. H. E. v. 30; Ep. 14, 207). Having learnt that the nomad Scythian tribes on the banks of the Danube were desirous of being instructed in the faith, he at once dispatched missionaries to them, and corresponded with Leontius, bp. of Ancyra, with regard to the selection of able men from his diocese for this work (ib. H. E. v. 31). In his zeal for the suppression of pagan idolatry he obtained an imperial edict, a.d. 399, for the destruction of the temples in Phoenicia, which was carried out at the cost of some Christian ladies of Constantinople, who also supplied funds for missionary exertions in that country (ib. v. 29). These efforts for the propagation of the faith were very dear to Chrysostom's heart, and even during his exile he superintended and directed them by letter (Ep. 53, 54, 123, 126). He endeavoured to crush false doctrine wherever it was making head. Having learnt that the Marcionite heresy was infecting the diocese of Cyrus, he wrote to the then bishop, desiring him to expel it, and offering to help him in putting in force the imperial edicts for that purpose. He thus evidenced, in the words of Theodoret, that, like St. Paul, he bore in his heart "the care of all the churches" (H. E. v. 31).
Eutropius fell from power in 399. He had hoped for a subservient bishop; but not only did Chrysostom refuse to countenance his nefarious designs, but denounced his vices from the pulpit with unsparing fidelity. The unhappy man, hurled in a moment from the pinnacle of his greatness, took refuge for a while in the church, but was ultimately beheaded at Chalcedon (Socr. H. E. vi. 5; Soz. H. E. viii. 7; Philost. H. E. xi. 6; Zosimus, v. 18; Chrys. Hom. in Eutrop. vol. iii. pp. 454–460; de Capto Eutrop. ib. pp. 460–482).
Early in a.d. 400 Gainas, the haughty Goth who had had a large share in the downfall of Eutropius, demanded the surrender of three leading ministers, Aurelianus the consul, Saturninus, and count John the empress's chief favourite. To relieve the emperor of embarrassment, they surrendered themselves. Their lives were in extreme danger. Chrysostom resorted to Gainas's camp, pleaded the cause of the hostages, and endeavoured to persuade the Goth to lessen his extravagant demands to be made consul and commander-in-chief, which would have placed the emperor at his mercy. Gainas had urged his claim for one of the churches of Constantinople for Arian worship, but Chrysostom's eloquence and spiritual authority overpowered him, and he desisted for a time at least in pressing his demand (Soz. H. E. viii. 4; Socr. H. E. vi. 6; Theod. H. E. v. 32, 33; Chrys. Hom. cum Saturn. et Aurel. etc., vol. iii. pp. 482–487). The sequel belongs to general history. The emperor, as a last resort, declared Gainas a public enemy; the inhabitants of the city rose against the Goths; a general massacre ensued, and Gainas was forced to flee for safety (Zosim. v. 18–22).
At this epoch the power and popularity of Chrysostom was at its culminating point.
We have now to trace its swift and complete decline. The author of his overthrow
was the empress Eudoxia. Her shortlived religious zeal had burnt itself out, and
when she found Chrysostom too clear-sighted to be imposed upon by an outward show
of piety, and too uncompromising to connive at wrong-doing even in the highest places,
and that not even her rank as empress could save her and her associates from public
censure, her former attachment was changed into the most implacable enmity. Jealousy
of Chrysostom's influence over Arcadius contributed to her growing aversion. Chrysostom
was now the only obstacle to her obtaining undisputed supremacy over her imbecile
husband, and through him over the Eastern world. Means must be found to get rid
of this obstacle also. Chrysostom himself afforded the opportunity in his excess
of zeal for the purity of the church by overstepping his episcopal jurisdiction,
not then so strictly defined as in modern dioceses. Properly speaking, the bp. of
Constantinople had no jurisdiction beyond the limits of his own city and diocese.
For Constantinople, as a city whose imperial dignity was of modern creation, was
not a metropolitan see, but subject ecclesiastically to the metropolitan of Heraclea
(otherwise Perinthus), who was exarch of the province of Thrace. The claims of Heraclea
becoming antiquated, the prelates of Alexandria, as the first of the Eastern churches,
gradually assumed metropolitan rights over Byzantium. But subjection to any other
see was soon felt to be inconsistent with the dignity of an imperial city, and by
the third canon of the oecumenical council held within its walls,
a.d. 381, its bishop was declared second
to the bp. of Rome, after him coming the metropolitans of Alexandria and Antioch.
But this precedence was simply honorary, and although Nectarius had set the precedent
followed by Chrysostom of exercising jurisdiction in the Thracian and Asiatic dioceses,
the claim did not receive legal authority until the council of Chalcedon (can. 28).
At a conference of bishops held at Constantinople in the spring of
a.d. 400, Eusebius of Valentinopolis accused
his brother bishop, Antoninus of Ephesus, of selling ordination to bishoprics, melting
down the church plate for his own benefit, and other grave offences (Pallad. p.
126). A delegacy was dispatched to Asia to investigate these charges. Many dishonest
and vexatious delays occurred, and the accused bishop died before any decision could
be arrived at (ib. pp. 130–133). The Ephesian clergy and the bishops of the
circuit appealed to Chrysostom to make peace. Prompt at the call of duty, Chrysostom,
though it was the depth of winter (Jan. 401), and he in very feeble health, proceeded
to Ephesus. On his arrival he exercised metropolitical authority, deposing six bishops
convicted of simony, and correcting with unsparing hand the venality and licentiousness
of the clergy (ib. pp. 134–135; Socr. H. E. vi. 10; Soz. H. E.
viii. 6). His excessive severity did not reconcile the reluctant ecclesiastics to
the questionable authority upon which he acted. The results of Chrysostom's absence
of three months from Constantinople were disastrous. He had entrusted his episcopal
authority to Severian, bp. of Gabala, who basely abused his trust to undermine Chrysostom's
influence at court. The cabal against Chrysostom was headed by the empress and her
favourite ladies, of whose extravagance of attire and attempts to enhance their
personal charms, the bishop had spoken with contemptuous ridicule, and among whom
the wealthy and licentious widows Marsa, Castricia, and Eugraphia, "who used for
the ruin of their souls the property their husbands had gained by extortion" (Pallad.
pp. 35, 66), were conspicuous. This cabal received an important accession by the
arrival of two bishops from Palestine, Antiochus of Ptolemais and the grey-haired
Acacius of Beroea (Pallad. 49). [Acacius;
Antiochus.]
Serapion, Chrysostom's archdeacon, had kept his master informed of Severian's base
proceedings, and had continually urged his speedy return. His return was the signal
for the outbreak of open hostilities, which Chrysostom's vehement and unguarded
language in the pulpit exasperated. Soon after his return, he chose his text from
the history of Elijah, and exclaimed, "Gather together to me those base priests
that eat at Jezebel's table, that I may say to them, as Elijah of old, 'How long
halt ye between two opinions?'" (ib. 74). This allusion was only too clear.
He had called the empress Jezebel. The haughty Eudoxia could not brook the insult,
and the doom of Chrysostom was sealed. But until the plot was ripe it was necessary
to keep up the semblance of friendship, and even of deference, towards one who could
still make ecclesiastical authority felt. Some half-heard words of Severian, uttered
in annoyance at Serapion's discourtesy, were distorted by the archdeacon into a
blasphemous denial of Christ's Divinity (Socr. H. E. vi. 10; Soz. H. E.
viii. 10). The charge was rashly credited by Chrysostom, who, without further inquiry,
sentenced him to excommunication and banishment from Constantinople. Chrysostom
was still the idol of the common
The secret intrigues, checked for the time, soon broke out afresh. The allusion to Jezebel was not forgiven by Eudoxia, and Severian was equally implacable. The clergy were eager to rid themselves of one who, in the words of Palladius, "like a lamp burning before sore eyes," was intolerable from the brilliancy of his virtues. All they wanted was a powerful leader.
Such a leader was found in Theophilus, bp. of Alexandria, who had been unwillingly compelled to consecrate Chrysostom. A pretext for his interference was afforded by the hospitality shewn by Chrysostom and his friends to some Egyptian monks, known from their remarkable stature as "the Tall Brethren" [Ammonius], whom Theophilus had treated with great injustice and cruelty, nominally because of their Origenistic views, but really because they were privy to his own avarice and other vices (Isid. Pelusiot. Ep i. 142). Chrysostom had received them kindly, and written in their behalf to Theophilus, who replied with an indignant remonstrance against protecting heretics and interfering in the affairs of another diocese. The monks claimed the right of prosecuting their defamers (Pallad. pp. 51–62; Socr. H. E. vi. 7, 9; Soz. H. E. viii. 12, 13). A personal appeal to Eudoxia secured them this. Theophilus was summoned to appear before a council for the investigation of the whole case of these Nitrian monks, while their calumniators were called upon to substantiate their charges or suffer punishment. Theophilus, however, devised a scheme for turning the tables upon Chrysostom, and transforming the council into one before which Chrysostom himself might be arraigned (Pallad. p. 64). [Dioscorus.]
To pave the way for the execution of this plot Theophilus induced Epiphanius, the venerable bp. of Salamis, to visit Constantinople, with the decrees of a council recently held in Cyprus, by which the tenets of Origen which the Nitrian monks were charged with holding were condemned, for Chrysostom's signature (Socr. H. E. vi. 10–14; Soz. H. E. viii. 14). Epiphanius petulantly declined the honours and hospitality prepared for him until Chrysostom had formally condemned Origen and expelled "the Tall Brethren." Chrysostom replied that he left both to the coming council, and would not prejudge the matter. The relations between the two prelates were further embittered by the ordination of a deacon by Epiphanius in violation of the canons of the church (Socr. H. E. vi. 11). No better success attended Epiphanius's attempt to obtain a condemnation of Origen from the bishops then at Constantinople. An interview with the accused monks, at which Epiphanius was obliged to acknowledge that he had not read a page of their writings, and had condemned them on hearsay, seems to have opened his eyes to the real character of Theophilus and the nature of the transaction in which he had become an agent. He refused to take any further share in the designs of Theophilus, and set sail for Cyprus, dying on his voyage or soon after his return (Socr. H. E. vi. 12–14; Soz. H. E. viii. 14, 15).
Shortly after Epiphanius's departure Theophilus arrived at Constantinople, accompanied
by a bodyguard of rough sailors from his own city of Alexandria, laden with costly
presents. He received a vociferous welcome from the crews of the Egyptian corn-ships,
but the bishops and clergy of the city kept aloof. He refused all communications
with Chrysostom, rejected all his offers of hospitality, and, assuming the position
of an ecclesiastical superior, not of a defendant about to take his trial, openly
declared that he had come to depose Chrysostom for grave offences. The three weeks
between his arrival and the commencement of the synod were devoted to ingratiating
himself with influential personages and the disaffected clergy, by flattery, sumptuous
banquets, and splendid gifts. Arcadius, probably unaware of the plans of the secret
cabal, remonstrated with Chrysostom for his delay in proceeding to Theophilus's
trial, which Chrysostom justified by his unwillingness to usurp a jurisdiction not
legitimately his (Socr. H. E. vi. 15; Soz. H. E. viii. 16; Pallad.
65, 66; Chrys. Ep. ad Innocent. 1). Theophilus had no such scruples. He assumed
as patriarch of Alexandria the supremacy over all Eastern bishops, and claimed the
right of summoning Chrysostom as a suffragan before his tribunal. Apprehensive of
the well-known popularity of Chrysostom with the lower orders, he dared not venture
to hold a synod in Constantinople. The place chosen was a suburb of Chalcedon, on
the other side of the Bosphorus, known as "the Oak," where was a large church with
contiguous buildings for the clergy and monks. Thirty-six bishops, of whom all but
seven were Egyptians, Theophilus's suffragans, formed the council. The Asiatic bishops
were mainly such as Chrysostom had made his enemies during his recent visitation.
None was more hostile than Gerontius of Nicomedia, whom he had deposed. The presidential
chair was occupied by the bp. of Heraclea, as metropolitan. To this packed council,
the members of which were at the same time "judges, accusers, and witnesses" (Phot.
Cod. 59, ad init.), in the middle of July,
a.d. 403, Chrysostom was summoned to answer
to a list of charges containing 29 articles drawn up by the archdeacon John. Many
of these were contemptibly frivolous, others grossly exaggerated, some entirely
false (Pallad. p. 66). They had reference to the administration of his church and
the alleged malversation of its funds; to his violent and tyrannical behaviour towards
his clergy; to his private habits—"he had private interviews with women"—"he dined
gluttonously by himself as a cyclops would eat"; to ritual
(e) Exile.—At last, on June 5, a.d. 404, Arcadius was persuaded to sign the edict of banishment. Chrysostom, after a final prayer in the cathedral with some of his faithful bishops, prepared with calm submission to yield it prompt obedience. To guard against a popular outbreak, he directed that his horse should be saddled and taken to the great west entrance, and after a tender farewell of his beloved Olympias and her attendant deaconesses, he passed out unobserved at a small postern and surrendered himself to the guard, who conveyed him, with two bishops who refused to desert him, to a vessel which instantly started under cover of night for the Asiatic shore (Pallad. pp. 89–90. He had scarcely left the city when the church he had just quitted took fire; the flames, which are said to have broken out first in the episcopal throne, caught the roof, and the conflagration spread to the senate house and adjacent public buildings (ib. pp. 91–92; Socr. H. E. vi. 18; Soz. H. E. viii. 22; Zosim. v. 24). The suspicion, however unjustly entertained, that this fire was due to Chrysostom's adherents, resolved that the church of their beloved teacher should never be possessed by his enemies, led to a relentless persecution of the Joannites under the semblance of a judicial investigation. Innocent persons of every age and sex were put to the torture, in the vain hope that they would inculpate leading members of their party. The presbyter Tigrius and the young reader Eutropius expired under their torturer's hands. Others barely escaped with their lives, maimed and mutilated (Soz. H. E. viii. 22–24). The tender heart of Chrysostom was wrung upon hearing of the sufferings inflicted on his friends, especially upon his dearly loved Olympias. To the charge of incendiarism was added that of contumacious resistance to the emperor's will, in refusing to hold communion with Arsacius and Atticus, who in succession had been thrust into Chrysostom's see. [Arsacius and Atticus] This was made a crime punishable with degradation from official rank, fine, and imprisonment. The clergy faithful to Chrysostom were deposed, and banished with every circumstance of brutality. Some did not reach their place of banishment alive. The most persevering endeavours were made to stamp out the adherents of the banished prelate, not only in Constantinople but in Asia Minor and Syria—endeavours which only deepened their attachment to him, and confirmed their resolution never to yield (Theod. H. E. v. 34).
All other help failing, the persecuted party appealed to the Western church as represented by its chief bishops. Letters were sent addressed to Innocent, bp. of Rome, Venerius of Milan, and Chromatius of Aquileia, by Chrysostom himself, by the 40 friendly bishops, and by the clergy of Constantinople (Pallad. p. 10). Theophilus and his adherents sent counter-representations (ib. p. 9). Innocent, without hesitation, pronounced the synod that had condemned Chrysostom irregular, and annulled his deposition because pronounced in the absence of the accused, and wrote authoritative letters to the chief parties. To Theophilus he addressed sharp reproof, to the Constantinopolitan clergy fatherly sympathy, to Chrysostom himself sympathy and encouragement (ib. pp. 23, 24; Soz. H. E. viii. 26), and he persuaded Honorius to write a letter to his brother Arcadius, urging the convocation of a general synod. This letter was conveyed to Constantinople by a deputation of Western bishops. But Arcadius was not a free agent. The bishops were not allowed admission to his presence. The letters they bore were wrested from them, the thumb of one of the bishops being broken in the struggle. They were insulted, maltreated, and sent home with every mark of contumely (Pallad. pp. 30–33; Soz. H. E. viii. 28).
Chrysostom's place of exile, selected by Eudoxia's hatred, was Cucusus, a lonely
mountain village in the Tauric range, on the borders of Cilicia and Lesser Armenia.
It had a most inclement climate and was exposed to perpetual inroads from Isaurian
marauders. Chrysostom first learnt at Nicaea the place of his future abode. His
disappointment was severe, but remonstrance was vain. Refreshing breezes from lake
Ascanius invigorated his worn constitution, and helped him to face the long and
sultry journey. It was the season when the heat was most oppressive, and his conductors
were instructed to push on with the utmost speed, without regard to his strength
or comfort. Whatever kind consideration could do to mitigate his sufferings was
done by the officers in charge, Anatolius and Theodorus, who gladly executed for
him all the duties of personal servants. On July 5 Chrysostom left Nicaea to traverse
the scorching plains of Galatia and Cappadocia under a midsummer sun. More dead
than alive, he reached Caesarea. The bp. Pharetrius, an unworthy successor of the
great Basil and a concealed enemy of Chrysostom (Pallad. p. 77), was greatly troubled
at a halt being fixed at Caesarea. His clergy were Joannites almost to a man: if
he treated Chrysostom badly, he would offend them; if well, he would incur the more
terrible wrath of the empress. So, while sending complimentary messages, he carefully
avoided an interview, and used all means to dispatch him from Caesarea as quickly
as possible. This was not so easy, for a severe access of his habitual ague-fever
had compelled Chrysostom to seek medical aid (Ep. 12). He was received with
enthusiastic affection by all ranks in the city. His lodging
The personal appearance of Chrysostom, as described by contemporary writers, though dignified, was not imposing. His stature was diminutive (σωμάτιον); his limbs long, and so emaciated by early austerities and habitual self-denial that he compares himself to a spider (ἀραχνώδης, Ep. 4). His very lofty forehead, furrowed with wrinkles, expanded widely at the summit, his head was bald "like that of Elisha," his eyes deeply set, but keen and piercing; his cheeks pallid and withered; his chin pointed and covered with a short beard. His habits were of the simplest, his personal wants few and easily satisfied. The excessive austerities of his youth had ruined his digestive powers and he was unable to eat food except in the smallest quantities and of the plainest kind. Outward display in dress, equipage, or furniture was most distasteful to him. Enamoured of the cloister, the life of the bishop of the capital of the Eastern world, compelled by his position to associate with persons of the highest rank and magnificence of life, was intolerable. It is not surprising that he was thought morose and ungenial and was unpopular with the upper classes. His strength of will, manly independence, and dauntless courage were united with an inflexibility of purpose, a want of consideration for the weaknesses of others, and an impatience at their inability to accept his high standard, which rendered him harsh and unconciliatory. Intolerant of evil in himself, he had little tolerance for it in other men. His feebleness of stomach produced an irritability of temper, which sometimes led to violent outbursts of anger. He was accused of being arrogant and passionate. He was easily offended and too ready to credit evil of those whom he disliked. Not mixing with the world himself, he was too dependent on the reports of his friends, who, as in the case of Serapion, sometimes abused his confidence to their own purposes. But however austere and reserved to the worldly and luxurious, he was ever loving and genial to his chosen associates. In their company his natural playfulness and amiability was shewn, and perhaps few ever exercised a more powerful influence over the hearts and affections of the holiest and most exalted natures. His character is well summed up by Dr. Newman—"a bright, cheerful, gentle soul," his unrivalled charm "lying in his singleness of purpose, his fixed grasp of his aim, his noble earnestness; he was indeed a man to make both friends and enemies, to inspire affection and kindle resentment; but his friends loved him with a love 'stronger' than 'death,' and his enemies hated him with a hatred more burning than 'hell,' and it was well to be so hated, if he was so beloved."
Chrysostom's extant works are more voluminous than those of any other Father, filling 13 folios in the Benedictine ed. They may be roughly divided into—I. Treatises; II. Expositions of Scripture, chiefly in the form of Homilies, but partly continuous Commentaries; III. Homilies, (a) doctrinal, (b) occasional, (c) panegyrical, (d) general; IV. Letters; V. Liturgy.
I. Treatises.—The earliest works we have from his pen are his letters ad Theodorum Lapsum, i. ii. (see supra), written while Chrysostom was still resident at Antioch before a.d. 372. To his early monastic life we may assign the two books de Compunctione, addressed respectively to Demetrius and Stelechius. His three books in defence of the monastic life (adversus Oppugnatores Vitae Monasticae) were called forth by the decree of Valens enforcing military service and civil functions on monks, a.d. 373. His short treatise, Comparatio Regis et Monachi, belongs to the same period. The three books de Providentiâ, written to console his friend Stagirius, the subject of an hysterical seizure then identified with demoniacal possession, were probably composed after his return to Antioch, i.e. subsequently to 381. Before ordination to the priesthood he composed two letters on the superior happiness of a single life (ad Viduam Juniorem) and his treatise on celibacy (de Virginitate). His six books de Sacerdotio, justly ranked among his ablest, most instructive, and most eloquent writings, are among his earliest, and placed by Socrates (H.E. vi. 3) in the first days of his diaconate, c. 382. Its maturity of thought and sobriety of tone prevent our fixing this work at a much earlier period. The treatises denouncing the custom for the clergy to have "spiritual sisters" residing under the same roof with them (contra eos qui subintroductas habent; Regulares foeminae viris cohabitare non. debent), incorrectly assigned by Socrates (ib.) to his diaconate, were written, Palladius tells us (p. 45), after he became bp. of Constantinople, c. 398. To his exile belong the Nemo laeditur nisi a seipso, and Ad eos qui scandalizati sunt ob adversitates.
II. Expositions of Scripture.—It is as an expositor of Scripture that
Chrysostom is most deservedly celebrated. His method of dealing with the divine
Word is characterized by the sound grammatical and historical principles and the
healthy common sense, introduced by his tutor Diodorus, which mark the exegetical
school of Antioch. He seeks to discover not what the passage before him may be made
to mean, but what it was intended to mean; not what recondite lessons or truths
may be forced from it by mystical or allegorical interpretations, but what it was
intended to convey;
We are told by Suidas and Cassiodorus that Chrysostom wrote commentaries on the
whole of Holy Scripture, from the beginning to the end. Among those extant are the
67 Homilies on Genesis, preached at Antioch; and 8 shorter and slighter,
but more florid and rhetorical, sermons on topics from
His commentaries on N.T. commence with 90 on Matthew, delivered at Antioch. St. Thomas Aquinas is reported to have said that he would rather possess these homilies than be the master of all Paris. There are none on Mark or Luke; but we have 88 on St. John's Gospel, also preached at Antioch. These are more doctrinal than hortatory or practical, being chiefly against the Anomoeans. The 55 homilies on Acts are among his feeblest works. The style is inelegant, the language unrefined, and the line of interpretation jejune. (Phot. Cod. 174). The secret of their inferiority is that they were written at Constantinople in the midst of the troubles arising from Gainas and the Goths, when he had no time for studied composition; as also were the 24 homilies on Eph., the 15 on Phil., the 12 on Col., the 11 on I. Thess., and the 5 on II. Thess., which hardly reach Chrysostom's highest standard of excellence. On the other hand, the 33 on Rom., which were certainly delivered at Antioch, are among his most elaborate discourses. Nowhere does he shew more argumentative power or greater skill in developing his author's meaning. On I. Cor. we have 44 homilies, and 30 on II. Cor., preached at Antioch, of which the former series "have ever been considered by devout men as among the most perfect specimens of his mind and teaching" (Keble). The commentary on Gal. is continuous, not in the homiletical form, and a somewhat hasty work. Montfaucon correctly assigns the 18 homilies on I. Tim., the 10 on II. Tim., and the 6 on Tit. to his ministry at Antioch. From some marks of negligence the three on Philemon have been thought to be extemporaneous addresses taken down by others. The 34 on Hebrews were delivered at Constantinople, and pub. from notes by Constantine, a presbyter, after Chrysostom's death.
III. Homilies, (a) Doctrinal.—The chief of these are the 12 delivered against the Anomoean form of Arianism, in the first year of his presbyterate, at Antioch, a.d. 387. "They are," writes Stephens, "among the finest of his productions." Soon after he wrote the 8 against the Jews and Judaizing Christians (contra Judaeos).
(b) Occasional.—Not a few of his grandest flights of Christian oratory were called forth by the events of the stirring times in which he lived. The most remarkable is the series of 21 "on the Statues" (ad Populum Antiochenum de Statuis), for the circumstances of which see supra. Another class includes orations delivered at Constantinople on the fall of Eutropius, on the insurrection of Gainas, on the troubles connected with Severian, and the noble and pathetic series connected with his own deposition and exile. To these we may add homilies delivered on the great Church festivals.
(c) Panegyrical.—These deserve careful attention as illustrating "the passionate devotion to the memory of departed saints which was rapidly passing into actual adoration." The earliest is probably that commemorating his venerated spiritual father Meletius, a.d. 386. The others are mostly devoted to the eulogy of the bishops and martyrs of the church of Antioch, St. Ignatius, St. Eustathius, St. Babylas, St. Pelagia, St. Domnina and her two daughters, and others, and were delivered at the martyria, or chapels erected over their remains. Chrysostom delivered a homily on the day of the commemoration of the emperor Theodosius, and heaped extravagant laudations on the empress Eudoxia and on Arcadius during his ardent but short-lived friendship with them at the outset of his episcopate.
(d) General.—Among these we include those belonging to the Christian
life generally, e.g. the 9 de Poenitentia, 2 Catecheses ad Illuminandos,
On his homilies, expository and practical, Chrysostom's fame chiefly rests, and that deservedly. He was in truth "the model of a preacher for a great capital. Clear, rather than profound, his dogmatic is essentially moulded up with his moral teaching. . . . His doctrines flow naturally from his subject or from the passage of Scripture under discussion; his illustrations are copious and happy; his style free and fluent; while he is an unrivalled master in that rapid and forcible application of incidental occurrences which gives such life and reality to eloquence. He is at times, in the highest sense, dramatic in manner" (Milman, Hist. of Christ. iii. 9).
IV. Letters.—The whole of Chrysostom's extant letters belong to his banishment, written on his road to Cucusus, during his residence there, or in the fortress of Arabissus. The most important are 17 addressed to the deaconess Olympias, who shared his hopes and fears and all his inmost feelings. The whole number is 242, written to every variety of friend—men of rank, ladies, ecclesiastics of every grade, bishops, presbyters, deacons and deaconesses, monks and missionaries, his old friends at Antioch and Constantinople, and his more recent acquaintances at Caesarea and other halting-places on his journey—and including every variety of subject; now addressing reproof, warning, encouragement, or consolation to the members of his flock at Constantinople, or their clergy; now vigorously helping forward the missionary work in Phoenicia, and soliciting funds for pious and beneficent works; now thanking his correspondents for their letters or their gifts; now complaining of their silence; now urging the prosecution of the appeal made in his behalf to Innocent and the Western bishops, and expressing his hope that through the prayers of his friends he would be speedily given to them again; and the whole poured forth with the undoubting confidence of a friend writing to friends of whom he is sure. We have in this correspondence an index to his inner life such as we possess of few great men. The letters are simply inestimable in aiding us to understand and appreciate this great saint. In style, as Photius remarks, they are characterized by his usual brilliancy and clearness, and by great sweetness and persuasive power (Phot. Cod. 86).
V. Liturgical.—It is impossible to decide how much in the liturgies passing under the name of St. Chrysostom is really of his age. There are very many editions of the liturgy, no two of which, according to Cave (Hist. Lit. i. 305), present the same text; and hardly any that do not offer great discrepancies. It would be, of course, a fundamental error to attribute the composition of a liturgy de novo to Chrysostom or any of the old Catholic Fathers. When a liturgy is called by the name of any Father, all that is implied is that it was in use in the church to which that Father belonged, and that it may have owed some corrections and improvements to him. The liturgy known in comparatively late times by the name of Chrysostom has been from time immemorial that of the church of Constantinople.
The best and most complete edition of Chrysostom, as of most of the Christian Fathers, is the Benedictine, prepared by the celebrated Bernard de Montfaucon, who devoted to it more than twenty years of incessant toil and of journeys to consult MSS. It was pub. at Paris, in 13 vols. fol. in 1718. The value of this magnificent edition lies more in the historical and critical prefaces, and other literary apparatus, than in the text, which is faulty. It has been reprinted at Venice in 1734 and 1755, and at Paris in 1834–1839. The most practically useful edition is in the Patrologia of the Abbé Migne, in 13 vols. 8vo. (Paris, 1863). It is mainly a reprint of the Benedictine ed., but enriched by a judicious use of the best modern commentators. The chief early authorities for the life of Chrysostom, besides his own works, are the Dialogue of his contemporary Palladius, bp. of Hellenopolis, which, however valuable for its facts, deserves Gibbon's censure as "a partial and passionate vindication," and the Ecclesiastical Histories of Socrates (lib. vi.), Sozomen (lib. viii.), and Theodoret (lib. v.), the Lexicon of Suidas (sub voc. Ἰωάννης), and the letters of Isidorus of Pelusium (ii. Ep. 42). The biography by George of Alexandria is utterly worthless, being more an historical romance than a memoir. Of more modern works, it will suffice to name "the moderate Erasmus" (tom. iii. Ep. 1150), the "patient and accurate" Tillemont (Mém. Eccl. tom. ix.), and the diligent and dull Montfaucon. The brilliant sketch of Gibbon (Decl. and Fall, c. xxxii.) must not be omitted. Neander's Life of St. Chrysostom is a work of much value, more for the account of Chrysostom's opinions and words than for the actual life. Amadée Thierry's biographical articles in the Revue des Deux Mondes describe Chrysostom's fall and exile most graphically, though with the licence of an artist. The most satisfactory biography is by Rev. W. R. W. Stephens (Lond. 1872), to which the foregoing article is largely indebted. Translations of several of his works are contained in the Post-Nicene Fathers, edited by Schaff and Wace. S.P.C.K. publishes cheaply St. Chrys. On the Priesthood, by T. A. Moxon, and extracts from his writing in St. Chrysostom's Picture of his Age and Picture of the Religion of his Age.
Claudius (1), a.d. 41–54. The reign
of this emperor has special interest in being that to which we must refer the earliest
distinct traces of the origines of the church of Rome.
Even before his accession, the new faith may have found its way there. The "strangers
of Rome, Jews and proselytes " (
It is obvious further, (1) that the expulsion of Christians who had been Jews or proselytes would leave a certain proportion of purely Gentile Christians whom the edict would not touch; and (2) that those who returned would naturally settle, not in the Jewish trans-Tiberine quarter of the city, but in some safer locality, and that thus the church at Rome, at or soon after the death of Claudius, would gradually become more and more free from Jewish or Judaizing influences. (On other points connected with the rise and progress of Christianity at Rome under Claudius see "Aquila and Priscilla," and the "Proto-martyr Stephen," in the writer's Biblical Studies.)
Clemens (1), Flavius, son of Sabinus, brother of the emperor Vespasian, and therefore first cousin to Domitian, whose niece Flavia Domitilla was his wife. Domitian regarded his kinsman with great favour, and placed his two sons, whom he caused to be named after himself and his brother, Vespasianus and Domitianus, under the tuition of Quintilian as his destined successors. Flavius Clemens was consul in a.d. 95, and had only just resigned the office when he and his wife Domitilla were suddenly arrested and convicted on the charge of "atheism," by which there is no reasonable doubt that Christianity is intended. The crime on which they were condemned was, according to Dio Cassius, that of "Judaizing," from which in the popular mind Christianity was hardly distinguishable. The religious charge was regarded by Suetonius as a most trivial one, the object of suspicion rather than of proof—"tenuissima ex suspicione"—but it was strengthened by a neglect of the ordinary usages of Roman social and political life, almost unavoidable by a Christian, which was regarded as a "most contemptible indolence" meriting severe animadversion. Clemens suffered death; his wife Domitilla was banished to an island off the W. coast of Italy. [Domitianus, (1).] Sueton. Domit. § 15; Dio Cassius, Hist. lxvii. 14; Tillem. tom. ii. p. 124; Merivale, Romans under the Empire, vol. vii. c. lxii. p. 383; Lightfoot, Philippians, p. 22.
Clemens Romanus. According to common tradition, one of the first, if not the first, bp. of Rome after the apostles, and certainly a leading member of that church towards the end of the 1st cent.
(1) Among the most authentic proofs of the connexion of Clement with the Roman church is the mention of his name in its liturgy. The early Christians on the death of a bishop did not discontinue the mention of his name in their public prayers. Now the Roman Canon of the Mass to this day, next after the names of the apostles, recites the names of Linus, Cletus, Clemens; and there is some evidence that the liturgy contained the same names in the same order as early as the 2nd cent; Probably, then, this commemoration dates from Clement's own time.
(2) An independent proof that Clement held high position in the church of Rome is afforded by the Shepherd of Hermas, a work not later than the episcopate of Pius (a.d. 141–156), the writer of which claims to have been contemporary with Clement. He represents himself as commissioned to write for Clement the book of his Visions in order that Clement might send it to foreign cities, that being his function; while Hermas himself was to read the Vision at Rome with the elders who presided over the church. Thus Clement is recognized as the organ by which the church of Rome communicated with foreign churches; but the passage does not decide whether or not Clement was superior to other presbyters in the domestic government of the church.
(3) Next in antiquity among the notices of Clement is the general ascription
to him of the Epistle to the Church of Corinth, commonly known as Clement's
first epistle. This is written in the name of the church of Rome, and neither in
the address nor in the body of the letter contains Clement's name, yet he seems
to have been from the first everywhere recognized as its author. We may not unreasonably
infer from the passage just cited from Hermas that the letter was even then
celebrated. About a.d. 170 it is expressly
mentioned by Dionysius, bp. of Corinth, who, acknowledging another letter written
from the church of Rome to the church of Corinth by their then bp. Soter, states
that their former letter written by Clement was still read from time to time in
their Sunday assemblies. Eusebius (H. E. iii. 16) speaks of this public reading
of Clement's epistle as the ancient
(4) Last among those notices of Clement which may be relied on as historical, we place the statement of Irenaeus (l.c.) that Clement was third bp. of Rome after the apostles, his account being that the apostles Peter and Paul, having founded and built up that church, committed the charge of it to Linus; that Linus was succeeded by Anencletus, and he by Clement. This order is adopted by Eusebius, by Jerome in his Chronicle, and by Eastern chronologers generally.
A different order of placing these bishops can also, however, lay claim to high
antiquity. The ancient catalogue known as the Liberian, because ending with the
episcopate of Liberius, gives the order, and duration of the first Roman episcopates:
Peter 25 years, 1 month, 9 days; Linus 12 years, 4 months, 12 days; Clemens 9 years,
11 months, 12 days; Cletus 6 years, 2 months, 10 days; Anacletus 12 years, 10 months,
3 days: thus Anacletus, who in the earlier list comes before Clement, is replaced
by two bishops, Cletus and Anacletus, who come after him; and this account is repeated
in other derived catalogues. Irenaeus himself is not consistent in reckoning the
Roman bishops. [Cerdo.]
The order, Peter, Linus, Clemens, is adopted by Augustine (Ep. 53 ad Generosum)
and by Optatus of Milevis (de Schism. Donatist. ii. 2). Tertullian (de
Praescrip. c. 32) states that the church of Rome held Clement to have been ordained
by Peter; and Jerome (Cat. Scr. Ecc. 15), while adopting the order of Irenaeus,
mentions that most Latins then counted Clement to have been second after Peter,
and himself seems to adopt this reckoning in his commentary on Isaiah (c. 52). The
Apostolic Constitutions (vii. 46) represent Linus to have been first ordained
by Paul, and afterwards, on the death of Linus, Clement by Peter. Epiphanius (Haer.
xxvii. 6) suggests that Linus and Cletus held office during the lifetime of Peter
and Paul, who, on their necessary absence from Rome for apostolic journeys, commended
the charge of the church to others. This solution is adopted by Rufinus in the preface
to his translation of the Recognitions. Epiphanius has an alternative solution,
founded on a conjecture which he tries to support by a reference to a passage in
Clement's epistle, viz. that Clement, after having been ordained by Peter, withdrew
from his office and did not resume it until after the death of Linus and Cletus.
A more modern attempt to reconcile these accounts is Cave's hypothesis that Linus
and after him Cletus had been appointed by Paul to preside over a Roman church of
Gentile Christians; Clement by Peter over a church of Jewish believers, and that
ultimately Clement was bishop over the whole Roman church. Still later it has been
argued that the uncertainty of order may mean that during the 1st cent. there was
no bishop in the church of Rome, and that the names of three of the leading presbyters
have been handed down by some in one order, by others in another. The authorities,
however, which differ from the account of Irenaeus, ultimately reduce themselves
to two. Perhaps the parent of the rest is the letter of Clement to James [Clementine
Literature] giving an account of
Clement's ordination by Peter; for it seems to have been plainly the acceptance
of this ordination as historical which inspired the desire to correct a list of
bishops which placed Clement at a distance of three from Peter. The other authority
is the Chronicle of Hippolytus, pub. a.d.
235 (see Chronicon Canisianum
in D. C. B. 4-vol. ed., and the memoir of Mommsen there cited), for it has
been satisfactorily shewn that the earlier part of the Liberian catalogue is derived
from the list of Roman bishops in this work. The confusion of later writers arises
from attempts to reconcile conflicting authorities, all of which seemed deserving
of confidence: viz. (1) the list of Irenaeus, and probably of Hegesippus, giving
merely a succession of Roman bishops; (2) the list of Hippolytus giving a succession
in somewhat different order and also the years of the duration of the episcopates;
and (3) the letter to James relating the ordination of Clement by Peter. The main
question, then, is, which is more entitled to confidence, the order of Irenaeus
or of Hippolytus? and we have no hesitation in accepting the former. First, because
it is distinctly the more ancient; secondly, because if the earlier tradition had
not placed the undistinguished name Cletus before the well-known Clement, no later
writer would have reversed its order; thirdly, because of the testimony of the liturgy.
Hippolytus being apparently the first scientific chronologer in the Roman church,
his authority there naturally ranked very high, and his order of the succession
seems to have been generally accepted in the West for a considerable time. Any commemoration,
therefore, introduced into the liturgy after his time would have followed his order,
Linus, Clemens, Cletus, or, if of very late introduction, would have left out the
obscure name Cletus altogether. We conclude, then, that the commemoration in the
order, Linus, Cletus, Clemens, had been introduced before the time of Hippolytus,
and was by then so firmly established that even the contradictory result arrived
at by Hippolytus (because he accepted as historically true the ordination of Clement
by Peter as related in the Ep. to James) could not alter it. The Recognitions
are cited by Origen, the contemporary of Hippolytus; and the account which their
preface gives of Clement's
The result thus arrived at casts great doubt on the identification of the Roman
Clement with the Clement named
The only genuine work of Clement is the Ep. to the Corinthians already mentioned.
Its main object is to restore harmony to the Corinthian church, which had been disturbed
by questions apparently concerning discipline rather than doctrine. The bulk of
the letter is taken up in enforcing the duties of meekness, humility, submission
to lawful authority, and but little attempt is made at the refutation of doctrinal
error. Some pains, it is true, are taken to establish the doctrine of the Resurrection;
but this subject is not connected by the writer with the disputes, and so much use
is made of Paul's Ep. to the Corinthians that we cannot lay much stress on the fact
that one of the topics of that epistle is fully treated. The dissensions are said
to have been caused by the arrogance of a few self-willed persons who led a revolt
against the authority of the presbyters. Their pride probably rested on their possession
of spiritual gifts, and perhaps on the chastity which they practised. Though pains
are taken to shew the necessity of a distinction of orders, we cannot infer that
this was really questioned by the revolters; for the charge against them, that they
had unwarrantably deposed from the office of presbyter certain who had filled it
blamelessly, implies that the office continued to be recognized by them. But this
unauthorized deposition naturally led to a schism, and representations made at Rome
by some of the persons ill-treated may have led to the letter of Clement. It is
just possible that we can name one of these persons. At the end of the letter a
wish is expressed that the messengers of the Roman church, Ephebus and Bito, with
Fortunatus also, might be sent back speedily with tidings of restored harmony. The
form of expression distinguishing Fortunatus from the Roman delegates favours the
supposition that he was a Corinthian, and as Clement urges on those
However precarious this identification may be, internal evidence shews that the epistle is not so far from apostolic times as to make it impossible. None of the apostles are spoken of as living, but the deaths of Peter and Paul, described as men of their own generation, are referred to as then recent, and some of the presbyters appointed by the apostles are spoken of as still surviving. The early date thus indicated is confirmed by the absence of allusion to controversial topics of the 2nd cent., and by the immaturity of doctrinal development on certain points. Thus "bishop" and "presbyter" are, as in N.T., used convertibly, and there is no trace that in the church of Corinth one presbyter had any very pronounced authority over the rest. The deposition of certain presbyters is not spoken of as usurpation of the authority of any single person, but of that of the whole body of presbyters. Again, to the writer the "Scriptures" are the books of the O.T.; these he cites most copiously and uses to enforce his arguments. He expressly mentions St. Paul's Ep. to the Corinthians; and twice reminds his hearers of words of our Lord. The way in which he uses the quotations implies the existence of written records recognized by both parties. Besides these, without any formal citation he makes unmistakable use of other N.T. books, chiefly of Heb., but also of Rom. and other Pauline, including the Pastoral epistles, Acts, James, and I. Peter. Still, their authority is not appealed to in the same manner as is that of the O.T. It may be mentioned here that Clement's epistle contains the earliest recognition of the Book of Judith. He quotes also from O.T. apocryphal books or interpolations not now extant.
To fix more closely the date of the epistle, the principal fact available is, that in the opening an apology is made that the church of Rome had not been able to give earlier attention to the Corinthian disputes, owing to the sudden and repeated calamities which had befallen it. It is generally agreed that this must refer to the persecution under either Nero or Domitian. A date about midway between these is that to which the phenomena of the epistle would have inclined us; but having to choose between these two we have no hesitation in preferring the latter. The main argument in favour of the earlier date, that the temple service is spoken of as being still offered, is satisfactorily met by the occurrence of a quite similar use of the present tense in Josephus. Indeed the passage, carefully considered, suggests the opposite inference; for Clement would Judaize to an extent of which there is no sign elsewhere in the epistle, if, in case the temple rites were being still celebrated, he were to speak of them as the appointed and acceptable way of serving God. All the other notes of time are difficult to reconcile with a date so close to the apostles as the reign of Nero.
As to whether the writer was a Jew or a Gentile, the arguments are not absolutely decisive; but it seems more conceivable that a Hellenistic Jew resident at Rome could have acquired the knowledge of Roman history and heathen literature exhibited in the epistle, than that one not familiar from his childhood with the O.T. could possess so intimate an acquaintance with it. This consideration, of course, bears on the question whether Flavius Clemens could have written the letter.
The letter does not yield any support to the theory of 1st cent. disputes between a Pauline and an anti-Pauline party in the church. No such disputes appear in the dissensions at Corinth; and at Rome the Gentile and Jewish sections of the church seem in Clement's time to be completely fused. The obligation on Gentiles to observe the Mosaic law does not seem a matter of concern. The whole Christian community is regarded as the inheritor of the promises to the Jewish people. Clement holds both SS. Peter and Paul in the highest (and equal) honour.
The epistle was known until 1875 only through a single MS., the great Alexandrian MS. brought to England in 1628, of which an account is given in all works on the criticism of the N.T. One leaf, containing about the tenth part of the whole letter, has been lost. In this Greek Bible of the 5th cent. the two letters of Clement to the Corinthians are books enumerated among N.T., not with the apostolic epistles, but after the Apocalypse. Hence the ecclesiastical use of Clement's letter had probably not ceased when this MS. was copied. The ep. was first ed. by Patrick Young (Oxf. 1633), and often since, among the most important edd. being Cotelier's in his Apostolic Fathers (Paris, 1672); Jacobson's; Hilgenfeld's in his N.T. extra Canonem Receptum; Lightfoot's (Camb. 1869, and in his great ed. of the Apostolic Fathers, 1890); Tischendorf's (Leipz. 1873); and Gebhardt and Harnack's (Leipz. 1875). A photograph of this portion of the MS. was pub. by Sir. F. Madden in 1856. An Eng. trans. of the ep. (and of those on Virginity) is in the Lib. of Ante-Nicene Fathers.
An entirely new authority for the text of the epistle was gained by the discovery
in the library of the Holy Sepulchre at Fanari, in Constantinople, of a MS. containing
an unmutilated text of the two epistles ascribed to Clement.
Lightfoot gives references to a succession of writers who have quoted the epistle. Polycarp, though not formally quoting Clement's epistle, gives in several passages clear proof of acquaintance with it. A passage in Ignatius's epistle to Polycarp, c. 5, may also be set down as derived from Clement, but other parallels collected by Hilgenfeld are extremely doubtful. The epistle does not seem to have been translated into Latin, and was consequently little known in the West.
For some of the spurious works ascribed to Clement see Clementine Literature.
The Second Epistle to the Corinthians.—This letter also formed part of
the Alexandrian MS., but its conclusion had been lost by mutilation. We now have
it complete in the edition of Bryennius. In the list of contents of the older MS.
it is marked as Clement's second epistle, but not expressly described as to the
Corinthians. It is so described in the later MS. It is not mentioned by any writer
before Eusebius, and the language used by some of them is inconsistent with their
having accepted it. Eusebius mentions it as a second letter ascribed to Clement,
but not, like the former, used by the older writers, and he only speaks of one as
the acknowledged epistle of Clement. The two epistles are placed among the books
of the N.T., in the 8th book of the Apostolic Constitutions, which probably
belongs to the 6th cent. The second epistle is first expressly cited as to the Corinthians
by Severus of Antioch early in the same cent. Internal evidence, though adverse
to Clementine authorship, assigns to the work a date not later than the 2nd cent.,
and probably the first half of it. The writer is distinctly a Gentile, and contrasts
himself and his readers with the Jewish nation in a manner quite unlike the genuine
Clement; and his quotations are not, like Clement's, almost exclusively from O.T.;
the gospel history is largely cited, and once under the name of Scripture. Many
of the quotations, however, differ from our canonical gospels, and since one of
them agrees with a passage referred by Clement of Alexandria to the gospel of the
Egyptians, this was probably the source of other quotations also. The epistle would
seem from this to be earlier than the close of the 2nd cent., at which time our
four gospels were in a position of exclusive authority. The controversies with which
the writer deals are those of the early part of the 2nd cent. In language suggested
by the Ep. to the Ephesians, the spiritual church is described as created before
the sun and moon, as the female of whom Christ is the male, the body of which he
is the soul. It seems likely that a work using such language had gained its acceptance
with the church before Gnostic theories concerning the Aeons Christus and Ecclesia
had brought discredit upon such speculations. The doctrine of the pre-existence
of the church is, as Harnack noted, one of several points of contact between this
work and the Shepherd of Hermas, making it probable that both emanate from
the same age and the same circle. We therefore refer the place of composition to
Rome, notwithstanding an apparent reference to the Isthmian games which favours
a connexion with Corinth. The description of the work as an Ep. to the Corinthians,
never strongly supported by external evidence, is disproved by the newly discovered
conclusion, whence it clearly appears that the work is, as Dodwell and others had
supposed, no epistle, but a homily. It professes, and there seems no reason to doubt
it, to have been composed to be publicly read in church, and therefore the writer's
position in the church was one which would secure that use of his work. But he does
not claim any position of superiority, and the foremost place in ruling and teaching
the church is attributed to the body of presbyters. He nowhere claims to be Clement.
But it is not strange that an anonymous, but undoubtedly early document of the Roman
church should come to be ascribed to the universally acknowledged author of the
earliest document of that church; nor that when both had come to be received as
Clement's, the second should come
The Two Epistles on Virginity.—These are extant only in Syriac, and only in a single MS. purchased at Aleppo c. a.d. 1750, for Wetstein. He had commissioned a copy of the Philoxenian version of the N.T. to be bought, and this MS. proved to be only a copy of the well-known Peshito. But the disappointment was compensated by the unexpected discovery of these letters, till then absolutely unknown in the West. After the Ep. to the Hebrews, the last in the Peshitta canon, the scribe adds a doxology, and a note with personal details by which we can date the MS. a.d. 1470, and then proceeds, "We subjoin to the epistles of Paul those epistles of the apostles, which are not found in all the copies," on which follow II. Peter, II., III. John, and Jude, from the Philoxenian version, and then, without any break, these letters, with the titles: "The first epistle of the blessed Clement, the disciple of Peter the apostle," and "The second epistle of the same Clement." The MS. is now preserved in the library of the Seminary of the Remonstrants at Amsterdam. The letters were published, as an appendix to his Greek Testament, by Wetstein, who also defended their authenticity. The last editor is Beelen (Louvain, 1856 ). The letters, though now only extant in Syriac, are proved by their Graecisms to be a translation from the Greek, and by the existence of a fragment containing an apparently different Syriac translation of one passage in them. This fragment is contained in a MS. bearing the date a.d. 562. The earliest writer who quotes these letters is Epiphanius. In a passage, which until the discovery of the Syriac letters had been felt as perplexing, he describes Clement as "in the encyclical letters which he wrote, and which are read in the holy churches," having taught virginity, and praised Elias and David and Samson, and all the prophets. The letters to the Corinthians cannot be described as encyclical; and the topics specified are not treated of in them, while they are dwelt on in the Syriac letters. St. Jerome, though in his catalogue of ecclesiastical writers he follows Eusebius in mentioning only the two letters to the Corinthians as ascribed to Clement, yet must be understood as referring to the letters on virginity in his treatise against Jovinian where he speaks of Clement as composing almost his entire discourse concerning the purity of virginity. He may have become acquainted with these letters during his residence in Palestine. The presumption against their genuineness, arising from the absence of notice of them by Eusebius and every other writer anterior to Epiphanius, and from the limited circulation which they appear ever to have attained in the church, is absolutely confirmed by internal evidence. Their style and whole colouring are utterly unlike those of the genuine epistle; and the writer is evidently one whose thoughts and language have been moulded by long and early acquaintance with N.T., in the same manner as those of the real Clement are by his acquaintance with the Old. The Gospel of St. John is more than once cited, but not any apocryphal N.T. book. Competent judges have assigned these epistles to the middle of the 2nd cent., but their arguments hardly suffice to exclude a somewhat later date.
The Epistles to James our Lord's Brother.—In the article Clementine Literature is given an account of the letter to James by Clement, which relates how Peter, in immediate anticipation of death, ordained Clement as his successor, and gave him charge concerning his ministry. After the trans. of this letter by Rufinus, some Latin writer added a second, giving instruction as to the administration of the Eucharist and church discipline. These two letters had considerable currency in the West. In the forged decretals both were much enlarged, and 3 new letters purporting to be Clement's added. James is in the original Clementines the head of the church, but in the later epistle receives instruction and commands from Peter's successor Clement. There must have been yet other letters ascribed to Clement in the East if there be no error in the MS. of Leontius (Mai, Script. Vet. Nov. Coll. vii. 84), who cites a passage not elsewhere extant as from the ninth letter of Clement. Discourses concerning Providence and the righteous judgment of God are cited by Anastasius of Antioch; and a 13th-cent. writer (Spicilegium Acherianum, viii. 382) reports having seen in a Saracen MS. a book of Revelations of Peter, compiled by Clement. The highest, and probably the final, authority on St. Clement of Rome is now the great work of Bp. Lightfoot, forming, in 2 parts, pub. 1890, vol. i. of his ed. of the Apostolic Fathers. See also Harnack, Chronol. der Altchr. Lit., 1897, pp. 251 ff., 438 ff.; an ed. by A. Jacobson of Clement's works in 2 vols. in Apost. Patr. (Clar. Press); an Eng. trans. of the Epistle of Clement, by J. A. F. Gregg (S.P.C.K.).
Clement of Alexandria. i. Life.—His full name, Titus Flavius Clemens,
is given by Eusebius (H. E. vi. 13) and Photius (Cod. 111) in the
title of the Stromateis (Τίτου Φλανίου Κλήμεντος
[Photius adds πρεσβυτέρου Ἀλεξανδρείας]
τῶν κατὰ τὴν ἀληθῆ φιλοσοφίαν γνωστικῶν ὑπομνημάτων
στρωματεῖς). The remarkable coincidence of the name with that of the nephew
of Vespasian and consul in 95 cannot have been accidental, but we have no direct
evidence of Clement's connexion with the imperial Flavian family. Perhaps he was
descended from a freedman of the consul; his wide and varied learning indicates
that he had received a liberal education, and so far suggests that his parents occupied
a good social position. The place of his birth is not certainly known. Epiphanius,
the earliest authority on the question, observes that two opinions were held in
his time, "some saying that he was an Alexandrian, others that he was an Athenian"
(ὅν φασί τινες Ἀλεξανδρέα ἕτεροι δὲ Ἀθηναῖον,
Haer. xxxii. 6). Alexandria was the principal scene of his labours; but there
was no apparent reason for connecting him with Athens by mere conjecture. The statement
that he was an Athenian must therefore have rested upon some direct tradition. Moreover,
in recounting his wanderings he makes Greece the starting-point and Alexandria the
goal of his search (Strom. 1, § 11, p. 322); and in the 2nd cent. Athens
was still
ii. Works.—Eusebius, whom Jerome follows closely with some mistakes (de Vir. Ill. 38) has given a list of the works of Clement (H. E. vi. 13): (1) Στρωματεῖς, libb. viii.; (2) Ὑποτυπώσεις, libb. viii.; (3) Πρὸς Ἕλληνας λόγος προτρεπτικός (adversus Gentes, Jerome); (4) Παιδαγωγός, libb. iii.; (5) Τίς ὁ σωζόμενος πλούασιος; (6) Περὶ τοῦ πάσχα; (7) Διαλέξεις περὶ νηστείας; (8) Περὶ καταλαλίας; (9) Προτρεπτικὸς εἰς ὑπομονήν ἢ πρὸς τοὺς νεωστὶ βεβαπτισμένους (omitted by Jerome); (10) Κανὼν ἐκκλησιαστικὸς ἢ πρὸς τοὺς Ἰουδαΐ ζοντας (de Canonibus Ecclesiasticis et adversum eos qui Judaeorum sequuntur errorem, Jerome). Photius (Bibl. Codd. 109–111) mentions that he read the first five works on the list, and knew by report 6, 7, 8 (περὶ κακολογίας); 10 (περὶ κανόνων ἐκκλησιαστικῶν); from the variations in the titles and the omission of 9, it is evident that he derived his knowledge of these simply from the secondary Greek version of Jerome's list. Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5 are still preserved almost entire. Of 2 considerable fragments remain; and of 6, 8, 10 a few fragments are preserved in express quotations.
Quotations are also found from a treatise περὶ
προνοίας, and from another περὶ ψυχῆς,
to which Clement himself refers (Strom. iii. 13, p. 516; v. 88, p. 699).
Elsewhere Clement speaks of his intention to write On First Principles (περὶ
ἀρχῶν, Strom. iii. 13, p. 516 ; id. 21, p. 520; cf. iv. 2,
p. 564); On Prophecy (Strom. v. 88, p. 699; id. iv. 93, p.
605); Against Heresies (Strom. iv. 92, p. 604); On the Resurrection
(Paed. i. 6, p. 125); On Marriage (Paed. iii. 8, p. 278). But
the references may be partly to sections of his greater works, and partly to designs
never carried out (cf. Strom. iv. 1–3, pp. 563 f.). No doubt has been raised
as to the genuineness of the Address, the Tutor, and the Miscellanies.
Internal evidence shews them all the work of one writer (cf. Reinkens, de Clemente,
cap. ii. § 4), and they have been quoted as Clement's by a continuous succession
of Fathers even from the time of Origen (Comm. in Joh. ii. 3, p. 52
B; Strom.; anonymous). These
three principal extant works form a connected series. The first is an exhortation
to the heathen to embrace Christianity, based on an exposition of the comparative
character of heathenism and Christianity; the second offers a system of training
for the new convert, with a view to the regulation of his conduct as a Christian;
the third is an introduction to Christian philosophy. The series was further continued
in the lost Outlines (ὑποτυπώσεις),
in which Clement laid the foundation of his philosophic structure in an investigation
of the canonical
I. The Address to the Greeks (Λόγος προτρεπτικὸ;ς πρὸς Ἕλληνας: Cf. Strom. vii. § 22, p. 421, ἐν τῷ προτρεπτικῷ ἐπιγραφομένῳ ἡμῖν λόγῳ).—The works of Clement were composed in the order in which they have been mentioned. The Tutor contains a reference to the Address in the first section (ὁ λόγος ὁπηνίκα μὲν ἐπὶ σωτηρίαν παρεκάλει, προτρεπτικὸς ὄνομα οὐτῷ ἦν: cf. Strom. vii. § 22; Pott. p. 841); and, if we can trust the assertion of Eusebius (H. E. v. 28), some of Clement's works were composed before the accession of Victor (a.d. 192). Putting these two facts together, we may reasonably suppose the Address written c. a.d. 190. It was addressed to Greeks and not to Gentiles generally, as Jerome understood the word ("adversus gentes," de Vir. Ill. 38). It deals almost exclusively with Greek mythology and Greek speculation.
Its general aim is to prove the superiority of Christianity to the religions and the philosophies of heathendom, while it satisfies the cravings of humanity to which they bore witness. The gospel is, as Clement shews with consummate eloquence, the New Song more powerful than that of Orpheus or Arion, new and yet older than the creation (c. 1), pure and spiritual as contrasted with the sensuality and idolatry of the pagan rites, clear and substantial as compared with the vague hopes of poets and philosophers (2–9). In such a case, he argues, custom cannot be pleaded against the duty of conversion. Man is born for God, and is bound to obey the call of God, Who through the Word is waiting to make him like unto Himself. The choice is between judgment and grace, between destruction and life: can the issue then be doubtful (10–12)?
It is not difficult to point out errors in taste, fact, and argument throughout Clement's appeal; but it would be perhaps impossible to shew in any earlier work passages equal to those in which he describes the mission of the Word, the Light of men (p. 88), and pictures the true destiny of man (pp. 92 ff.).
II. The Tutor (ὁ Παιδαγωγός; cf.
The main scope of the Tutor is therefore practical: the aim is action and not knowledge; but still action as preparatory to knowledge, and resting upon conviction. It is divided into three books. The first gives a general description of the Tutor, Who is the Word Himself (1–3); of the "children" whom He trains, Christian men and women alike (4–6); and of His general method, using both chastisements and love (7–12). The second and third books deal with special precepts designed to meet the actual difficulties of contemporary life and not to offer a theory of morals. It would not be easy to find elsewhere, even in the Roman satirists, an equally vivid and detailed picture of heathen manners. The second book contains general directions as to eating and drinking (1 f.), furniture (3), entertainments (4–8), sleep (9), the relations of men and women (10), the use of jewellery (11 f.). The third book opens with an inquiry into the nature of true beauty (c. 1). This leads to a condemnation of extravagance in dress both in men and in women (2 ff.), of luxurious establishments (4 f.), of the misuse of wealth (6 f.). Frugality and exercise are recommended (8–10); and many minute directions are added—often curiously suggestive in the present times—as to dress and behaviour (11 f.). General instructions from Holy Scripture as to the various duties and offices of life lead up to the prayer to the Tutor—the Word—with which the work closes. Immediately after the Tutor are printed in the editions of Clement two short poems, which have been attributed to him. The first, written in an anapaestic measure, is A Hymn of the Saviour Christ (ὕμνος τοῦ Σωτῆρος Χριστοῦ), and the second, written in trimeter iambics, is addressed To the Tutor (εἱς τὸν Παιδαγωγόν). The first is said to be "Saint Clement's" (τοῦ ἁγίου Κλήμεντος) in those MSS. which contain it; but it may be a work of primitive date, like the Morning Hymn which has been preserved in our Communion office as the Gloria in Excelsis. If it were Clement's, and designed to occupy its present place, it is scarcely possible that it would have been omitted in any MS.; while it makes an appropriate and natural addition if taken from some other source. There is no evidence to shew that the second is Clement's work; it is doubtless an effusion of some pious scholar of a later date.
III. The Miscellanies (Στρωματεῖς).
IV. The Outlines (Ὑποτυπώσεις) probably
grew out of the Miscellanies. Several express quotations from the 4th, 5th,
6th, and 7th books of the Outlines have been preserved; but the fragments
are too few and Clement's method too desultory to allow these to furnish a certain
plan of the arrangement of the work. They agree, however, fairly with the summary
description of Photius, and probably books i.–iii. contained the general introduction,
with notes on the O.T. ("Genesis, Exodus, and the Psalms"); books iv.-vi., notes
on the Epp. of St. Paul; books vii. vii i., on the Catholic Epp.
In addition to the detached quotations, there can be no reasonable doubt that the three series of extracts, (a) The summaries from the expositions of Theodotus and the so-called Western school, (b) The selections from the comments on the prophets, and (c) The outlines on the Catholic Epistles, were taken from the Outlines. But partly from the method of compilation, partly from the manner in which they have been preserved in a single MS., these fragments, though of the deepest interest, are at present only imperfectly intelligible.
(a) The summaries from Theodotus (ἐκ τῶν Θεοδότου καὶ τῆς ἀνατολικῆς καλουμένης διδασκαλίας κατὰ τοὺς Οὐαλεντίνου χρόνους ἐπιτομαί) are at once the most corrupt and the most intrinsically difficult of the extracts. It appears as if the compiler set down hastily the passages which contained the interpretations of the school which he wished to collect, without regard to the context, and often in an imperfect form. Sometimes he adds the criticism of Clement (ἡμεῖς δέ, § 8; Ἐμοὶ δέ, § 17; ὁ ἡμέτερος [λόγος], § 33); but generally the Valentinian comment is given without remark (οἱ ἀπὸ Οὐαλεντίνου, §§ 2, 6, 16, 23, 25; οἱ Ουαλεντινιανοί, §§ 21, 24, 37; ὥς φησιν ὁ Θεόδοτος, §§ 22, 26, 30; φησί, §§ 41, 67; φασί, §§ 33, 35; λέγουσιν, § 43). It follows that in some cases it is uncertain whether Clement quotes a Valentinian author by way of exposition, or adopts the opinion which he quotes. The same ambiguity appears to have existed in the original work; and it is easy to see how Photius, rapidly perusing the treatise, may have attributed to Clement doctrines which he simply recited without approval and without examination. Thus, in the fragments which remain, occasion might be given to charge Clement with false opinions on the nature of the Son (§ 19), on the creation of Eve (§ 21), on the two Words (§§ 6, 7, 19), on Fate (§§ 75 ff.), on the Incarnation (§ 1). There is no perceptible order or connexion in the series of extracts. The beginning and end are equally corrupt. Some sections are quite detached (e.g. §§ 9, 18, 21, 28, 66, etc.); others give a more or less continuous exposition of some mystery: e.g. §§ 10–16 (the nature of spiritual existences); 39–65 (the relations of wisdom, Jesus, the Christ, the demiurge; the material, the animal, the spiritual); 67–86 (birth, fate, baptism).
(b) The prophetic selections (ἐκ
τῶν προφητικῶν ἐκλογαί) are for the most part scarcely less desultory and
disconnected than the Summaries, but far simpler in style and substance.
They commence with remarks on the symbolism of the elements, and mainly of water
(§§ 1–8). Then follow fragmentary reflections on discipline (9–11), on knowledge,
faith, creation, the new creation (12–24), fire (25 f.), on writing and preaching
(27), on traits of the true gnostic (28–37). A long and miscellaneous series of
observations, some of them physiological, succeeds (38–50), and the collection closes
with a fairly continuous exposition of
Manuscript.—The summaries from Theodotus and the prophetic selections are at present found only in Cod. Flor. (L.). The text given in the edd. of Clement is most corrupt. The conjectural emendations and Latin trans. of J. Bernays, given by Bunsen in his ed. of the fragments of The Outlines (Anal. Ante-Nic. i.), are by far our most valuable help for the understanding of the text. Dindorf, in his ed., has overlooked these.
(c) The third important fragment of the Outlines consists of a
Latin version of notes on detached verses of I. Peter, Jude, and I., II. John, with
several insertions, probably due in some cases to transpositions in the MS. (e.g.
1, hae namque
primitivae, virtutes—audita est, Pott. p. 1009, stands properly in connexion
with the line of speculation on
V. The remaining extant work of Clement, Who is the Rich Man that is Saved?
(τίς ὁ σωζόμενος πλούσιος;) is apparently a
popular address based upon
iii. Clements' Position and Influence as a Christian Teacher.—In order
to understand Clement rightly, it is necessary to bear in mind that he laboured
in a crisis of transition. This gives his writings their peculiar interest in all
times of change. The transition was threefold, affecting doctrine, thought, and
life. Doctrine was passing from the stage of oral tradition to written definition
(1). Thought was passing from the immediate circle of the Christian revelation to
the whole domain of human experience (2). Life in its fulness was coming to be apprehended
as the object of Christian discipline (3). A few suggestions will be offered upon
the first two of these heads. (1) Clement repeatedly affirms that even when he sets
forth the deepest mysteries, he is simply reproducing an original unwritten tradition.
This had been committed by the Lord to the apostles Peter, James, John, and Paul,
and handed down from father to son, till at length he set forth accurately in writing
what had been delivered in word (Strom. i. § 11, p. 322; cf. vi. 68, p. 774;
and fragm. ap. Eus. H. E. ii. 1). But this tradition was, as he held it,
not an independent source of doctrine, but a guide to the apprehension of doctrine.
It was not co-ordinate with Scripture, but interpretative of Scripture (Strom.
vi. 124 f., pp 802 f.; de Div. Sal. § 5, p. 938). It was the help to the
training of the Christian philosopher (ὁ γνωστικός),
and not part of the heritage of the simple believer. Tradition in this aspect preserved
the clue to the right understanding of the hidden sense, the underlying harmonies,
the manifold unity of revelation. More particularly the philosopher was able to
obtain through tradition the general principles of interpreting the records of revelation
and significant illustrations of their application. In this way the true "gnostic"
was saved from the errors of the false "gnostic" or heretic, who interpreted Scripture
without regard to "the ecclesiastical rule" (Strom. vi. 125, p. 803,
κανὼν ἐκκλησιαστικός: ὁ ἐκκλ. κ. ib.
vi. 165, p. 826; vii. 41, p. 855; cf. ὁ κανὼν τῆς
ἀληθείας, ib. vi. 124, p. 802; 131, p. 806; vii. 94, p. 890;
ὁ κανὼν τῆς ἐκκλησίας, ib. i. 96, p.
375; vii. 105, p. 897). The examples of spiritual interpretation which Clement gives
in accordance with this traditional "rule" are frequently visionary and puerile
(e.g. Strom. vi. 133 ff. pp. 807 ff.). But none the less the rule itself
witnessed to a vital truth, the continuity and permanent value of the books of Holy
Scripture. This truth was an essential part of the inheritance of the Catholic church;
and Clement, however faulty in detail, did good service in maintaining it (id.
vii. 96, p. 891). As yet, however, the contents of the Christian Bible were imperfectly
defined. Clement, like the other Fathers who habitually used the Alexandrine O.T.,
quotes the books of the Apocrypha without distinguishing them in any way from the
books of the Hebrew canon, and he appears to regard the current Greek Bible as answering
to the Hebrew Scriptures restored by Ezra (Strom. i. 124, p. 392; id.
148, p. 409). There is the same laxity of usage in Clement with regard to the N.T.
He ascribes great weight to the Ep. of Barnabas (Strom. ii. 31, p.
445; id. 116, p. 489); and makes frequent use of the Preaching of Peter
(Strom. i. 182, p. 427, etc.); and quotes the Gospel acc. to the Hebrews
(Strom. ii. 45, p. 453). Eusebius further adds that he wrote notes on the
Revelation of Peter, which is in fact quoted in the Extracts from the
Prophets (§§ 41, 48, 49). The text of his quotations is evidently given from
memory (e.g.
It is impossible here to follow in detail Clement's opinions on special points
of doctrine. The contrast which he draws between the gnostic (the philosophic Christian)
and the ordinary believer is of more general interest. This contrast underlies the
whole plan of his Miscellanies, and explains the different aspects in which
doctrine, according to his view, might be regarded as an object of faith and as
an object of knowledge. Faith is the foundation; knowledge the superstructure (Strom.
vi. 26, p. 660). By knowledge faith is perfected (id. vii. 55, p. 864), for
to know is more than to believe (id. vi. 109, p. 794). Faith is a summary
knowledge of urgent truths: knowledge a sure demonstration of what has been received
through faith, being itself reared upon faith through the teaching of the Lord (id.
vii. 57, p. 865). Thus the gnostic grasps the complete truth of all revelation from
the beginning of the world to the end, piercing to the depths of Scripture, of which
the believer tastes the surface only (id. vi. 78, p. 779; 131, p. 806; vii.
95, p. 891). As a consequence of this intelligent sympathy with the Divine Will,
the
(2) The character of the gnostic, the ideal Christian, the perfect philosopher,
represents the link between man, in his earthly conflict, and God: it represents
also the link between man and men. The gnostic fulfils through the gospel the destiny
and nature of mankind, and gathers together the fruit of their varied experience.
This thought of the Incarnation as the crown and consummation of the whole history
of the world is perhaps that which is most characteristic of Clement's office as
an interpreter of the faith. It rests upon his view of human nature, of the providential
government of God, of the finality of the Christian dispensation. Man, according
to Clement, is born for the service of God. His soul (ψυχή)
is a gift sent down to him from heaven by God (Strom. iv. 169, p. 640), and
strains to return thither (id. 9, p. 567). For this end there is need of
painful training (Strom. i. 33, 1, 335; vi. 78, p. 779); and the various
partial sciences are helps towards the attainment of the true destiny of existence
(Strom. vi. 80 ff. pp. 780 ff.). The "image" of God which man receives at
his birth is slowly completed in the "likeness" of God (Strom. ii. 131, p.
499; cf. Paed. i. 98, p. 156). The inspiration of the divine breath by which
he is distinguished from other creatures (
The training of Jews and of the Greeks was thus in different ways designed to fit men for the final manifestation of the Christ. The systems were partial in their essence, and by human imperfection were made still more so. The various schools of philosophy, Jewish and heathen, are described by Clement under a memorable image, as rending in pieces the one truth like the Bacchants who rent the body of Pentheus, and bore about the fragments in triumph. Each, he says, boasts that the morsel which it has had the good fortune to gain is all the truth. Yet by the rising of the light all things are lightened, and he who again combines the divided parts and unites the exposition (λόγος) in a perfect whole will look upon the truth without peril (Strom. i. 57, p. 349).
Towards this great unity of all science and all life Clement himself strove; and by the influence of his writings kept others alive to the import of the magnificent promises in the teaching of St. Paul and St. John. He affirmed, once for all, upon the threshold of the new age, that Christianity is the heir of all past time, and the interpreter of the future. Sixteen centuries have confirmed the truth of his principle, and left its application still fruitful.
Clement of Alexandria's works are in Migne's Patr. Gk. vols. viii. ix.; and an ed. of his Opera ex rec. Guil. Dindorfii in 4 vols. with Latin notes is pub. by the Clarendon Press. A full enumeration of the MSS. of Clement's works will be found in D. C. B. (4-vol. ed.).
Besides the chief Church Histories, the following works are important for the study of Clement: Le Nourry, Appar. ad Bibliothecam Patrum, lib. iii. (reprinted in Dindorf's edition); Moehler, Patrologie, 1840; Mansel, The Gnostic Heresies, lect. xvi.; and the histories of the Alexandrine School, by Guericke, Matter, J. Simon, Vacherot. Interesting summaries of Clement's teaching, besides those in the general works of Lumper, Maréchal, and Schramm, are given by bp. Kaye (Some Account of the Writings and Opinions of Clement of Alexandria, Lond. 1835); abbé Freppel (Clement d’Alexandrie, cours à la Sorbonne, Paris, 1866); Ch. Bigg (The Christian Platonists of Alexandria, Oxf. 1886); F. J. A. Hort (Six Lectures on the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Lond. 1895). A cheap popular Life is pub. by S.P.C.K. in their Fathers for Eng. Readers; an Eng. trans. of the Homily on the Rich Man by P. M. Barnard (S.P.C.K.), text by the same in Texts and Studies, vol. v. No. 2 (Camb. Univ. Press), who has also collected Clement's Biblical text for the gospel and Acts (ib. vol. v. No. 4). A valuable ed. of the 7th book of the Miscellanies, with translation, introduction and notes, was pub. in 1902 at Cambridge by the late Prof. Hort and Prof. J. B. Mayor. Translations of most of his works are contained in the Ante-Nicene Lib. vol. ii. (T. &; T. Clark).
Clementine Literature. Among the spurious writings attributed to Clement
of Rome, the
The work has come down to us in three principal forms. 1. The Homilies (in. the MSS. τὰ Κλημέντια), first printed by Cotelier in his edition of the Apostolic Fathers 1672, from one of the Colbertine MSS. in the Paris Library. This manuscript is both corrupt and defective, breaking off in the middle of the 19th of the 20 homilies of which the entire work consists. The complete work was first pub. by Dressel, 1853, from a MS. which he found in the Ottobonian Library in the Vatican. Notes on the homilies by Wieseler, which were intended to have formed part of this publication, only appeared in 1859 as an appendix to Dressel's ed. of the Epitomes (see below). The two MSS. mentioned are the only ones now known to exist.
II. The Recognitions (ἀναγνώσεις, ἀναγνωρισμοί) bears in the MSS. a great variety of titles, the most common being Itinerarium S. Clementis (corresponding probably to περίοδοι Κλημέντος or περίοδοι Πέτρου). The original is lost, but the work is preserved in a translation by Rufinus, of which many MSS. are extant. Rufinus states in his preface that there were then extant two forms differing in many respects. He adds that he had omitted certain passages common to both, one of which he specifies, as being, to say the least, unintelligible to him; and elsewhere expresses his opinion that those passages had been interpolated by heretics. He claims to have aimed at giving rather a literal than an elegant translation; and there seems reason to regard this translation as more faithful than some others by him. We can test his work in the case of fragments of the original preserved by quotation, and, moreover, we have a Syriac trans. of the first three books, which is in the main in fair agreement with the Latin. For one of the most important variations see Lightfoot On the Galatians, 4th ed. p. 316. The trans. of Rufinus was first pub. by Sichardus (Basle, 1526). The most important later edd. are by Cotelier in his Apostolic Fathers (Paris, 1672) and by Gersdorf (Leipz. 1838). A new ed., founded on a better collation of MSS., is much to be wished for. The Syriac trans., an ed. of which was pub. by de Lagarde, 1861, is preserved in two MSS. in the British Museum. The older of these claims to have been written at Edessa, a.d. 411, and exhibits errors of transcription, which shew that it was taken from a still earlier MS. It contains the books i. ii. and iii. of the Recognitions and part of c. i. of book iv., at the end of which is marked "the end of the first discourse of Clemens." Then follow the 10th homily headed "the third against the Gentiles"; the 11th homily headed "the fourth"; the 12th and 13th homilies, the former only as far as c. xxiv., with the heading "from Tripoli in Phoenicia"; and the 14th homily headed "book xiv.," after which is marked "the end of the discourses of Clemens." The other MS. is some four centuries later, and contains only the first three books of the Recognitions, the note at the end being "the ninth of Clemens who accompanied Simon Cephas is ended." Eng. trans. of both the Homilies and the Recognitions are given in the Ante-Nicene Lib. (T. &; T. Clark).
III. The Epitome, first pub. by Turnebus, 1555, is an abridgment of the first form (i.e. the Homilies), and contains also a continuation of the story, use being made therein of the martyrdom of Clement by Simeon Metaphrastes, and of a tale by Ephraim, bp. of Chersonesus, of a miracle performed at the tomb of Clement. The Epitome is given in forms of varying fulness in different MSS. The edition by Dressel (Leipz. 1859), besides giving a fuller version of the Epitome as previously pub., contains also a second form considerably different. There must have been at least one other form not now extant, called by Uhlhorn the orthodox Clementines, which retained the discourses, but completely expurgated the heresy contained in them. This is inferred from the citations of the late Greek writers (Nicephorus Callisti, Cedrenus, and Michael Glycas); and the Clementines so amended were so entirely accepted by the later Greek church, that a Scholiast on Eusebius is quite unable to understand the charge of heresy which his author brings against them. In what follows we set aside the Epitomes as being manifestly a late form, and confine our attention to the other two forms, viz. the Homilies and Recognitions, to which, or to their writers, we shall refer as H. and R. Of these the Homilies contain all the characteristics of Ebionitism in much the harsher form; but before discussing the doctrine, we will compare the narratives as told in either form. The following is an abstract of the Recognitions. The form is that of an autobiography addressed by Clement to James, bp. of Jerusalem. The work divides itself into three portions, probably of different dates.
I. Clement, having stated that he was born
We are next introduced to two disciples of Peter, Nicetas and Aquila, who had been disciples of Simon. These give an account of the history of Simon and of his magical powers, stating that Simon supposed himself to perform his wonders by the aid of the soul of a murdered boy, whose likeness was preserved in Simon's bed-chamber. Prepared with this information, Peter enters into a public discussion with Simon which lasts for three days, the main subject in debate being whether the difficulty of reconciling the existence of evil with the goodness and power of the Creator does not force us to believe in the existence of a God different from the Creator of the world. The question of the immortality of the soul is also treated of, and this brings the discussion to a dramatic close. For Peter offers to settle the question by proceeding to Simon's bed-chamber, and interrogating the soul of the murdered boy, whose likeness was there preserved. On finding his secret known to Peter, Simon humbles himself, but retracts his repentance on Peter's acknowledging that he had this knowledge, not by prophetic power, but from associates of Simon. The multitude, however, are filled with indignation, and drive Simon away in disgrace. Simon departs, informing his disciples that divine honours await him at Rome. Peter resolves to follow him among the Gentiles and expose his wickedness; and having remained three months at Caesarea for the establishment of the church, he ordains Zacchaeus as its bishop, and sets out for Tripolis, now the centre of Simon's operations. This brings the third book of the Recognitions to a close; and here we are told that Clement sent to James an account in ten books of Peter's discourses, of which the author gives the contents in detail, from which we may conclude that they formed a work really in existence previous to his own composition. These contents can scarcely be described as an abstract of the three books of the Recognitions; for though the same topics are more or less touched on, the order and proportion of treatment are different. One of the books is described as treating of the Apostles' disputation at the temple; and therefore it seems needless to look for the original of this part in the Ascents of James or elsewhere.
II. On Peter's arrival at Tripolis he finds that Simon, hearing of his coming, had fled by night to Syria. Peter proceeds to instruct the people; and his discourses containing a polemic against heathenism, occupy the next three books of R. Bk. vi. terminates with the baptism of Clement and the ordination of a bishop, after which Peter sets out for Antioch, having spent 3 months at Tripolis.
III. With bk. vii. the story of Clement's recognition of his family begins. We
shall presently discuss how an occasion is skilfully presented for Clement's relating
his family
We turn now to the story as told in the Homilies. The opening is identical
with that of the Recognitions, except for one small variation. Clement, instead
of meeting Barnabas in Rome, has been induced by an anonymous Christian teacher
to sail for Palestine; but being driven by storms to Alexandria, there encounters
Barnabas. It is not easy to say which form is the original. On the one hand, the
account that Clement is delayed from following Barnabas by the necessity of collecting
money due to him is perfectly in place if the scene is laid at Rome, but not so
if Clement is a stranger driven by stress of weather to Alexandria. The author,
who elsewhere shews Alexandrian proclivities, may have wished to honour that city
by connecting Barnabas with it; or was perhaps unwilling that Peter should be preceded
by another apostle at Rome. On the other hand, the rabble which assails Barnabas
is in both versions described as a mob of Greeks, and the fifteen days' voyage
to Palestine corresponds better with Alexandria than with Rome. The narrative proceeds
as in R. as far as the end of Peter's disputation with Simon at Caesarea; but both
Peter's preliminary instructions to Clement and the disputation itself are different.
In H. Peter prepares Clement by teaching him his secret doctrine concerning difficulties
likely to be raised by Simon, the true solution of which he could not produce before
the multitude. Simon would bring forward texts which seemed to speak of a plurality
of Gods, or which imputed imperfection to God, or spoke of Him as changing His purpose
or hardening men's hearts and so forth; or, again, which laid crimes to the charge
of the just men of the law, Adam and
To this analysis must be added an account of the prefatory matter. Neither the Latin nor Syriac version of the Recognitions translates any preface; but Rufinus mentions having found in his original a letter of Clement to James, which he does not prefix, because, as he says, it is of later date and he had translated it elsewhere. The remark about later date need not imply any doubt of its genuineness, but merely that the letter, which purports to have been written after the death of Peter, is not rightly prefixed to discourses which claim to have been written some years previously. The letter itself is preserved in the MSS. of the Homilies, and gives an account of Peter's ordination of Clement as his successor at Rome, and closes with instructions to Clement to send to James an abstract of Peter's discourses. The work that follows purports to contain an abridgment of discourses already more fully sent to James; and is given the title: "An epitome by Clement of Peter's discourses during his sojournings" (ἐπιδημιῶν κηρυγμάτων). The Homilies contain another preface in the form of a letter from Peter himself to James. In this no mention is made of Clement, but Peter himself sends his discourses to James, strictly forbidding their indiscriminate publication, and charging him not to communicate them to any Gentile, nor even to any of the circumcised, except after a long probation, and the later ones only after such an one had been tried and found faithful with regard to the earlier. Subjoined is an oath of secrecy to be taken by those to whom the writings shall be communicated. Examination shews that the letter of Clement cannot belong to the Homilies; for its account of Clement's deprecation of the dignity of the episcopate, and of the charges given to him on his admission to it, are in great measure identical with what is related in the 5th homily, in the case of the ordination of Zacchaeus at Caesarea. These are omitted from the story as told in the Recognitions. The inference follows that the letter of Clement is the preface to the Recognitions. Thus, according to the conclusion we form on other grounds as to the relative priority of the two forms, either R., when prefixing his account of Clement's ordination, transposed matter which the older document had contained in connexion with Zacchaeus, or H., when substituting for the letter of Clement a letter in the name of Peter himself, found in Clement's letter matter which seemed too valuable to be wasted, and therefore worked it into the account of the first ordination related in the story, that of Zacchaeus. The letter of Peter thus remains as the preface either to the Homilies or to the earlier form of the work before the name of Clement had been introduced. On the question of relative priority it may be urged that it is more likely that a later writer would remove a preface written in the name of Clement, in order to give his work the higher authority of Peter, than that the converse change should be made; and also that the strong charges to secrecy and to the communication of the work in successive instalments would be accounted for, if we suppose that at the time of the publication of the Homilies another version of Peter's discourses had been in circulation, and that the writer was anxious to offer some account why what he produced as the genuine form of the discourses should not have been earlier made known. Respecting this relative priority there has been great diversity of opinion among critics: Baur, Schliemann, Schwegler, and Uhlhorn give the priority to H., Hilgenfeld and Ritschl to R.; Lehmann holds R. to be the original for the first three books, H. in the later part. Lipsius regards both as independent modifications of a common original. Without speaking over-confidently, our own conclusion is, that while neither of the existing documents can claim to be the original form, they are not independent; that H. is the later and in all that relates to Clement's family history has borrowed from R. Probably the original form contained little but discourses, and was probably an esoteric document, in use only among the Ebionites; and the author of R. may have added to it the whole story of Clement's recovery of his parents, at the same time fitting the work for popular use by omitting or softening down the harshest parts of its Ebionitism; and finally, H., a strong Ebionite, may have restored some of the original discourses, retaining the little romance which no doubt had been found to add much to the popularity and attractiveness of the volume. The following are some of the arguments which prove that H. is not an original.
(1) The story of Clement's first recognition of his family is told in exactly the same way in R. book 7, and in H. book 12. Clement, anxious to be permitted to join himself permanently as travelling companion to Peter, reminds him of words used at Caesarea: how Peter had there invited those to travel with him who could do so with piety, that is, without deserting wife, parents, or other relations whom they could not properly leave. Clement states that he is himself one thus untrammelled, and he is thus led to tell the story of his life. These words of Peter, to which both R. and H. refer, are to be found only in R. (iii. 71), not in H. It has been stated that the ordination of Zacchaeus at Caesarea is told fully in H., and only briefly in R. In recompense R. has a long section describing the grief of the disciples at Peter's departure and the consolations which he addressed to them; all this is compressed into a line or two in H. It is matter which any one revising R. would most naturally cut out as unimportant and uninteresting; but we see that it contains words essential in the interests of the story, and can hardly doubt that these words were introduced with a view to the use subsequently made of them. This instance not only shews, as Lehmann admits, that H. is not original in respect of the: Caesarean sections, but still more decisively refutes Lehmann's own hypothesis that it was H. who ornamented an originally simpler story with the romance of the recognitions. Either the author of that romance, as is most probable, was also the author of Peter's Caesarean speech, which has little use except as a preparation for what follows; or else, finding that speech in an earlier document, used it as a connecting link to join on his own addition. In either case he must have been fully alive to its importance, and it is quite impossible that he could have left it out from his version of the story. Moreover, of the two writers H. and R., H. is the one infinitely less capable of inventing a romance. Looking at the whole work as a controversial novel, it is apparent all through that H. feels most interest in the controversy, R. in the novel.
(2) Further, in the same section in the passage common to H. and R., Peter sends on Nicetas and Aquila to prepare the way for his coming. He apologizes for parting company with them, and they express grief at the separation, but console themselves that is it only for two days. On their departure Clement says, "I thank God that it was not I whom you sent away, as I should have died of grief." Then follows the request that Peter would accept him as his inseparable companion. This is all consistent as told by R.; for these regrets are expressed on the first occasion that any of the three brothers is removed from personal attendance on Peter. But as H. tells the story, Peter had already sent on Clement, while still unbaptized, together with Nicetas and Aquila, to Tyre, where they hold a disputation with Apion. There is not a word of grief or remonstrance at the separation for more than a week, and it is therefore strange that subsequently there should be so much regret at a two days' parting. It is plain that H. has interpolated the mission to Tyre; but failed to notice that he ought in consistency to have modified some of the next portion of R. which he retained. This disputation with Apion has been alleged as a proof of the priority of H., for Apion is introduced also into R., but only as a silent character; and it is urged that the original form is more likely to be that in which this well-known adversary of Judaism conducts a disputation, than that in which he is but an insignificant companion of Simon. But this argument does not affect the relative priority of H. and R., whatever weight it may have in proving R. not original. Eusebius (iii. 38) mentions a long work ascribed to Clement, and then but recently composed (as he infers from not having seen it quoted by any earlier writer), containing dialogues of Peter and Apion. This description may be intended for the Homilies; but may refer to a still earlier work. There are expressions in R. which seem to imply that the writer believed himself to be making an improvement in substituting for Peter as a disputant against heathenism, persons whose early training had been such as to give them better knowledge of heathen mythology and philosophy.
(3) The story of Clement's recognition of his brothers contains plain marks that H. has abridged R. According to R., Nicetas and Aquila, seeing a strange woman return with Peter and Clement, ask for an explanation. Peter then repeats fully the story of the adventures of Clement's mother. Nicetas and Aquila listen in silence until Peter describes the shipwrecked mother searching for her children and crying, "Where are my Faustus and Faustinus?" then, hearing their own names mentioned, they start up in amaze and say, "We suspected at the first that what you were saying might relate to us; but yet as many like things happen in different persons' lives, we kept silence; but when you came to the end and it was entirely manifest that your statements referred to us, then we confessed who we were." H. avoids what seems the needless repetition of an already-told story, and only states in general terms that Peter recounted Mattidia's history; but the amazed starting-up of the brothers, and their words, are the same as in R.; while, as the incident of the mention of their former names is omitted, it is in this version not apparent why the conclusion of Peter's speech brought conviction to their minds. Evidently H., in trying to shorten the narrative by clearing it of repetition, has missed a point in the story.
(4.) As told above, in R. the recognition of Clement's father crowns a disputation
on astrological fate. In H. the whole story is spoiled. An old man accosts Peter,
as in R., and promises to prove from his personal history that all things are ruled
by the stars; but nothing turns on this. The recognition takes place in consequence
of a chance meeting of Faustinianus with his wife, and has no relation to the subject
he undertakes to discuss with Peter. The obvious explanation is, that H. has copied
the introduction from R.; but omits the disputation because he has already anticipated
it, having put the argument for heathenism into the mouth of the eminent rhetorician
Apion, who seemed a fitter character
(5) We have seen that in H. there are two disputations of Simon with Peter, viz. at Caesarea and at Laodicea. There is decisive proof that in this H. has varied from the original form, which, as R. does, laid the scene of the entire disputation at Caesarea. The indications here, however, point to a borrowing not from R. but from a common original. H. does relate a disputation at Caesarea, but evidently reserves his materials for use further on, giving but a meagre sketch of part of one day's dispute, while he conscientiously follows his authority and relates that the dispute lasted three days. Afterwards at Laodicea the topics brought forward in the earlier discussion are produced as if new. Simon, e.g., expresses the greatest surprise at Peter's manner of disposing of the alleged spurious passages of the Pentateuch, although exactly the same line of argument had been used by Peter on the former occasion. The phenomenon again presents itself (H. xviii. 21) of a reference to former words of Peter which are not to be found in H. itself, but are found in R. ii. 45. Lastly, in the disputation at Laodicea, the office of summoning Peter to the conflict is ascribed to Zacchaeus, in flagrant contradiction of the previous story, according to which Zacchaeus was the leading man of the church at Caesarea before Peter's arrival, and had been left behind as its bishop on Peter's departure. This alone is enough to shew that H. is copying from an original, in which the scene is laid at Caesarea. It may be added that the Apostolic Constitutions make mention only of a Caesarean disputation.
(6) It has been stated that the last homily contains private expositions by Peter to his disciples, and these can clearly be proved to be an interpolation. In R., after the disputation on "genesis" in which Clement's father is convinced, the party having returned home and being about to sit down to meat, news comes of the arrival of Apion and Anubion and Faustinianus goes to salute them. In H. the party have retired to rest, and Peter wakes them up in the middle of the night to receive his instructions; yet in the middle of this midnight discourse we have an account, almost verbally agreeing with R., of the news of the arrival of Apion coming just as they were about to sit down to meat, and the consequent departure of Clement's father. The discourse, thus clearly shewn to be an interpolation, contains H.'s doctrine concerning the devil, and is in such close connexion with the preceding homily (which relates how Peter, in his Laodicean disputation, dealt with the problem of the permission of evil in the universe) that this also must be set down as an addition made by H. to the original story. We can see why H. altered the original account of a Caesarean disputation—namely, that he wished to reserve as the climax of his story, the solutions which he put into Peter's mouth of the great controversy of his own day.
(7) In section H. ii. 19–32, which contains the information given by Nicetas and Aquila concerning Simon, there are plain marks that H. is not original. Nicetas, in repeating a conversation with Simon, speaks of himself in the third person: "Nicetas answered," instead of "I answered." In the corresponding section of R., Aquila is the speaker, and the use of the third person is correct. Yet this matter, in which H. is clearly not original, is so different from R., that we conclude that both copied from a common original. One instance in this section, however, deserves to be mentioned as an apparent case of direct copying from R. In H. ii. 22, Simon is represented as teaching that the dead shall not rise, and as rejecting Jerusalem and substituting Mount Gerizim for it; but nowhere else is there a trace of such doctrine being ascribed to Simon; and no controversy on these subjects is reported in the Homilies. There is strong reason for suspecting that H. has here blundered in copying R. i. 57, where a Samaritan, whom there is no ground for identifying with Simon, is introduced as teaching these doctrines of the non-resurrection of the dead, and of the sanctity of Mount Gerizim.
We turn to some of the reasons why R. must also be regarded as the retoucher
of a previously existing story. The work itself recognizes former records of the
things which it relates. In the preface it purports to be an account written after
the death of Peter of discourses, some of which had by Peter's command been written
down and sent to James during his own lifetime. R. iii. 75 contains an abstract
of the contents of ten books of these previously-sent reports. Again, R. v. 36,
we are told of the dispatch to James of a further instalment. Everything confirms
the conclusion that R. is here using the credit which an existing narrative had
gained, in order to obtain acceptance for his own additions to the story. Moreover,
as we have seen, there are instances in the first division of the work where H.
is clearly not original, and yet has not copied from R.; whence we infer the existence
of an independent authority, at least for the earlier portion, employed by both
writers. There are places where H. and R. seem to supplement one another, each supplying
details omitted by the other; other places where it would seem as if an obscure
passage in the common original had been differently understood by each; and in the
discourses common to both, there are places where the version presented by H. preserves
so much better the sequence of ideas and the cogency of argument that it is scarcely
possible to think the form in R. the original (cf. esp. H. ix. 9, 10, R. iv. 15,
16). There are places, again, where both seem to have abridged the common original.
Thus R. mentions concerning an early conversation, that none of the women were present.
There is no further mention of
We conclude that the work cited by Jerome is the common original of H. and R.; and a comparison of the matter common to the two shews that both pretty freely modified the original to their own uses. From what has been said concerning H. under No. 7, we infer that the original contained mention both of Clement and of Nicetas and Aquila, and it is likely that Clement was there too represented as the recorder of the discourses. The original must have contained an account of a three days' disputation with Simon held at Caesarea; it also included the polemic against heathenism contained in the Tripolis discourses, as may be inferred both from R. v. 36 and also from a comparison of the two records of these discourses. It is likely that the same work contained the disputation of Peter and Apion referred to by Eusebius, and that H. followed the original in making Apion a speaking character, although he has been involved in confusion in trying to combine this with the additional matter imported by R. We may conjecture too (see R. x. 52) that it also contained a disputation by Anubion on the subject of "genesis." On the other hand, there is no evidence that the original contained anything concerning the recognitions by Clement of the members of his family. In this part of the story R. makes no acknowledgment of previous accounts sent to James; and he shews every sign of originality and of having carefully gone over the old story, skilfully adapting it so as to join on his own additions. It appears from H. ii. 22, 26, that in quite an early part of the history the original introduced Nicetas and Aquila as addressing their fellow-disciple Clement as "dearest brother," and this probably gave R. the hint (see R. viii. 8) of representing them as natural brothers. R. omits these expressions in the place where they are inappropriate. A question may be raised whether the document referred to in R. iii. 75, and which contained an account of the disputation with Simon, was part of the same work as that referred to in v. 36, which contained the disputation against the heathen. We have marked them as probably different. It may be remarked that Peter's daily bath, carefully recorded in the later books, is not mentioned in the three earlier. A question may be raised whether the original did not contain an account of a meeting of Simon and Peter at Rome; and it is not impossible that such an account may have been originally designed by the author; as one or two references to Rome as well as the choice of Clement as the narrator give cause to suspect. But that in any case the design was not executed appears both from the absence of any early reference to a Roman contest between Simon and Peter; and also from the diversity of the accounts given as to the manner of Simon's death, since we may believe that if the document we are considering had related the story, its version would have superseded all others.
Quite a different impression as to relative originality is produced when we compare
the doctrine of H. and R., and when we compare their narratives. The doctrine of
H. is very peculiar, and, for the most part, consistently carried through the whole
work; in R. the deviations from ordinary church teaching are far less striking,
yet there are passages in which the ideas of H. can be traced, and which present
the appearance of an imperfect expurgation of offensive doctrine. In H., Judaism
and Christianity are represented as identical, and it is taught to be enough if
a man recognize the authority either of Christ or of Moses; in R. he is required
to acknowledge both. On this point, however, H. is not consistent; for in several
places he agrees with R. in teaching the absolute necessity of baptism to salvation.
H. rejects the rite of sacrifice altogether; according to R. the rite was divinely
permitted for a time until the true prophet should come, who was to replace it by
baptism as a means of forgiveness of sins. With respect to the authority of O.T.
alleged for the rite of sacrifice, and for certain erroneous doctrines, H. rejects
the alleged passages as falsified; R. regards them merely as obscure, and liable
to be misunderstood by one who reads them without the guidance of tradition. The
inspiration of the prophets later than Moses is denied by H. and admitted by R.,
though quotations from their writings are alike rare in both forms. According to
H., the true prophet has presented himself in various incarnations, Adam, who is
regarded as being identical with Christ, being the first and Jesus the last; and
the history of Adam's sin is rejected as spurious; according to R., Christ has but
revealed Himself to and inspired various holy men of old. And, in general, concerning
the dignity and work of our Lord, the doctrine of R., though short of orthodox teaching,
is far higher than that of H. The history of the fall, as far, at least, as regards
the temptation of Eve, is referred to by R. as historical; but concerning Adam there
are intimations of an esoteric doctrine not fully explained. H. gives what may be
called a
The Clementines are unmistakably a production of that sect of Ebionites which
held the book of Elkesai as sacred. For an account of the sources whence our knowledge
of this book is derived, and for the connexion of the sect with Essenism, see Elkesai
in D. C. B. (4-vol. ed.). Almost all the doctrines ascribed to them are to
be found in the Clementines—e.g. the doctrine of successive incarnations
of Christ, and in particular the identification of Christ with Adam, the requirement
of the obligations of the Mosaic Law, the rejection however of the rite of sacrifice,
the rejection of certain passages both of O.T. and N.T., hostility to St. Paul,
abstinence from flesh (H. viii. 15, xii. 6, xv. 7), the inculcation of repeated
washing, discouragement of virginity, concealment of their sacred books from all
but approved persons, form of adjuration by appeal to the seven witnesses, ascription
of gigantic stature to the angels (H. viii. 15), permission to dissemble the faith
in time of persecution (R. i. 65, x. 55); while again the supposed derivation of
the book of Elkesai from the Seres is explained by R. viii. 48, where the Seres
are described as a nation by whom all the observances on which the Ebionites laid
stress were naturally kept, and who were consequently exempt from the penalties
of sickness and premature death which attended their neglect. Ritschl regards the
book of Elkesai as an exposition of these doctrines later than the Homilies;
but we are disposed to look on it as earlier than the work which formed the common
basis of H. and R. A recognition of this book is not improbably contained in a passage
which is important in reference to the use made by H. and R. of their common original.
The date which the book of Elkesai claimed for itself was the third year of Trajan.
Whether it actually were so old need not here be inquired, but the fact that it
was confessedly no older might seem to put it at a disadvantage in comparison with
the Pauline system which it rejected. But its adherents defended their position
by their doctrine of pairs—viz. that it has been ever God's method to pair good
and evil together, sending forth first the evil, then the countervailing good. Thus
Cain was followed by Abel, Ishmael by Isaac, Esau by Jacob, so now, Simon Magus
by Peter; and at the end of the world Antichrist will be followed by Christ. The
penultimate pair enumerated takes, in the translation of Rufinus, a form scarcely
intelligible; but the Syriac shews that the version given by R. did not essentially
differ from that of H.; and that the contrasted pairs predicted by Peter are a false
gospel sent abroad by a deceiver, and a true gospel secretly disseminated after
the destruction of the holy place, for the rectification of the then existing heresies.
It seems most probable that we are here to understand the doctrine of Paul and of
Elkesai; and it may be noted that the fact, that, in this pair, gospels, not persons,
are contrasted
It remains to speak of that part of the Clementines to which attention has been
most strongly directed by modern students of the early history of the church—their
assault on St. Paul under the mask of Simon Magus. In the first place it may be
remarked that the school hostile to St. Paul which found expression in these Clementines
cannot be regarded as the representative or continuation of the body of adversaries
with whom he had to contend in his lifetime. Their connexion was with the Essenes,
not the Pharisees; and they themselves claimed no earlier origin than a date later
than the destruction of Jerusalem, an event which would seem to have induced many
of the Essenes in some sort to accept Christianity. We have seen that a theory was
devised to account for the lateness of the period when what professed to be the
true gospel opposed to St. Paul's was published. It follows that whatever results
can be obtained from the Clementines belong to the history of the 2nd cent., not
the first. The name of Paul is mentioned neither by H. nor R. Hostility to him appears
in R. in a milder form; R., plainly following his original, ignores St. Paul's labours
among the heathen, and makes St. Peter the apostle of the Gentiles; and in one passage
common to H. and R., and therefore probably belonging to the earlier document, a
warning is given that the tempter who had contended in vain with our Lord would
afterwards send apostles of deceit, and therefore the converts are cautioned against
receiving any teacher who had not first compared his doctrine with that of James,
lest the devil should send a preacher of error to them, even as he had raised up
Simon as an opponent to Peter. It need not be disputed that in this passage, as
well as in that concerning the pairs already quoted, Paul is referred to, his preaching
being spoken of in the future tense as dramatic propriety required, since the action
of the story is laid at a time before his conversion. In both places Paul, if Paul
be meant, is expressly distinguished from Simon. In the letter of Peter prefixed
to the Homilies, we cannot doubt that Paul is assailed as the enemy who taught
that the obligations of the Mosaic law were not perpetual, and who unwarrantably
represented Peter himself as concurring in teaching which he entirely repudiated.
There remains a single passage as the foundation of the Simon-Paulus theory. In
the Laodicean disputation which H. makes the climax of his story, a new topic is
suddenly introduced (xvii. 13–20), whether the evidence of the senses or that of
supernatural vision be more trustworthy; and it is made to appear that Simon claims
to have obtained, by means of a vision of Jesus, knowledge of Him superior to that
which Peter had gained during his year of personal converse with Him. In this section
phrases are introduced which occur in the notice of the dispute at Antioch, between
Peter and Paul, contained in the Ep. to the Galatians. It need not be doubted, then,
that in this section of the Homilies the arguments nominally directed against
Simon are really intended to depreciate the claims of Paul. Since von Cölln and
Baur first took notice of the concealed object of this section, speculation in Germany
has run wild on the identification of Paul and Simon. The theory in the form now
most approved will be found in the article on Simon Magus in Schenkel's Bibel-Lexikon.
It has been inferred that Simon was in Jewish circles a pseudonym for Paul, and
that all related of him is but a parody of the life of Paul. Simon as a historical
character almost entirely disappears. Even the story told in the Acts of the Apostles
has been held to be but a caricature of the story of Paul's bringing up to Jerusalem
the collection he had made, and hoping by this gift of money to bribe the apostles
to admit him to equal dignity. In order to account for the author of the Acts admitting
into his narrative the section concerning Simon, explanations have been given which
certainly have not the advantage in simplicity over that suggested by the work itself—viz.
that the author having spent seven days in Philip's house had learned from him interesting
particulars of his early evangelical work, which he naturally inserted in his history.
The Simon-Paulus theory has been particularly misleading in speculations as to the
literary history of the tales concerning Simon. Lipsius, for instance, has set himself
to consider in what way the history of Simon could be told, so as best to serve
the purpose of a libel on Paul; and having thus constructed a more ingenious parody
of Paul's life than any which documentary evidence shews to have been ever in circulation,
he asks us to accept this as the original form of the story of Simon. It becomes
necessary, therefore, to point out on how narrow a basis of fact these speculations
rest. To R., anti-Pauline though he is, the idea of identifying Simon with St. Paul
seems never to have occurred. All through his book Paul is Paul, and Simon Simon.
The same may be said of the whole of the Homilies, except this Laodicean
disputation, which is the part in which the latest writer has taken the greatest
liberties with his original. Before any inference can be drawn
Quotations from N.T. in the Clementines.—All the four gospels are quoted;
for since the publication of the conclusion of the Homilies by Dressel, it
is impossible to deny that St. John's gospel was employed. Epiphanius tells us that
a Hebrew translation of St. John's gospel was in use among the Ebionites. The quotations
are principally from St. Matthew, but often with considerable verbal differences
from our present text; and there are a few passages quoted which are not found in
any of our present gospels. The deviations from the existing text are much smaller
in R. than in H., and it may be asserted that R. always conforms to our present
gospels in his own added matter. Since it is known that the Ebionites used an Aramaic
gospel, which in the main agreed with St. Matthew but with considerable variations,
we may conclude that this was the source principally employed by the author of the
original. H. seems to have used the same sources as the original; but yet two things
must be borne in mind before we assert that variations in H. from our existing texts
prove that he had a different text before him: one is the laity with which he cites
the O.T.; the other, the fact that the story demands that Peter should be represented
as quoting our Lord's discourses from memory and not from any written source; and
the author would naturally feel himself entitled to a certain amount of licence
in quotations of such a kind.
Place and Time of Composition of the Clementine Writings.—The use made
of the name of Clement had caused Rome to be accepted as the place of composition
by the majority of critics, but the opposite arguments urged by Uhlhorn appear conclusive,
and to, at least, the original document an Eastern origin must be assigned. Hippolytus
mentions the arrival in Rome of an Elkesaite teacher c.
a.d. 220, whose doctrines would seem to have
been then quite novel at Rome, and not to have taken root there. The scene of the
story is all laid in the East, and the writings shew no familiarity with the Roman
church. The ranking Clement among the disciples of Peter may be even said to be
opposed to the earliest traditions of the Roman church, which placed Clement third
from the apostles; but it is quite intelligible that in foreign churches, where
the epistle of Clement was habitually publicly read in the same manner as the apostolic
epistles, Clement and the apostles might come to be regarded as contemporaries.
Clement might naturally be chosen as a typical representative of the Gentile converts
by an Ebionite who desired by his example to enforce on the Gentile churches the
duty of obedience to the church of the circumcision. For all through it is James
of Jerusalem, not Peter, who is represented as the supreme ruler of the churches.
The author of the original document habitually used an Aramaic version of N.T.;
and there are a few phenomena which make it seem not incredible that the original
document itself may have been written in the same language. Uhlhorn's conjecture
o! Eastern Syria as the place of composition seems not improbable. The Recognitions
with the prefatory letter relating the ordination of Clement as bp. of Rome may,
however, have been a version designed for Roman circulation. The data for fixing
the time of composition are but scanty. The Recognitions are quoted by Origen
(with, however, a division of books differing from the present form) c.
a.d. 230.
The prolegomena of the earlier editors of the Clementines are collected in Migne's Patrologia. The most important monographs are von Cölln's article in Ersch and Gruber (1828), Schliemann, Die Clementinen (Hamburg, 1844); Hilgenfeld, Die clementinischen Recognitionen und Homilien (Jena, 1848); Uhlhorn, Die Homilien and Recognitionen des Clemens Romanus (Göttingen, 1854.); Lehmann, Die clementinische Schriften (Gotha, 1867). In these works will be found references to other sources of information. Baur has treated of the Clementines in several works: the section in Die christliche Gnosis, pp. 300–414, may especially be mentioned. Ritschl, Die Entstehung der altkatholischen Kirche, enters more largely into the subject of the Clementines in his first ed. See also Lipsius, Quellenkritik des Epiphanios and Die Quellen der Römischen Petrussage, and an interesting review by Lipsius of Lehmann's work in the Protestantische Kirchenzeitung (1869), pp. 477–482. Cf. Lightfoot's Clement of Rome, part i. pp. 99 ff. and 406 ff.; and Harnack, Gesch. der Alt.-Ch. Lit. p. 212 ff.
Cletus or Anacletus, "le même que St. Clet, comme les savants en conviennent" (L’Art de vérif. les dates, i. 218). Eusebius calls him Anencletus, and says that he was succeeded in the see of Rome by Clement in the twelfth year of Domitian, having himself sat there twelve years. According to this, his own consecration would have fallen in the first year of Domitian, or a.d. 81; but it is variously dated by others (cf. Gieseler, E. H. § 32 with note 4, Eng. tr.). Eusebius indeed nowhere says that he succeeded Linus, or was the second bp. of Rome: yet he places him between Linus, whom he calls the first bishop, and Clement, whom he calls third. Other ancient authorities make Clement the first bishop (see Clinton, F. R. ii. 399). Rohrbacher, on the strength of a list attributed to pope Liberius, places Clement after Linus, Cletus after Clement, and another pope named Anencletus after Cletus (E. H. iv. 450). This Gieseler calls "the modern Roman view." [But for this question of the succession of the Roman bishops, see Lightfoot, Clement of Rome, part i. pp. 201–345; of which Bp. Westcott says (Preface to Lightfoot), "Perhaps it is not too much to say that the question of the order of the first five bps. of Rome is now finally settled."] Three spurious epistles have the name of Anacletus affixed to them in the Pseudo-Isidorian collection (Migne, Patr. cxxx. 59 and seq.).
Clovis (in the chroniclers Chlodovechus, etc., modern German Ludwig, modern French Louis), son of Childeric, one of the kings of the Salian Franks, born a.d. 466, succeeded his father in 481 (Greg. Tur. ii. 43). As soon as he reached manhood (486) he attacked Syagrius, "rex Romanorum" (Greg. ii. 23), son of Aegidius, the isolated and independent representative of the Roman power in Gaul (Junghans, pp. 22, 23). Syagrius was defeated, and Clovis advanced his territory from the Somme to the Seine, and afterwards to the Loire (Gesta Francorum, 14), was recognized as king by the former subjects of Syagrius (Greg. ii. 27), and transferred his capital from Tournai to Soissons (Vita S. Remigii, ap. Bouquet, iii. 377 E). Waitz (ii. 60 n.) doubts this (see Junghans, p. 34, n. 3). Many wars and conquests followed (Greg. ii. 27).
About a.d. 492 Clovis married the Burgundian
princess Clotilda, a Christian and a Catholic, and she is said to have made many
attempts to convert her husband from idolatry (Greg. ii. 29; Rückert, Culturgeschichte,
i. pp. 316, 317; Binding, Das Burgundisch-Romanische Reich, Leipz. 1868,
pp. 111–114, doubts the value of Clotilda's work; Bornhak, Geschichte der Franken
unter den Merovingern, Greifswald, 1863, pp. 207, 208, magnifies it). What her
entreaties could not effect the crisis
The next war of Clovis was with Burgundy, a.d.
500. Gundobald, the uncle of Clotilda and murderer of her parents, was defeated
at Dijon. Clovis annexed part of the Burgundian dominion, and gave the rest to Godegisel,
another brother. Shortly afterwards Gundobald returned, expelled Godegisel, and
apparently became reconciled to Clovis, for in 507 the Burgundians helped Clovis
in his expedition against the Visigoths. (This alliance is not mentioned by Gregory,
but see Binding, p. 194, note 659; and Richter, p. 41, note e.) Between 505
and 507 Clovis is said to have been inflicted with tedious illness (Vita Severini,
Bouquet, iii. 392 B); on his recovery
he immediately issued his famous declaration of war against the Visigoths: "Verily
it grieves my soul that these Arians should hold a part of Gaul; with God's help
let us go and conquer them, and reduce their territory into our hands" (Greg. ii.
37). From Paris Clovis marched through Orleans to Tours, gave strict orders for
the protection of the Catholic church and its property (Ep. ap. Bouquet,
iv. 54), met and defeated the Visigoths at Voullon or Vouglé near Poictiers, and
slew king Alaric with his own hand (Richter, p. 40 notes and reff.). The winter
of 507–508 Clovis spent at Bordeaux, carried off the Visigothic treasure from Toulouse,
and reduced Angoulême and the surrounding territory before his return to Paris,
which city henceforward he made his capital (Greg. ii. 38). That the religious element
was very powerful in this war (Rückert, i. 324) is evident from the letter of Clovis
to the bishops (Bouquet, l.c.), from the vain attempts which Alaric had made
to confirm the allegiance of his Catholic and Roman subjects (Richter, p. 39, note
2), and from what Cassiodorus (Var. iii. Ep. 1–4) tells us of the negotiations
before the war. Theodoric the Ostrogoth had proposed an alliance of the Arian German
kings for the maintenance of peace; and when the Franks began to pursue their victories
in a fresh campaign and laid siege to Arles, Theodoric interfered, sent an army
under Ibbas, which defeated the Franks and relieved Arles, and eventually agreed
to a peace, by which Provence was annexed by the Ostrogothic power, Septimania adhered
to the Visigothic kingdom of Spain, and Clovis's conquest of Aquitaine was acknowledged
(Binding, p. 212 and note 731). We do not know whether Clovis joined personally
in this Rhone campaign. No mention of it is made by Gregory. It was at Tours, on
his return from Bordeaux in 508, that Clovis received a letter from the emperor
Anastasius, "conferring upon him the consular dignity, from which time he was habitually
called consul and Augustus" ("ab Anastatio Imperatore codicillos
de consulatu accepit, et in basilicâ beati Martini tunicâ blateâ indutus est et
chlamyde, imponens vertice diadema, . . . et ab eâ die tanquam consul et (al. 'aut')
Augustus est vocitatus," Greg. ii. 38). Much discussion has taken place as
to the exact meaning of
The well-known story of the vase of Soissons (Greg. ii. 27) not only shews how ill Clovis brooked the liberty and equality of the other Frankish chiefs, but reveals the most unfavourable side of his character—his deceitfulness. "Dolus," however, if on the right side, is seldom an attribute of blame with the mediaeval chroniclers. The most discreditable deeds of this character attributed to Clovis are the machinations by which he subjected the other Frankish chiefs originally his equals, and brought about the unification of the Frankish empire. Thus he suggested the murder of his father to Sigebert, king of the Ripuarian Franks, and when the deed was done, himself took possession of the kingdom (Greg. ii. 40). King Chararich was first imprisoned, and then put to death (ib. 41; cf. c. 27 clam feriri, of Syagrius), and likewise king Rachnachar of Cambrai and his two brothers (ib. 42).
Early in 511 Clovis summoned a council of 32 bishops to Orleans (see Decrees ap. Sirmondi, Conc. Gall. i. 177). Before the close of the year he died at the age of 45, and was buried at Paris in the church of the Apostles (afterwards St. Geneviève's) which he and Clotilda had built. He left four sons, Theodoric the eldest (illegitimate); Clodomir, Childebert, and Lothar, by Clotilda.
The only first-class original authority for the reign of Clovis is Gregory of Tours, Historia Francorum, ii. 27–43, contained in the collections of Duchesne, vol. i.; and Bouquet, Recueil des Historiens, etc., vol. ii. (in the 3rd vol. of Bouquet are extracts from the lives of the saints relating to this reign. On the authority of Gregory see Löbell, Gregor von Tours and seine Zeit, pp. 320 ff.; Monod, in the Bibliothèque de l’Ecole des hautes Etudes, part viii. (1872); and Wattenbach, Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen im Mittelalter (3rd ed. 1873), vol. i. pp. 76–83. The best monograph on the subject of Clovis is Junghans, Geschichte der Frankischen Könige Childerich and Chlodovech (Göttingen, 1857). Cf. also G. Kurth, Hist. Poét. des Méroving. (Paris 1893); Prou, La Gaule Méroving. On the constitution of the kingdom of Clovis and its constitutional history, see Waitz, Deutsche Verfassungsgeschichte, ii. pp. 51–71; and G. Richter, Annalen d. Deutschen Geschichte im Mittelalter, i. pp. 27–32 (1873).
Coelestinus, commonly called Celestine, 42nd bp. of Rome, succeeded Boniface I. on Sunday, Sept. 10, 422, without any delay or contest. He was of Roman birth, the son of Priscus. In early life he had visited Milan during the episcopate of St. Ambrose. While deacon to Innocent, he had written a cordial letter to St. Augustine, who returned a suitable reply (Aug. Ep. 192). Soon after his accession to the see of Rome, Celestine received a letter from Augustine (Ep. 209) on the case of one Antony, bp. of Fussala, 40 miles from Hippo, who had gravely misconducted himself in his office, been compelled by a synod of bishops to leave Fussala, and had afterwards applied to Boniface for restoration. Augustine entreated Celestine not to impose on the people of Fussala, by aid of secular power, a prelate so unworthy. After this, the African bishops resolved no longer to allow appeals to Rome from their country; and when Celestine, apparently in 426, wrote to them in behalf of the priest Apiarius, a general council of Africa sent a reply begging Celestine to observe the Nicene rule (can. 5) and not receive to communion those excommunicated by them. The African church thus claimed its right to decide its own causes. They pointed out that the Nicene council had ordered that all causes should be decided where they arose; nor could anyone "believe that our God will inspire a single individual with justice, and deny it to a large number of bishops sitting in council." That persons should be sent from Rome to decide causes in Africa had been "ordained by no synod"; and they had proved to Celestine's predecessor, by authentic copies of Nicene canons, that such a claim was wholly baseless (Cod. Can. Eccl. Afric. ad. fin.; Galland, Bibl. Patr. ix. 289).
Celestine was zealous against Pelagianism, and constrained Coelestius, the companion of Pelagius, to leave Italy.
The affairs of eastern Illyricum occupied the attention of Celestine, as of his
predecessors. This civil "diocese" was attached, politically, to the eastern empire;
but the see of Rome had kept a hold over its churches by committing a sort of vicarial
authority to the see of Thessalonica, which was its head. Thus Damasus is said to
have made the bps. of Thessalonica his representatives. See Fleury, b. xviii. c.
22. Le Quien, Or. Christ. ii. 9, thinks this an over-statement; but at any
rate, he observes, Siricius (who succeeded Damasus), and afterwards Innocent, gave
a delegated authority to Anysius of Thessalonica. In
a.d. 421 a collision took place between the
Roman bp. Boniface and Theodosius II., who "claimed the power of transferring to
the bp. of Constantinople that superintendence over the bps. of Illyricum" which
Rome had entrusted to Thessalonica (Fleury, xxiv. 31). But Theodosius appears to
have yielded the point; and Celestine having already "interposed" in behalf of an
Illyrian bishop named Felix, who was "in peril of being crushed by factious accusers,"
afterwards wrote (Cel. Ep. 3) to Perigenes of Corinth and eight other prelates
of eastern Illyricum, asserting his right, as successor of St. Peter, to a general
oversight ("necessitatem de omnibus tractandi"), and directing
his
Another letter from Celestine (Ep. 4) was addressed, July 25, 428, "to
the bishops of the provinces of Vienne and Narbonne, for the purpose of correcting
several abuses" (Fleury, xxiv. 56). Some bishops, he had learned, "surreptitiously"
wore the philosophic "pallium," with a girdle, by way of
carrying out
With this letter may be compared a short one (Ep. 5), written in 429, to urge the Apulian and Calabrian bishops to observe the canons, and not to gratify any popular wish for the consecration of a person who had not served in the ministry. (On this subject of per saltum consecrations, see Bingham, ii. 10, 4 seq.)
In the same year (429) Germanus bp. of Auxerre and Lupus of Troyes were sent into Britain to repress Pelagianism. Prosper, in his Chronicle, says that Celestine sent German to guide the Britons to Catholic faith. Constantius of Lyons, the biographer of German, whom Bede follows (H. E. i. 17), says that German and Lupus were sent by a large synod of Gallic bishops. (Prosper was then in Gaul, and ere long became Celestine's secretary: Constantius wrote some sixty years later, but with full access to local information.) The accounts may be reasonably harmonized. In German's case there was probably a special commission from Celestine, in addition to that which emanated from the Gallican synod. In this way, apparently, Celestine, as Prosper afterwards wrote in another work (C. Collatorem, 21, al. 24), "took pains to keep the Roman island Catholic." It will be natural to consider next Celestine's proceedings in regard to Ireland, which, says Prosper, in the same sentence, he "made Christian." Two years after the expedition of German he consecrated Palladius, and sent him to "the Scots, who believed in Christ," i.e. to the Irish, "as their first bishop." Such is Prosper's statement in his Chronicle. Palladius had but little success, and stayed in Ireland but a short time; and there is no sufficient evidence for associating the mission of his great successor, St. Patrick, with Celestine or with the see of Rome. (See Todd's Life of St. Patrick, pp. 309 seq., 352, 387 etc.)
We now turn to the part which Celestine took in the great doctrinal controversy raised by Nestorius at Constantinople at the end of 428. Celestine (Ep. 13) early in 429 received copies of controversial discourses said to be by Nestorius, and wrote on his own behalf, and on that of other Italian bishops, to Cyril of Alexandria, asking for information. [Cyril.] Cyril purposely kept silence for a year; and before he wrote, Celestine had received from Nestorius himself, by the hands of a man of high rank, named Antiochus, copies of his discourses, with a letter, in which Nestorius speaks of certain exiled Pelagians resident in Constantinople; and then passes on to the controversy about the Incarnation, and describes his opponents as Apollinarians, etc. He wrote more than once again (Mansi, iv. 1023), and another extant letter resumes the same topic.
Celestine caused the Nestorian discourses to be rendered into Latin; and meanwhile received a letter from Cyril, accompanied by other translations of these documents, made at Alexandria. Thus aided, Celestine formed his own opinion on their theological character, and summoned a synod of bishops at the beginning of Aug. 430. We possess an interesting fragment of his speech on this occasion. "I remember that Ambrose of blessed memory, on the day of the Nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ, made the whole people sing to God with one voice—
(Ambros. Hymn 12; in Brev. Ambros. first vespers
of Nativ.). "Did he say, 'Talis decet partus hominem'?
So, the meaning of our brother Cyril, in that he calls Mary 'Theotokos,' entirely
agrees with 'Talis decet partus Deum.' It was God Whom the
Virgin, by her child-bearing, brought forth, through His power Who is full of omnipotence."
He proceeded to quote a passage from Hilary, and two shorter ones from Damasus (Mansi,
iv. 550; Galland, ix. 304). The council's resolutions were expressed by Celestine
in letters to Cyril and to Nestorius. The former (Ep. 11) commends Cyril's
zeal in a cause which is, in truth, that of "Christ our God"; and concludes by saying
that unless Nestorius should, within ten days, condemn his own wicked doctrines
by a written profession of the same faith, as to "the birth of Christ our God,"
which is held by the Roman, by the Alexandrian, by the entire church, provision
must be made for the see of Constantinople as if vacant, and Nestorius must be treated
as one "separate from our body." This letter was dated Aug. 11, 430. Celestine wrote
also to John, bp. of Antioch, Juvenal of Jerusalem, Flavian of Philippi, and Rufus
of Thessalonica (Ep. 12). His meaning is evident: he is not professing
For the events which followed the council of Rome, see Cyril.
In Nov. 430, when Theodosius had summoned an oecumenical council to meet at Ephesus
at the coming Whitsuntide, and before the Roman and Alexandrian resolutions had
been communicated to Nestorius, the latter wrote to Celestine that the best solution
would be the adoption of the word "Christotokos," although he did not object to
"Theotokos," if it were used so as not to imply "a confusion of natures." In the
spring of 431 Cyril wrote again to Celestine, asking what should be done if Nestorius
having refused to retract at the summons of Rome and Alexandria—were to retract
at the coming synod. Celestine answered, May 7 (Ep. 16), in a tone which
exhibits him in a more favourable light than his great Alexandrian colleague, "I
am anxious for the salvation of him who is perishing, provided that he is willing
to own himself sick: if not, let our previous decisions stand." Next day, May 8,
Celestine wrote instructions for the three persons whom he was sending to represent
him at the council (Ep. 17). The substance was, "When you reach Ephesus,
consult Cyril in everything, and do what he thinks best. But if the council should
be over when you arrive, and Cyril gone to Constantinople (i.e. to consecrate
a new bishop), you must go thither also, and present to the emperor the letter which
you will be charged with for him. If you find matters still unsettled, you will
be guided by circumstances as to the course which, in conjunction with Cyril, you
should take." On the same day Celestine wrote the most remarkable of his letters,
that addressed to the council of Ephesus (Ep. 18), which was afterwards read,
first in Latin, then in a Greek translation, at the second sitting of the council
(see Mansi, iv. 1283). Celestine, citing
Nestorius, though sent away from Ephesus, had been allowed to live at his old home near Antioch. Celestine objected strongly to this and thought that Nestorius ought to be placed where he could have no opportunity of spreading his opinions. The birthplace of the Christian name is beset by a pestilent "disease." As for Nestorius's adherents, he thinks, there are many points for consideration, and that a distinction should be drawn between heresiarchs and their followers. The latter "should have opportunity of recovering their position on repentance." The consecrators of Maximian appeared to him to have passed a too indiscriminating sentence against all Nestorianizing bishops, and Celestine wished to moderate their zeal. He also wrote (Ep. 23) to Theodosius, extravagantly lauding his acts in behalf of orthodoxy, speaking highly of Maximian, and hinting that Nestorius ought to be sent into distant exile.
"One of Celestine's last actions," says Tillemont, xiv. 156, "was his defence of the memory of St. Augustine as a teacher, against the semi-Pelagians of Gaul. He wrote to Venerius, bp. of Marseilles, and five other Gallic prelates, urging them not to be silent. When presbyters spoke rashly and contentiously, it was not seemly that bishops should allow their subordinates 'to claim the first place in teaching,' especially when they raised their voices against 'Augustine of holy memory'" (Ep. 21). The nine articles on the doctrine of grace appended to this letter are not by Celestine (see note to Oxf. ed. of Fleury, iii. p. 143).
Celestine is described by Socrates (vii. 11) as having treated the Novatianists
of Rome with harshness, taken away their churches, and obliged their bishop Rusticola
to hold his services in private houses. Celestine died on or about July 26, 432
(Tillemont, xiv. 738),
Coelestius occupies a unique position among the Hibernian Scots, as he taught not the faith, but heresy. The general belief is that he was a native of Ireland, of noble birth, and, in early years, of singular piety. About a.d. 405 he is found attached to Pelagius at Rome, and the names of these two figure largely in the history of the church, till they are finally condemned in the Ephesine council, a.d. 431. Coelestius had for some time studied law, and then become a monk, when his speculations upon the conditions of grace and nature attracted attention, as he affirmed the leading points of what were afterwards known as the Pelagian heresy upon the fall of man and the need of supernatural assistance, in effect denying both. These errors he had partly learned, as he said, from a holy presbyter, Rufinus, of whom nothing else is known. From Rome, on the approach of the Goths, he passed to Sicily, and thence to Carthage; by a council at Carthage, under Aurelius the bishop, his teaching was condemned, a.d. 412, though St. Augustine of Hippo had not yet taken up the controversy against him. He soon after retired to Ephesus, where he obtained the priesthood which he had sought in vain at Carthage. On an appeal to pope Zosimus, a.d. 417, he presented his teaching in such a light as to procure acquittal before the pope, who, however, in the following year saw good reason to condemn him. At Carthage he always met with a determined opposition, and at Constantinople and Rome both the imperial and the ecclesiastical powers were finally arrayed against him. After the condemnation of the doctrines of Pelagius by the oecumenical council at Ephesus, Coelestius passed from sight. His chief opponents were St. Augustine and St. Jerome Mosheim, Eccl. Hist. i. cent. v. c. 23 seq.; Gennadius, de Script. Eccl. c. 44; Robertson, Ch. Hist. i. B. ii. c. 8; O'Conor, Rer. Hib. Scrip. iv. 97 n.; Gieseler, i. 2; Dupin, Hist. Ch. cent. v. c. 2. [Pelagius; Zosimus.]
Coelicolae. The death of Julian (a.d. 363) was followed by a reaction in favour of the Christians and against the Jews. The fierce bitterness of the edicts of Constantine and Constantius was never perhaps renewed, but the decrees of Theodosius the Great (379–395) and his son Honorius (395–423) were sufficiently strong and cruel to make it evident how the Roman emperors were influenced, both theologically and politically. The Christians convinced themselves that a stand must be made more earnestly than ever against any heresy which would seduce their members in the direction of either Judaism or paganism. The possible confusion of Christianity with either was by all means to be avoided. Most especially should this be the case as regarded Judaism. The scandal at Antioch which roused the holy indignation of St. Chrysostom—Christian ladies frequenting the synagogues and observing the Jewish festivals, Christian men bringing their lawsuits by preference before the judges of Israel (Grätz, Gesch. d. Juden, iv. 315)—found its reflection in many of the chief centres of the Eastern and Western empires. Hence the effort became more and more strenuous to suppress not only such open approximation of the two religious bodies, but also such sects as indicated, by their forms and doctrines, the intention of presenting a compromise with the truth. St. Augustine (Op. ii. Ep. xliv. cap. vi. § 13, ed. Migne) wrote to the "Elder" of one of these sects, the Coelicolae, inviting him to a conference. Edicts of Theodosius and Honorius denounced the "new doctrine" of the sect, which was said to be marked by "new and unwonted audacity," and to be nothing else than a "new crime of superstition" (Cod. Theod. xvi. t. v. viii. x. Cod. Justin. i. tit. ix.). Happily there is reason to believe that kinder counsels moderated the severity of such intolerance (Grätz, p. 386 seq.; Levysohn, Diss. Inauguralis de Jud. sub Caesar Conditione, pp. 4 seq.).
It is difficult to ascertain precisely the views of the Coelicolae. In one edict they are classed with the Jews and the Samaritans, in a second with the Jews only. But it would be a mistake to consider them simply Jews. The Romans, it is well known, called the Jews worshippers of idols through a mistaken notion that the Jewish use of the word "Heaven" for "God" (Buxtorf, Lex. Rabb. s.v. t) שׁמים, p. 2440; Jost, Gesch. d. Judenthums, i. 303) indicated the worship of some created embodiment of heaven (Vitringa, de Synag. i. 229). The Coelicolae proper would therefore be easily included by the Romans under the one general title " Jews." From St. Augustine's letter it would seem that the Coelicolae used a baptism which he counted sacrilege—i.e. they probably combined a Christian form of baptism with the Jewish rite of circumcision. Such a compromise would appear most objectionable and dangerous to St. Augustine. If, moreover, as their name may indicate, the Coelicolae openly professed their adhesion to the Jewish worship of the One God and rejected the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, this would be an error for which their abhorrence of pagan forms of idolatry would not compensate.
More than this it seems impossible to ascertain. The Coelicolae of Africa, like their congeners the Θεοσεβεῖς of Phoenicia and Palestine, and the Hypsistarii of Cappadocia, were soon stamped or died out. J. A. Schmid, Hist. Coelicolarum; C. G. F. Walch, Hist. Patriarcharum Jud. pp. 5–8; Bingham, Orig. Eccles. vii. 271; Niedner, K. G. p. 321 n. (1866); Hase, K. G. p. 121; Hasse-Köhler, K. G. i. 103; Herzog, R. E. s.v. "Himmelsanbeter."
Colluthus (2), presbyter and founder of a sect at Alexandria early in
the 4th cent. He claimed (on what grounds it is unknown) to exercise episcopal functions;
but the council of Alexandria under Hosius (a.d.
324) decided that he was only a presbyter, from which it was held to follow necessarily
that Ischyras
and others ordained by him were only laymen (Ath. Apol. cont. Arian. 12,
75–77, 80, pp. 106, 152). The passages cited mention also a sect of Colluthians.
Bp. Alexander, in a letter preserved by Theodoret (Ecc. Hist. i. 4), seems
to imply that Colluthus commenced his schismatical proceedings before Arius had
separated from the church. A phrase used by Alexander (Χριστεμπορεία)
has been understood by Valesius to charge Colluthus with taking money for conferring
orders. Valesius also infers that the cause of Colluthus's separation was
Collyridians. Under this name Epiphanius (Haer. 79) assails certain
women who had brought from Thrace into Arabia the practice of performing on certain
days rites in honour of the Blessed Virgin, the chief being the offering of a cake
(κολλυρίς), and the partaking of it by the
worshippers. Epiphanius condemns their conduct because (a) women ought not
to offer sacrifice, and (b) Mary is to be honoured, God only to be worshipped.
The name Collyris (or kindred forms) is to be found in the LXX translation of
Columba (1) Columcille, June 9. The life, character, and work of this
saint have been exhaustively treated by an Irish and a French author, Reeves and
Montalembert. St. Columba was the son of Fedhlimidh, son of Fergus Cennfada, and
thus descended from Niall of the Nine Hostages, monarch of Ireland, his great-great-grandfather.
Born at Gartan, a wild district in co. Donegal, on Dec. 7, most probably in 521,
he was baptized at Tulach-Dubhglaise (now Temple-Douglas, about halfway between
Gartan and Letterkenny), under the name, first, of Crimthann (wolf), and then of
Colum (dove), to which was afterwards added the suffix cille, as some say,
from his close attendance at the church of his youthful sojourn, and as others,
from the many communities founded and governed by him. His chief instructor was
bp. Finnian of Moville (by whom he was ordained deacon). While at Clonard with St.
Finnian he was ordained to the priesthood by bp. Etchen of Clonfad, to whom he was
sent by St. Finnian for that purpose. Why he was never raised to the episcopate
is a matter of speculation: in the Scholia on the Felire of St. Aengus the Culdee
there is a legend relating how the order of the priesthood was conferred by mistake
in place of that of the episcopate (Todd, St. Patrick, 70–71; Book of
Obits of C. C. Dublin, Dubl. 1844, p. liv.; Colgan, Acta SS. 306 n
17). Bp. Lloyd supposes a political reason, and Lanigan thinks he applied
only for the office of chorepiscopus. But Dr. Reeves is of opinion that he really
shrank from the responsibilities and many obligations of the highest ecclesiastical
rank. In and about a.d. 544 we have probably
to place the many ecclesiastical and monastic foundations attributed to him in Ireland,
his chief favourites being Durrow and Derry. The reasons usually given for his afterwards
leaving Ireland are various. But whatever they may have been, he is said to have
used his influence to excite a quarrel between the families of the north and south
Hy Neill, and the consequence was the battle fought in the barony of Carberry, between
Drumcliff and Sligo, on the borders of Ulster and Connaught,
a.d. 561, and gained by the Neills of the
North, the party of St. Columba. In consequence of St. Columba's participation in
this quarrel, a synod was assembled at Teltown in Meath to excommunicate him for
his share in shedding Christian blood, and if the sentence of excommunication was
not actually pronounced, it was owing to the exertions of St. Brendan of Birr and
bp. Finnian of Moville on his behalf. Whether by the charge of the synod of Teltown,
that he must win as many souls to Christ by his preaching as lives were lost at
Cul-Dreimhne, or through his own feeling of remorse, or his great desire for the
conversion of the heathen he left Ireland in 563, being 42 years old, and, traversing
the sea in a currach of wickerwork covered with hides, landed with his 12 companions
on the small island of I, Hy, I-colmkille, Iova, or Iona, situated about 2 miles
off the S.W. extremity of Mull in Argyllshire. There, on the border land between
the Picts and Scots, and favoured by both, St. Columba founded his monastery, the
centre from which he and his followers evangelized the Picts and taught more carefully
the Scots, who were already Christians at least in name. Hy was henceforth his chief
abode, but he frequently left it for Scotland, where he founded many churches, penetrating
N. even to Inverness, and probably farther, and E. into Buchan, Aberdeenshire, sending
his disciples where he himself had not leisure to go. His connexion with Ireland
was not broken; and in 575 he attended the synod of Drumceatt, with his cousin king
Aidan of Dalriada, whom he had crowned in Iona in 574. From Iona as a centre he
established Christianity on a firm basis to the N. of the Tay and Clyde. Unfortunately,
valuable as St. Adamnan's Life of St. Columba is, it is written rather to
extol its subject than to present a picture of the time, and so gives little chronological
sequence to the events of the thirty years and upwards of his sojourn in Iona. We
gather, however, that in his monastery he was indefatigable in prayer, teaching,
study, and transcription of the Scriptures; people came to him from all quarters,
some for bodily aid, but most for spiritual needs; and soon smaller societies had
to be formed, as at Hinba (one of the Garveloch Islands), Tyree, etc., for the requirements
of the monastery. He visited king Bruide at Craig-Phadrick, beside Inverness, and
established the monastery of Deer in the N.E. corner of Aberdeenshire, where he
left St. Drostan, so that his churches are traced all over the N. of Scotland (Book
of Deer, pref.). He also frequently visited Ireland on matters connected with
his monasteries, the superintendence of which he retained to the last. He manifested
the greatest favour for the bards and national poetry of his country, being himself
accounted one of the poets of Ireland, and
Columba occupies in missionary history the entire generation preceding the arrival of Augustine (a.d. 597). The Celtic apostle of Caledonia died the very year in which the Roman mission set foot in the south of Britain. The first abbat of Iona laboured much longer, in a far wider sphere, and personally with more success, as well as prodigiously more romance, than the first archbp. of Canterbury. [Adamnan.]
Columbanus, abbat of Luxeuil and Bobbio, Nov. 21. On this day, in the Mart. Doneg. (by Todd and Reeves, 315), is the entry "Columban, abbat, who was in Italy." Thus simply does the Irish calendar refer to an Irishman famous in France, Switzerland, and Italy, the great champion of public morals at a cruel and profligate court, the zealous preacher of the Gospel in lands where it had been all but forgotten, and the pious founder of monasteries. His life, written with great care and minuteness by Jonas, of Susa in Piedmont, a monk of his monastery at Bobbio, in the time of Attala and Eustace, his immediate successors, is now pub. by Mabillon (in Acta SS. Ord. St. Bened. tom ii. Sec. ii. 2–26), and by Messingham (Flor. Ins. Sanct. 219–239), who appends the account of miracles omitted by Jonas, and other additions (ib. 239–254), also adding the Rule of St. Columbanus in ten chaps., a short Homily by the saint on the fallaciousness of human life, and some carmina (ib. 403–414). The fullest account of his life, works, and writings is in Fleming's Collectanea Sacra (fol. Lovan. 1667), which includes Jonas's Life and St. Columbanus's writings. His writings are also in Bibl. Mag. Vet. Pat. vol. viii. (Paris, 1644), and Bibl. Max. Vet. Pat. vol. xii. (Lyons, 1677). His poems were first printed by Goldastus (Paraen. Vet. pars. i. 1604). Wright (Biog. Brit. Lit. 157 seq.) gives useful particulars of the editions of his writings.
St. Columbanus was born in Leinster in or about
a.d. 543, the year in which Benedict, his
great monastic predecessor, died at Monte Cassino. His chief training was in the
monastery of Bangor, on the coast of Down, under the eye of St. Comgall, where he
accepted the monastic vows and habit. At the age, most probably, of a little over
forty, he was seized with a desire to preach the Gospel beyond the limits of Ireland,
and with 12 companions crossed over to France, c.
a.d. 585, making a short visit to Britain
as he went. For several years he traversed the country, teaching the faith, but
apparently without building any monastery, till, coming to Burgundy at the solicitations
of Gontran the king, he took up his abode in a deserted part of the Vosges mountains.
He first chose the ruined Roman fort of Anagrates, now Annegray, a hamlet of the
commune of Faucogney (Haute-Saône); then, needing a larger foundation, removed,
a.d. 590 or 591, to the ruins of the ancient
Luxovium, about 8 miles from Annegray, and established his celebrated monastery
of Luxeuil, on the confines of Burgundy and Austrasia. But soon he had to erect
another monastic establishment at Fontaines, or Fontenay, and divide his monks among
these houses. Over each house he placed a superior, who yet was subordinate to himself,
and for their management he drew up his well-known Rule, derived no doubt in great
measure from his master St. Comgall, and perhaps to some extent from St. Benedict
of Monte Cassino. The great principle of this Rule was obedience, absolute and unreserved;
and the next was constant and severe labour, to subdue the flesh, exercise the will
in daily self-denial, and set an example of industry in cultivation of the soil.
The least deviation from the Rule entailed a definite corporal punishment, or a
severer form of fast as laid down in the Penitential (see the Rule in Messingham,
u.s., Fleming, u.s., and Max Bibl. Vet. Patr. tom. xii. Lyons,
1677; and on it see Montalembert, Monks of the West, ii. 447 seq.; Lanigan,
Eccl. Hist. Ir. ii. 267–269; Neander, Gen. Ch. Hist. v. 36, 37; Ussher,
Eccl. Ant. c. 17, wks. vi. 484 seq.; Mabillon, Ann. Bened. lib. viii.
sect. 17). For 20 years in the wooded and all but inaccessible defiles of the Vosges
mountains St. Columbanus laboured with his monks, and all classes of men gathered
round him, notwithstanding the severe discipline. His own inclination was always
to retire into the wood and caves and hold unrestrained communion with God; but
besides the claims of his monasteries, Christian zeal and charity drew him forth.
He excited against himself
It is the great distinction of Columbanus, as Neander has observed, that he set the example at the end of the 6th cent. of that missionary enterprise in remote countries of Europe which was afterwards so largely followed up from England and Ireland, as the names of Cilian, Wilfrid, Willebrord, Boniface, Willibald, Willehad, remind us. Colonies of pious monks journeyed forth under the leadership of able abbats, carrying the light of Christianity through the dangerous wilds of continental heathendom. It was about 12 years before the arrival of the Roman mission in England (A. D. 597) and the same length of time before the death of Columba the apostle of Caledonia, that Columbanus, fired perhaps by the example of this energetic missionary, passed over into Gaul.
Columbanus's foundation of Luxeuil achieved as great a celebrity as his Rule, and a more enduring one. It became the parent of numerous streams of monastic colonies, which spread through both Burgundies, Rauracia (the ancient bishopric of Basel), Neustria, Champagne, Ponthieu, and the Morini. Luxeuil was, in short, as Montalembert expresses it, the monastic capital of Gaul, as well as the first school in Christendom, a nursery of bishops and saints; while Bobbio, although for so brief a period under the government of its founder, became a stronghold of orthodoxy against the Arians, and long remained a school of learning for North Italy.
The works of Columbanus contained in Fleming's Collectanea Sacra (Lovanii, 1667) are as follows. Prose:—I. Regula Monastica, in 10 short chaps. II. Regula Coenobialis Fratrum, sive Liber de Quotidianis Poenitentiis Monachorum, in 15 chaps. III. Sermones sive Instructiones Variae, 17 discourses, the first being "de Deo Uno et Trino," and the last, "Quod per Viam Humilitatis et Obedientiae Deus quaerendus et sequendus sit." IV. Liber seu Tractatus de Modo seu Mensura Poenitentiarum, the second title being de Poenitentiarum Mensura Taxanda. It prescribes penances for various sins. V. Instructio de Octo Vitiis Principalibus, less than a column in length. The vitia are gula, fornicatio, cupiditas, ira, tristitia, acedia, vana gloria, superbia. VI. Five Epistolae Aliquot ad Diversos : (1) "ad Bonifacium IV."; (2) "ad Patres Synodi cujusdam Gallicanae super Quaestione Paschae Congregatae"; (3) "ad Discipulos et Monachos suos"; (4) "ad Bonifacium Papam"; (5) "ad S. Gregorium Papam." These are especially interesting for the information they give on the dispute between the Roman and Irish churches. In reference to (1), see Bonifacius IV. The poetical works, Poemata Quaedam, occupy about 8 pp. fol., ranging in length from 4 lines to 164. The metres are both classical and medieval.
Comgall, one of the most prominent leaders of monasticism in Ireland,
said to have had as many as 3,000 monks under him at one
Commodianus, the author of two Latin poems, Instructiones adversus Gentium Deos pro Christiana Disciplina, and Carmen Apologeticum adversus Judaeos et Gentes. His Instructions are included "inter apocrypha" in a synodal decree of Gelasius (Concil. tom. iv.), probably because of certain heterodox statements respecting Antichrist, the Millennium, and the First Resurrection. In what age he lived has been much disputed. Internal evidence in the poem shews that the author lived in days of persecution. The style of the Instructions points to the age of Cyprian, with whose works they have more than once been edited. There is an allusion to the Novatian Schism (§ xlvii. ad fin.), and the language of § lii. seems to be aimed against the "Thurificati" and "Libellatici" of the 3rd cent. In § lxvi. 12 a "subdola pax" is mentioned, which Cave refers to the temporary quiet enjoyed by the Christians under Gallienus, after the Decian and before the Aurelian persecution. Other expressions (e.g. agonia propinqua, § liii, 10) clearly point to the expectation of fresh suffering. But the most important passage as affecting the date of the poem is one in which the author upbraids the Gentiles for perseverance in unbelief, though Christianity has prevailed for 200 years (§ vi. 2), and this, which, singularly enough, seems to have escaped the notice of the earlier critics, must be held to fix the date of Commodian as approximately A.D. 250. The barbarity of his style, and the peculiarity of certain words (e.g. Zabulo, Zacones), led Rigault to infer that he was of African extraction. He applies to himself the epithet "Gazaeus," but this probably refers to his dependence upon the treasury of the church (gazophylacium) for support, and not to any connexion with Gaza. Originally a heathen (Instruct. Praef. 5, § xxvi. 24), he was converted by the perusal of the Scriptures (Praef. 6), and if the words "Explicit tractatus sancti Episcopi . . ." discovered on the MS. of the Carmen Apologeticum by Pitra, may be taken to refer to the author of the poem, who, from internal evidence, is conclusively proved to have been Commodian, it would seem that he ultimately became a bishop.
His works (a trans. of which is given in the Ante-Nicene Lib.), though utterly valueless as literature, are of considerable interest in the history of the Latin language as showing that the change had already commenced which resulted in the formation of the Romance languages.
The Instructions are in Migne's Patr. Lat. vol. v.; the Apology in Pitra's Spicilegium Solismense, vol. i.
Commodus, A.D. 180–193. The monstrous vices of this degenerate son of Marcus Aurelius brought at least one counterbalancing advantage. The persecutions of his father's reign ceased for a time in his. The popular feeling against the Christians, though it still continued, was no longer heightened and directed by the action of the Imperial government, and the result was a marked increase of numbers. Many rich and noble, with their households and kindred, professed themselves Christians (Eus. H. E. v. 21), even in the emperor's palace, but it is uncertain whether they were officers, freedmen, or slaves (Iren. adv. Haer. iv. 30). Marcia, the favourite mistress of the emperor, is said by Dio Cassius (Ixxii. 4) or Xiphilinus writing in his name, to have used her influence with Commodus in their favour and to have done them much good service. The strange history of CALLISTUS In the Refutation of all Heresies attributed to Hippolytus (ix. 6) throws fresh light on Marcia's connexion with the Christian church at Rome. The epithet by which he describes her as a "God-loving woman" may be, as Dr. Wordsworth suggested, ironical; but it is clear that she was in frequent communication with the officers of the church. Callistus had been brought before Fuscianus, the city prefect, charged with disturbing a synagogue of the Jews, and was sentenced to hard labour in the mines of Sardinia. Marcia sent for Victor, a bishop of the church, asked what Christians were suffering for their faith in Sardinia, and obtained from Commodus an order of release. The order was given to an eunuch, Hyacinthus, who carried it to Sardinia, and obtained the liberation of Callistus and others, alleging his own influence with Marcia as his warrant, though the name of Callistus had not been included in the list. The narrative clearly implies that Hyacinthus was a Christian.
Thus some Christians had, as such, been condemned to exile; and persecutions,
though less frequent, had not altogether ceased. One sufferer of the time takes
his place in the list of martyrs. Apollonius, a Roman citizen of distinction, perhaps
a senator, of high repute for philosophical culture, was accused before Perennius,
the prefect of the city, by one of his own slaves. In accordance with an imperial
edict sentencing informers, in such cases, to death even when the accused was found
guilty, the slave had his legs broken.
Constans I., the youngest of the three sons of Constantine the Great, was born c. 320 and made Caesar in 333; he reigned as Augustus 337–350 when he was killed by the conspiracy of Magnentius. [CONSTANTIUS II.] De Broglie (iii. pp. 58, 59) in his character of him remarks: "As far as we can discriminate between the contradictory estimates of different historians, Constans was of a simple, somewhat coarse, nature, and one without high aims though without malice. As regards the inheritance of his father's qualities, while Constantius seemed to have taken for his share his political knowledge, his military skill, and his eloquence (though reproducing a very faint image of them), Constans had only received great personal courage and a straightforwardness that did him honour. He was, besides, a lover of pleasure: he was suspected of the gravest moral irregularities. . . . He had firm, though certainly unenlightened, faith, and frequently gave proofs of it by distributing largesses to the churches and favours to the Christians" (cf. Eutrop. Brev. x. 9, Vict. Caes. 41, Epit. 41). Zosimus (ii. 42) gives him a worse character than do the others. Libanius in 348 delivered a panegyric on Constans and Constantius, called βασιλικὸς λόγος, vol. iii. ed. Reiske, pp. 272–332. St. Chrysostom in the difficult and probably corrupt passage of his 15th Homily on the Philippians, p. 363, ed. Gaume, speaks of him as having children and as committing suicide, statements elsewhere unsupported. The most favourable evidence for Constans is the praise of St. Athanasius (Apol. ad Constantium, 4 sqq.; cf. the letter of Hosius in Hist. Arian. ad Monachos, 44). His conduct with respect to the Arian and Donatist controversies gained him the esteem of Catholics. He was a baptized Christian; his baptism is referred to in Ap. ad C. 7.
Constantinus I.—I. A. Ancient Authorities (Heathen).—Eutropius, Breviarium, Hist. Rom., end of 9th and beginning of 10th book. This historian was secretary to the emperor, and his short account is therefore valuable. The Caesares and the Epitome, current under the name of Aurelius Victor, were doubtless the work of different authors. The first, who wrote under Constantius, was a friend of Ammianus, and praefectus urbi towards the close of the cent.; the second, who excerpted from the first, lived a generation later, and continued his compilation down to the death of Theodosius the Great. They seem to have used the same sources as Zosimus, whom they supplement. The Panegyrists, as contemporary writers, deserve more attention than has been given them, allowance being made for the defects incident to their style of writing. Those relating to our subject—Anon. Panegyr. Maximiano et Constantino (A.D. 307), Eumenii Constantino in natalibus urb. Trevir. (310), and Gratiarum actio Flaviensium nomine (311), Anon. de Victoria adv. Maxentium (313), and Nazarii Paneg. Constantino (321)—are all the product of Gallic rhetoricians. The Scriptores Hist. Augustae contain several contemporary references to Constantine; those in Julian's Caesars are, as might be expected, unfriendly and satirical. The first vol. of the Bonn ed. of the Byzantine historians contains the fragments of Eunapius, Priscus, Dexippus, etc., but these are of little moment, as are the extracts from Praxagoras in Photius, Cod. 62. Indirectly it is supposed that we have more of the matter of these earlier writers in Zosimus's ἱστορία νέα, bk. ii. This historian lived probably c. 450. He was a bitter enemy of Constantine, whom he accuses of various crimes and cruelties, and blames for the novelties of his policy, shewing a particular dislike of his conversion. He falls into several historical blunders. The part of Ammianus's Histories relating to this reign is unfortunately lost. Some remarks on it occur in the part preserved, from which we gather his general agreement with his friend and contemporary Victor. The text of Ammianus, pub. by Gardthausen (Teubner, 1874), may be recommended. He has also given a revised text from the MSS. of the anonymous excerpts generally cited as Anonymus Valesii, Excerpta Valesiana. They received this name from being first printed by H. Valois, at the end of his ed. of Ammianus. Some of these extracts may be traced word for word in Eutropius and Orosius; hence their author did not live earlier than the 5th cent. Others are valuable as coming from sources elsewhere unrepresented.
(Christian.) The earliest contemporary authority is Lactantius, de Mortibus
Persecutorum, a tract pub. after the defeat of Maxentius and before Constantine
had declared himself the enemy of Licinius—i.e. probably 313 or 314. His
bitterness is unpleasant, and his language exaggerated and somewhat obscure, but
his facts are generally confirmed by other authors, where we can test them. The
most important is Eusebius. Three of his works especially treat of Constantine,
Hist. Eccl. ix. and x., down to 324, and probably pub. before the death of
Crispus in 326; de Vita Constantini, in four books, with a translation of
Constantine's Oratio ad Sanctorum Coetum as an appendix, pub. after his death;
and, thirdly, τριακονταετηρικὅς, or Laudes
Constantini, a panegyric at his tricennalia, containing little but rhetoric.
To harmonize Eusebius and Zosimus is difficult. Fleury's dictum, "on ne se trompera
sur Constantin en croyant tout le mil qu’en dit Eusebe, et tout le bien qu’en dit
Zosime," may be perfectly true, but Zosimus says very little good of him and Eusebius
very little harm. Eusebius has great weight as a contemporary and as giving documents,
which have not for the most part been seriously challenged; but he is discredited
by fulsomeness and bad taste in his later works, and by inconsistencies of tone
between them and his history. He announces, however, that he will only recount those
actions of the emperor which belong to his religious life (V. C. i. 11:
μόνα τὰ πρὸς τὸν θεοφιλῆ συντείνοντα βίον),
and is open to the criticism of Socrates (H. E. i. 1) as
τῶν ἐπαίνων τοῦ βασίλευς καὶ τῆς πανηγυρικῆς ὑψηγορίας
τῶν λόγων μᾶλλον ὡς ἐν ἐγκωμίῳ φροντίσας ἢ περὶ τοῦ ἀκριβῶς περιλαβεῖν τὰ γενόμενα.
We must allow for the natural exultation of Christians over the emperor who had
done so much
Socrates, H. E. i., and Sozomen, H. E. i. and ii. (about a cent. later), give an account of the last period of his reign; Socrates being generally the safer guide. On his relations with Arianism much is found in the treatises and epp. of St. Athanasius, and occasional facts may be gleaned from other Fathers. As a hero of Byzantine history and ἐσαπόστολος, Constantine has become clothed in a mist of fiction. Something may be gathered from Joannes Lydus, de Magistrat. P. R., and among the fables of Cedrenus and Zonaras may be found some facts from more trustworthy sources.
B. Modern Authorities.—It will be unnecessary to enumerate the well-known writers of church history and the multitude of minor essays on separate points of Constantine's life. As early as 1720 Vogt (Hist. Lit. Const. Mag. Hamburg) gave a list of more than 150 authors, ancient and modern, and the number has since infinitely increased. The first critical life of importance is by J. C. F. Manso (Leben Constantans des Grossen, Wien, 1819, etc.), but it is hard and one-sided, unchristian, if not antichristian. Jacob Burckhardt largely follows Manso, but is much more interesting and popular (Die Zeit Constantins des Gr. Basel, 1853), though not always fair. Some misstatements in it are noticed below. He views the emperor merely as a great politician, and shews much bitterness against Eusebius. Theodore Keim's Der Uebertritt Const. des Gr. (Zürich, 2863) is in many points a good refutation of Burckhardt, as well as being a fair statement from one not disposed to be credulous. The first two volumes of L’Eglise et l’Empire au IVe Siècle, by A. de Broglie (Paris, 1855, etc.), give the views of a learned Roman Catholic, generally based on original authorities, and this is perhaps the most useful book upon the subject. The section (134) in Dr. P. Schaff's Gesch. der Alten Kirche (Leipz. 1867, also trans.) is as good a short account of Constantine as can be named. In English we have a short life by a Nonconformist, Mr. Joseph Fletcher (Lond. 1852, 16mo), but no standard work of importance. The brilliant sketch by Dean Stanley in his Eastern Church is probably the fairest picture of Constantine in our language. For his relations with Arianism we may refer to Newman's Arians of the Fourth Cent. (1st ed. 1833; 3rd ed. 1871); Neale's Eastern Church, Patriarchate of Alexandria; Bright's History of the Church, A.D. 313–451, 2nd ed. 1869; and Gwatkin's Arian Controversy. A simple monograph on Constantine by E. L. Cutts is pub. by S.P.C.K.
II. Life.—Period i.
A higher destiny awaited him in another part of the empire. His father insisted
upon his return, and Galerius at length was persuaded to give permission and the
seal necessary for the public posts, ordering him not to start before receiving
his last instructions on the morrow. Constantine took flight in the night. He had
probably good reasons for his mistrust, and to stop pursuit maimed the public horses
at many stations on his road (Zos. ii. 8; Anon. Val. 4; Victor, Caes. 21),
which lay partly through countries where the persecution was raging. He arrived
at Gesoriacum (Boulogne) just in time to accompany his father to Britain on his
last expedition against the Picts (Eumen. in Nat. Urb. Trev. vii.). Constantius
died at York, July 306, in the presence of his sons, after declaring Constantine
his successor (de M. P. xxiv.). He was almost immediately proclaimed Augustus
by the soldiers (Σεβαστὸς πρὸς τῶν στρατοπέδων ἀναγορευθείς,
Eus. H. E. viii. 13). Almost at the same time another claimant of imperial
power appeared at Rome in Maxentius, son of the retired Maximian, who now came forward
again to assist his son. Constantine's first act was to shew favour to the Christians
(de M. P. xxiv.), who had been exposed to little of the violence of persecution
under the mild rule of Constantius. (V. C. i.
, upon the shields of his soldiers, and now, if not
before, learnt to invoke the name of Christ to help his arms (H. E. ix. 9,
12). For the different accounts of the vision see below, § V. Maxentius, meanwhile,
spent the night in sacrifices and divination (Zos. ii. 16, etc.). Next morning the
two armies met. That of Maxentius was totally routed, although the praetorians vigorously
resisted. The fugitives crowded upon the bridge, and upon the pontoons at its side
which Maxentius had devised, according to an almost incredible statement, so as
to give way beneath his opponent (Eus. H. E. ix, 9; 5, 6; V. C. i.
38; Zos. ii. 15). He was himself precipitated into the river, where his body was
found the next day. The victor entered Rome in triumph, and was received with great
joy (Pan. de Vict. adv. M. xix.). He used his victory on the whole with moderation.
Eusebius tells us that he set up a statue of himself with a spear terminating in
a cross in his right hand, and an inscription to the effect that by this salutary
sign (or standard) he had restored the Roman senate and people to their ancient
glory and freedom (H. E. ix. 9; cf. V. C. i. 40). He now enlarged
and endowed many churches in and near Rome ( V. C. i. 42), and wrote the
letters to Anulinus in behalf of the Catholic church in Africa which led to such
important consequences (ap. Eus. H. E. x. 5, 7). From these documents it
is evident that Constantine had already a strong disposition to favour the Christians,
especially the Catholic body. The answers to one of them brought the case of Caecilian
and the Donatists to his notice, and involved him in the affairs of the African
church. He accepted the title and insignia of Pontifex Maximus, and both were borne
by his successors till Gratian (Zos. iv. 36).
Period ii. 312–324. Commencement of the cycle of Indictions, Sept.
1, 312. Constantine sole emperor of the West.—Constantine at the age of about 30
was now sole Augustus of the West. Having settled the affairs of Rome, he proceeded
early in 313 to meet Licinius at Milan. There the marriage of the latter with Constantia
was consummated, and the full edict of toleration, the Edict of Milan, was
promulgated. The emperors then separated, Licinius to defend himself against Maximinus
Daza, Constantine to guard the Rhine. Both were victorious. Licinius soon after
became sole master of the East by the death of Maximus at Tarsus (Zos. ii. 17;
de M. P. xlix.). The latter had followed the edict of Milan, at the behest
of the other emperors, by an act of toleration of his own,
The character of the former war was ambiguous. This one was in great measure a religious war or crusade (Eus. H. E. x. 9). Before any conflict was fought (it was said) the subjects of Licinius thought they saw the victorious legions of Constantine marching through their streets at midday (V. C. ii. 6). The monogram of Christ was now stamped on almost all his coinage (infra, § VI.). The labarum became a talisman of victory (οἱονεί τι νικητικὸν ἀλεξιφάρμακον, V. C. ii, 7), The emperor surrounded himself with Christian priests, and believed himself favoured with visions as he prayed in the tent containing the standard of the cross, and leapt up as if inspired to victory (ib. 12). The sentiment of a divine vocation was probably a real one to him, and was fostered by the approbation of the Christians. Licinius, on the very scene of his conflict as a Christian champion with Maximinus, prepared for battle by sacrifice and worship of the gods, against whom he had then fought, and Constantine prepared by prayer and by giving the watchword Θεὸς σωτήρ (V. C. ii. 5 and 6; cf. Soz. H. E. i. 7 on the perversion of Licinius). The battle of Adrianople, July 3, 323, was a second victory for the Christian arms. Constantine pursued his opponent to Byzantium. Meanwhile Crispus, who had already won his youthful laurels against the Franks, shewed himself most active in command of the fleet, and defeated the admiral Amandus in the Hellespont. This caused Licinius to quit Byzantium for Chalcedon, where he appointed one of his chief officers, Martinianus, as Caesar. Constantine pursued him, and on Sept. 10, after some negotiations, achieved a final victory at Chrysopolis. Licinius, on the entreaty of Constantia, was permitted to retire to Thessalonica; but was not allowed to live above a year longer. Socrates relates that after remaining quiet a short time, " he collected some barbarians, and attempted to repair his defeat" (H. E. i. 4; so Zonaras and Niceph. Call.), and Eusebius justifies his execution by the law of war (V. C. ii. 19). Zosimus and the heathen historians make it an instance of the emperor's faithlessness (Zos. ii. 28; Victor, Epit. l.c.; Eutrop. Brev. x. 6), as does also the chronicle of Jerome (ann. 2339. "Licinius Thessalonicae contra jus sacramenti privatus occiditur"). Yet apparently Constantia did not resent the execution of her husband, nor Fausta the death of her father. Constantine was thus master of the whole empire, and his first act was to issue edicts of toleration and favour to the Christians of the East (V. C. ii. 24 seq., cited as Provincialibus Palestinae and 48 seq. Prov. Orientis). He now specially assumed the title of Victor (νικήτης). (V. C. ii. 19). He had won it by his constant successes against barbarians on the Rhine and Danube and rival emperors from the Tiber to the Bosphorus: his twenty years of empire had brought him from London in the far West to Byzantium, the centre of the Eastern world, and had been years of uninterrupted conquest. He was not unthankful to the Providence which had guided him, nor indisposed to acknowledge that something was due from him in return (Prov. Pal. V. C. ii. 28, 29). But his progress had not led him to a victory over himself, or rather his success made him forget his own liability to crime.
Period iii. 324–337. Constantine sole emperor.—The history of the last
twelve years of Constantine's reign is of a very different character from that of
preceding periods. As sole emperor he loses rather than gains in our estimation.
He had no longer a religious cause to fight for nor a dangerous rival to overthrow.
The hardness of his character fitted him for a life of strong excitement, but not
for the intrigues of an Eastern court and the subtle questions of Eastern theology.
His immoderate profusion in building and other expensive operations gained him the
name of "spend-thrift,"
After a prolonged sojourn in the East his presence was now required in Rome. He advanced thither by slow stages, arriving about July 8, in time to celebrate the completion of his 20th year of empire, July 25, 326. He left it certainly before the end of Sept.; but in that short space of time all that was tragical in his life seems to have reached its climax. There was much in the city itself to irritate and disturb him. The ancient aristocracy, in the absence of a resident emperor, preserved many of its old heathen traditions. Though he came determined to be tolerant (Cod. Th. xv. 1, 3) and desirous of gaining the favour of the senate (id. xv. 14; 3, 4), it soon became evident that he was out of harmony with Rome. He would not join in the solemn review of the knights held on July 15, and in their procession and sacrifice to Jupiter Capitolinus; but viewed it contemptuously from the Palatine and ridiculed it to those around him (Zos. ii. 29). Such an action, joined with his Oriental dress and general bearing, seems to have aroused popular indignation against him. Though tempted to revenge himself by force, he was wise enough to refrain. (See esp. de Broglie, l.c. ii. c. 5, for the events of this year. He puts together Liban. Or. 12, p. 393; Or. 15, p. 412, and Chrys. Or. ad Pop. Antioch. 21.) But this outburst was followed by far heavier tragedies within his own household. In relating them we have to rely on the vague and inconsistent tales of later writers, those nearest the emperor, Eutropius and Eusebius, being markedly silent. They seem to have originated with divisions, such as easily arose in a family composed of so many different elements. The half-brothers of Constantine, the sons of Constantius and Theodora, naturally took part with their mother's half-sister, Fausta, and her sons. On the other hand, Helena had reason to sympathize with her grandson Crispus, the son of Minervina. Probably it was in connexion with these divisions that Crispus was suddenly arrested and conveyed to an unknown death at Pola in Istria (Amm. Marc. xiv. 11). Niebuhr thought it probable that the accusation of treason against his father, reported by Gregory of Tours (Hist. Franc. i. 36), had some foundation of truth. Another, but not an early account, represents Fausta as playing to Crispus the part of Phaedra towards Hippolytus (Zos. ii. 29), and other authors name her as his accuser without specifying the nature of the charge (Vict. Epit. 41, Philostorgius, ii. 4. Sozomen, H. E. i. 5, implies that the death of Crispus was required of Constantine by others). The young and promising Caesar Licinianus was at the same time unjustifiably put to death (Eutrop. x. 6 ; Hieron. Chron. Ann. 2342). The following satirical distich, attributed to the city prefect Ablavius, was found on the palace doors after the death of Crispus (Sidon. Apollin. Ep. v. 8):—
But he was avenged much more tragically, and at no distant date. (Jerome puts it three years later, the others connect the two events.) Fausta herself was executed in as sudden and as dark a way as Crispus. The complaints of Helena seemed to have aroused her son to this dire act of retribution (Zos. ii. 29; Vict. Epit. 41). Later writers represent the empress as guilty of adultery (Philost. ii. 4.; Sidon. Apoll. l.c.; Greg. Turon. H. F. i. 34), and her punishment is said to have been suffocation in the steam of a hot bath.
There cannot, we think, despite the doubts raised by Gibbon, be any real doubt that Crispus and Fausta perished, both probably in 328, by the orders of Constantine, acting as the instrument of family jealousies. The death of Fausta was followed by the execution of many of her friends, presumably those who had taken part against Crispus (Eutrop. x. 4). Popular traditions represent Constantine as tormented by remorse after his delirium of cruelty had passed, and as seeking everywhere the means of expiation; and nothing can be more in harmony with the character of Constantine and of the age than to suppose this. Christian bishops could only urge him to repentance to be followed by baptism. But for reasons which we do not thoroughly know, Constantine put off this important step, and also the baptism of his sons. That he bestowed some possessions on the church at this time, and built or handed over basilicas to it, is very probable. Among the many which claim foundation at his hand we may name the Vatican, which was destroyed to make room for the modern St. Peter's; St. Agnes, which has an inscription referring to his daughter Constantina; and the Lateran, once the palace of Fausta and the seat of the first council about the Donatists, and still the real cathedral of the pope. Probably the pilgrimage of Helena to Palestine in pursuance of a vow, and the "Invention of the Cross," is to be assigned to the time that immediately follows. Constantine gave her every assistance, and authorized her to spend money freely both in alms and buildings (Paulinus of Nola, Ep.11, ad Sulpic. Sever.; cf. V. C. iii. 47, 3). Possibly he delayed his own Baptism in the hope that he might soon follow her example and be washed in the holy waters of Jordan (V. C. iv. 62). He now left Rome never to return, but with the project of founding a new Rome in the East, which should equal if not surpass the old.
The beauty and convenience of the site of Byzantium had long been noticed (cf. Herod. iv. 144); it was the birthplace of Fausta, and its immediate neighbourhood had seen the final defeat of Licinius. The emperor had perhaps already formed the idea of embellishing it and calling it by his own name. He had probably moved a mint thither as early as 325, and used the name (Constantinopolis) upon his coins. But now his intention may have been strengthened by his distaste for Rome, and by a superstition that Rome's fall from power was at hand (Chron. Pasch. ed. Bonn, p. 517). Other cities had attracted his attention; his final choice was Byzantium. Many stories are told of the ceremonies with which he laid out the plan of the new Rome, enclosing like its prototype the tops of seven hills. De Broglie places the foundation in 328 or 329 (l.c. ii. 441). The Christian historians assert that the absence of heathenism from the city was the express desire of the emperor (e.g. V. C. iii. 48).
The removal of Sopater perhaps gave room for the power of Helena to reassert itself. She communicated to her son the success of her pilgrimage, and forwarded him certain relics, which he received with great joy. [Helena.] The death about the same time of his sister Constantia had important consequences. She was much under the influence of Eusebius of Nicomedia, and had in her household an Arian priest, who persuaded her that Arius had been most unjustly treated. She had not courage to speak on the subject herself to her brother, but on her deathbed strongly recommended this priest to him, and he was taken into the imperial family, soon gaining influence over the emperor. The result, it is said, was Constantine's gradual alienation from the Catholics (Socr. i. 25; see de Broglie, c. v., at the end). Meanwhile the building of the new capital went on with great vigour, temples and cities, especially in Greece and Asia Minor, being despoiled to beautify it and to fit it for the residence of a new nobility, some created, and others transferred from Rome. Of the population that gathered into it almost all the pagans and many of the Jews became Christians. The city was solemnly consecrated on May 11, 330, followed by a feast of forty days (Idatius, fasti, Chron. Pasch. a.d. 330), and the anniversary was long kept as the nativity of Constantinople. It is indeed a very important era, marking the greatest political transformation that the Roman empire underwent. With it were connected the great constitutional changes detailed below, § III. 1, under which grew up the Byzantine spirit with its peculiar character, turbulent, slavish, and unimaginative, but yet capable of endurance tempered with a certain kind of morality.
The years that followed brought Constantine more than ever into the debates of
the church. The emperor recalled Arius, but Athanasius, now bp. of Alexandria, refused
to receive him. In the middle of his 30th year, 335, Constantine distributed the
territories under his dominion between his three sons and two nephews. The eldest,
Constantine, received the provinces of his grandfather, Britain, Spain, and Gaul;
Constantius, Asia, Syria, and Egypt; Constans, Italy and Africa. Dalmatius, with
the title of Caesar, had the large province of Illyricum; and Hanniballian, Armenia
and Pontus, with the extraordinary name of king. The evidence of coins would
lead us to see in this measure a reconciliation of the two branches of the family.
The end of Constantine's eventful life was now at hand, and as some of his first
military services had been against the Persians, so now he was obliged at its close
to prepare for war against that people, though he never actually engaged in it (V.
C. iv. 57). The labarum had now been for many years the recognized standard
of the empire, wherever the emperor was present; and as in the time of the war with
Licinius, the monogram of Christ was in these last years largely stamped upon its
coins (see § VI.). Constantine made also other preparations for the use of religious
service in war, especially of a tent for his own chapel (V. C. iv. 56; Socr.
i. 18), and he had some time before taught his soldiers, heathen as well as Christian,
a common daily prayer, and ordered Sunday to be kept as a holy day (V. C.
iv. 19 and 20; L. C. ix. 10; cf. Cod. Th. II. 8, 1, in 321). At Easter
337 he completed and dedicated his great church of the Holy Apostles, in which he
desired to be buried. In the week that followed, his health, hitherto extremely
good, gave way, and he sought relief in the
III. Religious Policy.—The great change which makes the reign of Constantine an epoch in church history is the union between church and state, and the introduction of the personal interference of the emperor. The proximate cause of his great influence was the reaction of feeling which took place, when the civil governor, from being a persecutor or an instrument of persecution, became a promoter of Christianity. Something, no doubt, was owing to the teaching of Christian moralists as to submission to the powers that be, and to the general tendency towards a system of official subordination, of which the political constitution of Constantine is the great example. His success in establishing that constitution, without any serious opposition, seems to shew the temper of men's minds at the time, and the absence of individual prominence or independence of thought amongst either followers or opponents. This was true as well of the church as of the state. The great men who have left their mark on church organization and policy had either passed away, like St. Cyprian, or had not yet attained their full powers. The two seeming exceptions are Hosius bp. of Cordova and St. Athanasius. The first had great influence over the emperor, but probably lacked genius, and is but obscurely known to us. Athanasius, though he might have sympathized with some of the wide conceptions of Constantine, never came sufficiently into contact with him to overcome the prejudices raised against him by the courtiers; and the emperor could not really comprehend the importance of the points for which Athanasius was contending. The period, too, of Athanassiu's greatest activity was in the succeeding reign.
Constantine, therefore, was left very much to make his own way, and to be guided by his own principles or impulses. With regard to his religious policy we have an expression of his own, in his letter to Alexander and Arius, which may help us in our judgment of its merits (Eus. V. C. ii. 65). Two principles, he said, had guided his actions; the first to unify the belief of all nations with regard to the Divinity into one consistent form, the second to set in order the body of the world which was labouring as it were under a grievous sickness. Such, no doubt, were the real desires of Constantine, but he was too impulsive, too rude in intellect, too credulous of his own strength, to carry them out with patience, wisdom, and justice. We shall arrange the details of this policy under three heads:
(1) Acts of Toleration.—During the first period of his reign it is probable
that Constantine as well as Constantius Chlorus prevented any violent persecution.
His first public act of toleration, of which we have any certain record, was to
join together with Licinius in the edict issued by Galerius in 311 (given in
de M. P. 34 and more diffusely by Eus. H. E. viii. 17). The edict acknowledged
that persecution had failed, and gave permission to Christians to worship their
own God and rebuild their places of meeting, provided they did nothing contrary
to good order (contra disciplinam, misrendered
ἐπιστήμη in Eus.). The death of Galerius followed
almost directly, and in the spring or summer of 312 Constantine and Licinius promulgated
another edict perhaps not very different from that of Galerius. The text of it is
lost. It allowed liberty of worship, but specified certain hard conditions; amongst
others that no converts should be made from heathenism; that no sect outside "the
body of Christians, the Catholic Church," should be tolerated; that confiscated
property should not be restored, except, perhaps, the sites of churches. This edict,
issued before the conflict with Maxentius, contrasts strikingly with the much more
liberal edict of Milan issued in the spring of 313, which gave free toleration to
every religious body. The purport of this edict may be summed up thus: "We have
sometime perceived that liberty of worship must not be denied to Christians and
to all other men, but whereas in our former edict divers conditions were added,
which perhaps have been the cause of the defection of many from that observance,
we Constantine and Licinius, Augusti, meeting in Milan, decree that both Christians
and all other men soever should have free liberty to choose that form of worship
which they consider most suitable to themselves in order that the Divinity may be
able to give us and our subjects His accustomed goodwill and favour. We abolish
all those conditions entirely. Further for the body of the Christians in particular,
all places of meeting which belonged to them, and have since been bought by or granted
to others, are to be restored; and an indemnity may be claimed by the buyers or
grantees from our treasury; and the same we decree concerning the other corporate
property of the Christians. The execution of the law is committed to the civil magistrates,
and it is everywhere to be made public." The change of feeling here evinced was
more strongly marked in other documents that followed, which more peculiarly expressed
the mind of Constantine. The first in order is a letter to Anulinus, proconsul of
Africa, giving directions for the execution of the edict, in which the term "Catholic
Church" is substituted for that of "body of Christians" (Eus. H. E. x. 5,
15). Then follows
(2) The Donatist Schism.—The appeal of the Donatists brought Constantine directly into the heart of church controversies, and was the first occasion of his gradually growing interference. Though his relations with this schism form only an episode in its history, their consequences were important. The results were such a mixture of good and evil as seems inseparable from the union of church and state. The church profited by the development of her system of councils, and a general growth in organization and polity; the emperor gained a nearer insight into the feeling of the church; and the state obtained a most important support. On the other hand must be set the identification of the Catholic with the dominant and worldly church, and the precedent allowed of imperial interference in questions of schism. From the banishment of the Donatists for schism it was no great step to the persecutions of Arians and Catholics for heresy, and not much further to the execution of the Priscillianists by Magnus Maximus.
(3) The Arian Controversy.—The relation of the emperor to this great controversy
was the result of his last achievement of power. His complete victory over Licinius
in 323 brought him into contact with the controversies of his new dominions in the
East, just as his victory over Maxentius had led to the Donatist appeals in the
West. The first document which connects him with this controversy is a letter to
Alexander and Arius (Eus. V. C. ii. 64–72; Socr. i. 7 gives only the latter
half of it). He expresses his longing for "calm days and careless nights," and exhorts
the opponents to reconciliation. The whole had arisen from an unpractical question
stirred by Alexander, and from an inconsiderate opinion expressed by Arius. Again
and again he insists on the insignificance of the dispute (ὑπὲρ
μικρῶν καὶ λίαν ἐλαχίστων φιλονεικούντον—ὑπὲρ
τῶν ἐλαχίστων τούτων ζητήσεων ἀκριβολογεῖσθε, etc.), shewing in a remarkable
manner his own ignorance and self-confidence. This letter was sent by Hosius, but
naturally had no effect: though we are ignorant of his proceedings at Alexandria,
except that he combated Sabellianism (Socr. iii. 8, p. 394 Migne; Hefele, § 22).
Arius seems to have now written a letter of remonstrance, to which Constantine,
who was under other influences or in a different mood, replied in an extraordinary
letter of violent invective. The detailed history of this time is involved in difficulty,
but the expedient of a general council was a natural one both to the emperor and
to the church at large. The Meletian schism in Egypt and the Paschal controversy
required settlement, and in Constantine's mind the latter was equally important
with Arianism. The idea and its execution are ascribed to Constantine without any
mention of suggestions from others, except perhaps from Hosius (Sulpic. Sever.
Chron. ii. 40, "S. Nicaena Synodus auctore illo confecta habebatur"). He
sent complimentary letters in every direction, and gave the use of public carriages
and litters to the bishops. The year of the council is allowed to be 325, but the
day is much debated. Hefele discusses the various dates, and places the solemn opening
on June 14. (Councils, § 26). The bishops were arranged round a great hall in the
middle of the palace, when Constantine entered to open the proceedings, dressed
magnificently, and making a great impression by his stately presence, lofty stature,
and gentle and even modest demeanour. This is not the place to trace the course
of the discussions that followed. [Arius.]
Two points are deserving of note—first, the story of his burning the memorials and
recriminations of the different parties addressed to him; secondly, his relation
to the ὁμοούσιον. As to the first, it is said
that Constantine brought them into the synod in a sealed packet and threw them into
the fire, saying to the bishops: "You cannot be judged by a man like myself: such
things as these must wait till the great day of God's judgment," adding, according
to Socrates, "Christ has advised us to pardon our brother if we wish to obtain pardon
ourselves" (Socr. i. 8, p. 63 Migne; Soz. i. 17). His relation to the
ὁμοούσιον rests on the Ep. of Eusebius to his
own church, in which he gives an account of the synod to his own advantage (Socr.
i. 8; Theod. i. 12; Athan. Decret. Synod. Nic. 4). He gives the text of the
creed which he proposed to the council; and tells us that after it was read no one
got up to speak against it, but, on the contrary, the emperor praised it very highly
and exhorted everyone to embrace it with the addition only of one word—"consubstantial."
He then proceeded to comment on it, declaring that the word implied neither a corporeal
substance nor a division of the divine substance between the Father and the Son,
but was to be understood in a divine and mysterious sense. Though it is pretty clear
that the word ὁμοούσιος was in the minds of
the orthodox party throughout, they may have hesitated to propose it at first, as
its association with Paul of Samosata was provocative of much disputation. Hosius,
it may be, suggested to the emperor that the proposition should come from his lips.
He must have had some tuition in theological language from an orthodox theologian
before he could give the interpretation with which Eusebius credits him. When the
creed was finally drawn up, the emperor accepted it as inspired, and with his usual
vehemence in the cause of peace proceeded to inflict penalties upon the few who
still refused to sign it. He wished even to abolish the name of Arians and to change
it into Porphyrians (Ep. ad Ecclesias, Migne, p. 506; Socr. i. 9). Later
Constantine in his relations to Arianism was obviously the instrument for good as well as for evil. On the one hand, he acted with good intentions, and was able by the superiority of his position to take a wide view of the needs of the church; on the other he was very ignorant, self-confident, credulous, and violent. We know too little of the influences by which he was swayed: how, for instance, Hosius acquired and lost his ascendancy; what Eusebius of Caesarea really did; how Eusebius of Nicomedia obtained influence with the emperor in the last period of his life. We only know that the emperor, in his anxiety above all things for peace, was led to do violent acts of an inconsistent character that made peace impossible; but we must remember that he was living in an age of violent men.
For details of Constantine's relations with heathenism see especially: A. Beugnot, Hist. de la destruction du Paganisme en Occident, 2 vols. (Paris, 1835), an important and thoughtful book, unfortunately scarce; and E. Chastel, Hist. de la destruction du Paganisme dans l’Empire d’Orient (Paris, 1850)—both crowned by the Academy. Less important is Der Untergang des Hellenismus und die Entziehung seiner Tempelgüter durch die Christlichen Kaiser, by Ernst von Lasaulx (München, 1854).
IV. Character.—Constantine deserves the name of Great, whether we consider the political or the religious change that he effected, but he belongs to the second, rather than the first, order of great men. Notwithstanding his wide successes, and his tenacious grasp over the empire in which he worked such revolutions, notwithstanding his high sense of his own vocation and the grandeur of some of his conceptions, his personal character does not inspire us with admiration. With many of the impulses of greatness it remained to the last unformed and uncertain, and never lost a tinge of barbarism. He was wanting in the best heathen and Christian virtues; he had little of dignity, cultivation, depth, or tenderness. If we compared him with any great man of modern times it would rather be with Peter of Russia than with Napoleon.
V. Vision of the
.—The
question of the reality of this vision is perhaps the most unsatisfactory of the
many problems in the life of Constantine. The almost contemporary account of Lactantius
has been already mentioned; Life, period i.; from de M. P. 44: "Commonitus
est in quiete Constantinus ut caeleste signum Dei notaret in scutis atque ita proelium
committeret. Fecit ut jussus est et tranversa Χ
littera, summo capite circumflexo, Christum in scutis notat." This
took place on the night before the battle of the Milvian bridge. Eusebius's narrative
(V. C. i. 27–32) contrasts very strikingly with this. He represents Constantine
as looking about for some god to whom he should appeal for assistance in his campaign
against Maxentius, and as thinking of the god of his father Constantius. He besought
him in prayer to reveal himself, and received a sign, which the historian could
not distrust on the word and oath of the emperor given to himself many years later.
About the middle of the afternoon (for so the words seem to be best interpreted),
he saw with his own eyes the trophy of the cross figured in light standing above
the sun, and with the letters τούτῳ νίκα attached
to it. He and his army were seized with amazement, and he himself was in doubt as
to the meaning of the appearance. As he was long considering it night came on, and
in sleep Christ appeared to him with the sign that appeared in heaven, and ordered
him to make a standard of the same pattern. The next day he gave directions to artificers
how to prepare the labarum, which was adorned with gold and precious stones. Eusebius
describes it as he afterwards himself saw it. It consisted of a tall spear with
a bar crossing it, on the highest point of which was a
encircled with a crown,
while a square banner gorgeously embroidered hung from the cross bar, on the upper
part of which were the busts of the emperor and his sons. Constantine immediately
made inquiries of the priests as to the figure seen in his vision, and determined
with good hope to proceed under that protection.
Eusebius nowhere states exactly where or when this took place; his vague expressions seem to place it near the beginning of the campaign. The senate acknowledged an instinctus divinitatis and the contemporary panegyrist refers to divina praecepta in the campaign with Maxentius.
Another sort of divine encouragement is recorded later by the heathen panegyrist Nazarius in 321, c. 14. "All Gaul," he says, "speaks of the heavenly armies who proclaimed that they were sent to succour the emperor against Maxentius." "Flagrabant verendum nescio quid umbone corusci et caelestium armorum lux terribilis ardebat . . . Haec ipsorum sermocinatio, hoc inter audientes ferebant 'Constantinum petimus, Constantino imus auxilio.'" A distinct incident is added by the late and antagonistic Zosimus, but he tells us nothing of what happened to Constantine, only of a prodigious number of owls which flocked to the walls of Rome when Maxentius crossed the Tiber (ii. 16).
On the Christian side the only independent account of later date seems to be
that of Sozomen, i. 3, who afterwards gives the account of Eusebius. "Having determined
to make an expedition against Maxentius, he was naturally doubtful of the event
of the conflict and of the assistance he should have. While he was in this anxiety
he saw in a dream the sign of the cross flashing in the sky, and as he was
That something took place during the campaign with Maxentius which fixed Constantine's mind upon Christ as his protector and upon the cross as his standard, no unprejudiced person can deny. It is equally certain that he believed he had received this intimation by divine favour and as a divine call. Those who give him credit for inventing the whole story out of political considerations totally misapprehend his character. But two questions obviously remain to be discussed: (1) Which account is to be preferred, that of Eusebius or Sozomen? (2) Can we speak of the circumstance as a miracle?
(1) Eusebius's account, being the most striking and resting on the authority
of the emperor, has been most popularly received. It is open to obvious difficulties,
arising from the silence of contemporaries and the lateness of the testimony. Dr.
J. H. Newman, in his Essay on Ecclesiastical Miracles, has said perhaps all
that can be said for Eusebius. He thinks it probable that the panegyrist of 313
refers to this vision as the adverse omen which he will pass over and not raise
unpleasant recollections by repeating (cap. 2)—for the cross would be to Romans
generally a sign of dismay, and Constantine (says Eusebius) was at first much distressed
in mind with regard to it. The panegyrist also praises Constantine for proceeding
"contra haruspicum monita," and asserts "habes profecto aliquod cum ills mente divina,
Constantine, secretum, quae, delegate nostri diis minoribus cure, uni se tibi dignetur
ostendere?" Optatian also, writing c. 326, though he does not mention the
vision, speaks of the cross as "caeleste signum." Those modern writers too, who
think of a solar halo or parhelion as an explanation, prefer the account of Eusebius.
J. A. Fabricius was perhaps the first to offer this explanation (Exercitatao
Critics de Cruce Const. Mag. in his Bibliotheca Graeca, vol. vi.), which
is followed by Manso, Milman, Stanley, Heinichen, and others.
(2) Can this sign be considered a miracle? The arguments for this conclusion are well put by Newman. He shews that little or nothing is gained by explaining the circumstances as a natural phenomenon or a subjective vision, if once we allow it to be providential; and that a priori this seems a fitting juncture for a miracle to have been worked. "It was first a fitting rite of inauguration when Christianity was about to take its place among the powers to whom God has given rule over the earth; next it was an encouragement and direction to Constantine himself and to the Christians who marched with him; but it neither seems to have been intended nor to have operated as a display of divine power to the confusion of infidelity or error" (§ 155). Newman seems to be right in arguing that nothing is gained—in regard to difficulties like this—by transferring the event from the category of miracle to that of special Providence.
Constantinus II., the eldest son of Constantine the Great by Fausta, born a.d. 312, was made Caesar in 316 together with Crispus, and his quinquennalia were celebrated by the panegyric of Nazarius in 321. At the death of his father, the empire being redivided, Constantine as the eldest son seems to have claimed Constantinople, but this was over ruled, and he was placed over the West. Constantine thus came into contact with St. Athanasius in his exile at Trèves, and at once took him under his protection. [Athanasius.] In 340 Constantine invaded the dominions of Constans and penetrated into Lombardy, where he was killed in a small engagement. His dominions then went to Constans, who thus ruled the entire West. Of his character we know little or nothing. He appears to have been a staunch Catholic, but his attack upon the dominions of his brother Constans does not put his character in a favourable light. His short reign makes him very unimportant.
Constantius I. Flavius Valerius, surnamed Chlorus (ὁ
Χλωρός, "the pale"), Roman emperor,
A.D. 305, 306, father of Constantine the Great, son of Eutropius, of a noble
Dardanian family, by Claudia, daughter of Crispus, brother of the emperors Claudius
II. and Quintilius. Born c. a.d. 250.
Distinguished by ability, valour, and virtue, Constantius became governor of Dalmatia
under the emperor Carus, who was prevented by death from making him his successor.
Diocletian (emperor, a.d. 284–305), to lighten
the cares of empire, associated Maximian with himself; and arranged that each emperor
should appoint a co-regent Caesar. Constantius was thus adopted by Maximian, and
Galerius by Diocletian, (
Constantius II., son of Constantius the Great, was the second of the sons of Fausta, born at Sirmium Aug. 6, 317, and emperor 337–361. De Broglie remarks of him (iii. pp. 7, 8), "of the sons of Constantine he was the one who seemed best to reproduce the qualities of his father. Although very small in stature, and rendered almost deformed by his short and crooked legs, he had the same address as his father in military exercises, the same patience under fatigue, the same sobriety in diet, the same exemplary severity in all that had regard to continence. He put forward also, with the same love for uncontrolled preeminence, the same literary and theological pretensions: he loved to shew off his eloquence and to harangue his courtiers." Victor, Caes. 42, speaks well of Constantius: the writer of the Epitome credits him with some virtues but speaks of the eunuchs, etc., who surrounded him, and of the adverse influence of his wife Eusebia. Ammianus (xxi. 16) gives an elaborate and balanced character of Constantius which seems to be fair. The Christian writers were naturally not partial to an emperor who leaned so constantly towards Arianism and was such a bitter persecutor of the Nicene faith, and did not scruple to call him Ahab, Pilate, and Judas. St. Athanasius nevertheless addressed him in very complimentary terms in the apology which he composed as late as 356. Constantius was not baptized till his last year, yet interfered in church matters with the most arrogant pretensions.
Period i., 337–350.—Constantine II., Constans, Constantius II., Augusti.—On the death of Constantine, Constantius hurried to Constantinople for the funeral of his father. The armies, says Eusebius, declared unanimously that they would have none but his sons to succeed him (V. C. iv. 68)—to the exclusion, therefore, of his nephews Dalmatius and Hannibalian. There followed shortly after a general massacre of the family of Constantius Chlorus and Theodora. Many writers, and those of such distinct views as St. Athanasius, Ammianus, and Zosimus as well as Julian, openly charge Constantius with being the author of this great crime, others imply only that he allowed it. Constantine and Constans are in no way implicated in it. A new division of empire followed; for which purpose the brothers met at Sirmium. Speaking generally, Constantine had the west, Constans the centre, and Constantius the East.
From the division of empire between Constans and Constantius we must date the beginnings of separation of the churches. The Eastern church recovered indeed at length from Arian and semi-Arian influences, but the habit of division had been formed and varieties of theological conception became accentuated; then the Roman church grew rapidly in power and independence, having no rival of any pretensions in the West, while in the East the older apostolic sees were gradually subordinated to that of Constantinople, and the whole church was constantly distracted by imperial interference.
Constantius was especially ready to intervene. In 341, in deference to the Dedication
Council of Antioch, he forcibly intruded one Gregorius into the see of Alexandria;
in 342 he sent his magister equitum, Hermogenes, to drive Paulus from Constantinople,
but he did not confirm Macedonius, the rival claimant (Socr. ii. 13). These events
took place while St. Athanasius was received with honour at the court of Constans,
for whose use he had prepared some books of Holy Scripture (Athan. Apolog. ad
Const. 4). Constans determined to convoke another oecumenical council, and obtained
his brother's concurrence. The place fixed upon was Sardica, on the frontier of
the Eastern and Western empires, where about 170 bishops met in 343. Then occurred
the first great open rupture between East and West, the minority consisting of Western
bishops siding with St. Athanasius, while the Eastern or Eusebian faction seceded
to Philippopolis across the border. After the dissolution of the council Constans
still attempted to enforce the decrees of Sardica, by requiring of his brother the
restoration of Athanasius and Paulus, threatening force if it was refused (Socr.
ii. 22; Soz. iii. 20). The shameful plots of the Arian bp. of Antioch, Stephen,
against the messengers of Constans were happily discovered, and the faith of Constantius
in the party was somewhat shaken (St. Athan. Hist. Arian. ad mon. 20; Theod.
ii. 9, 10). The pressure of the war with Persia no doubt inclined him to avoid anything
like a civil war, and be put a stop to some of the Arian persecutions. Ten months
later—after the death of the intruded Gregory—he invited St. Athanasius to return
to his see, which Athanasius did in 346, after a curious interview with the emperor
at Antioch (see the letters in Socr. ii. 23 from Athan. Apol. c. Arianos,
54 f.). Other exiled bishops were likewise restored. In the West, meanwhile, Constans
was occupied with the Donatists, whose case had been one of the
Period ii., 350–361. Constantius sole Augustus.—The usurpation of Magnentius in Gaul seems to have been largely a movement of paganism against Christianity and of the provincial army against the court. It was closely followed by another, that of Vetranio in Illyria. We need not follow the strange history of these civil wars, nor recount in detail how Vetranio was overcome by the eloquence of Constantius in 350, and Magnentius beaten in the bloody battle of Mursa, Sept. 351, that cost the Roman empire 50,000 men. Between these two events Constantius named his cousin, Gallus, Caesar and attended the first council of Sirmium. Some time before the battle he must have received the letter from St. Cyril of Jerusalem, describing a cross of light which appeared "on May 7, about the third hour," "above the holy Golgotha and stretching as far as the holy mount of Olives," and seen by the whole city. St. Cyril praises Constantius and reports this marvel as an encouragement to him in his campaign. The genuineness of the letter has however been doubted, especially from the word "consubstantial" appearing in the doxology at the end. At the time of the battle of Mursa Constantius came much under the influence of Valens, the temporizing bishop of the place, who pretended that the victory was revealed to him by an angel, and from this time he appears more distinctly as a persecutor of the Nicene faith, which he endeavoured to crush in the West. His general character also underwent a change for the worse after the unexpected suicide of Magnentius, which put him in sole possession of the empire. It is difficult to say whether he appears to least advantage in the pages of Ammianus or of St. Athanasius. It would take too long to recount the disgraceful proceedings at the council of Arles in 353, where the legates of the new Pope Liberius were misled, or at Milan in 355, when Constantius declared that his own will should serve the Westerns for a canon as it had served the Syrian bishops, and proceeded to banish and imprison no less than 147 of the chief orthodox clergy and laity (Hist. Ar. ad Mon. 33, etc.; see De Broglie, iii. p. 263). The most important sufferers were Eusebius of Vercelli, Lucifer of Cagliari, and Dionysius of Milan. Soon after followed the exile of Liberius, and in 355 that of Hosius. All this was intended to lead up to the final overthrow of Athanasius. Early in 356, Syrianus, the duke of Egypt, began the open persecution of the Catholics at Alexandria, and Constantius, when appealed to, confirmed his actions and sent Heraclius to hand over all the churches to the Arians, which was done with great violence and cruelty (Hist. Ar. 54.). George of Cappadocia was intruded into the see, and Athanasius was forced to hide in the desert. In the same year Hilary of Poictiers was banished to Phrygia.
Meanwhile Constantius had been carrying on a persecution of even greater rigour against the adherents of Magnentius, which is described by Ammianus (xiv. 5), whose history begins at this period. His suspicions were also aroused against his cousin Gallus, whose violence and misgovernment in the East, especially in Antioch, were notorious. The means by which Constantius lured him into his power and then beheaded him are very characteristic (Amm. xiv. 11). At the end of the same year, 355, he determined to make his younger brother, Julian, Caesar in his place, putting him over the provinces of Gaul, and marrying him to his sister Helena.
In the church worse things were yet to come: the fall of Hosius, who accepted the creed of the second council of Sirmium, then that of Liberius, the first after torture and severe imprisonment, the second after two years of melancholy exile, both in 357. Of the numerous councils and synods at this time, the most famous and important was that of Rimini in 359, in conjunction with one in the East at Seleucia, when the political bishops succeeded in carrying an equivocal creed approved by the emperor, and omitting the homoousion. Constantius, tired of the long controversy, attempted to enforce unity by imposing the formula of Rimini everywhere, and a number of bishops of various parties were deposed (Soz. iv. 23, 24). In 360 Julian was proclaimed Augustus by his army, and proposed a division of the empire, which Constantius did not accept (Amm, xx. 8). A civil war was impending: Constantius was at first contemptuous, but ere long began to be haunted with fears of death, and caused himself to be baptized by Euzoius, the Arian bp. of Antioch. He expired, after a painful illness, at Mopsucrene at the foot of mount Taurus, Nov. 4., 361 (Socr. ii. 47; Amm. xxi. 15). He was at least three times married: in 352 or 353, after the successful issue of the civil war, to Aurelia Eusebia, a very beautiful, accomplished, and gentle lady, but an Arian, who had great influence with him. She died some time before the usurpation of Julian. Besides his wives, on whom he was accustomed to lean, his chief adviser was the eunuch Eusebius, of whom Ammianus says so sarcastically, "apud quem, si vere dici debet, multum Constantius potuit." He also trusted much to a detestable man the notary Paulus, nicknamed Catena. Another of the same class was Mercurius, called Comes Somniorum. These men, with an army of spies (curiosi), organized a reign of terror for three years after the overthrow of Magnentius, especially in Britain, acting particularly on the laws against sacrifice and magic (cf. Liban. pro Aristophane, i. p. 430).
Laws in Favour of Christianity.—These will
Relations to Heathenism.—The state of things that we have seen in the last years of Constantine continued during his son's reign. There was the same disposition on the part of the empire to put down paganism and the same elements of reaction. In the West, especially in Rome, real heathenism still retained much of its vitality and still swayed the minds of the aristocracy and the populace; in the East the supporters of the old religion were the philosophers and rhetoricians, men more attached to its literary and artistic associations than prepared to defend polytheism as a creed. They were mixed up with another class, the theurgists, practisers of a higher kind of magic which was particularly attractive to Julian. The following laws from the tenth title of book xvi. of the Theodosian code relate distinctly to heathen sacrifice. Sec. 2, in 341, issued by Constantius, says: "Cesset superstitio, sacrificiorum aboleatur insania," and refers to the law of Constantine noticed above. A year or two later (the date is uncertain and wrongly given in the code), Constantius and Constans ordered the temples in Roman territory to be kept intact for the pleasure of the Roman people, though all "superstition" is to be eradicated; almost at the same time they issued a law to the praetorian prefect inflicting death and confiscation on persons sacrificing. In 353 Constantius forbade the "nocturna sacrificia" permitted by Magnentius: in 356 he and Julian made it capital to sacrifice or worship images.
Cornelius (2), bp. of Rome, successor of Fabianus, said to have been son of Castinus. After the martyrdom of Fabianus in Jan. 250, in the Decian persecution, the see remained vacant for a year and a half. In June, a.d. 251, Cornelius was elected to the vacant post; and, although very reluctantly, he accepted an election almost unanimously made by both orders, during the life of a tyrant who had declared that he would rather see a new pretender to the empire than a new bishop of Rome (Cyprian., Ep. Iii.). Decius was at that time absent from Rome, prosecuting the Gothic war which ended in his death in the winter of the same year. The persecution of the Christians thus came to an end; but then arose the difficult question of how to treat the libellatici, Christians who had bought their life by the acceptance of false certificates of having sacrificed to heathen gods. Cornelius took a line at variance with that of Cyprian and the church of Carthage, which required rigorous penance as the price of readmission, while Rome prescribed milder terms. The difference was kept alive by the discontent of the minority within both the churches. This was represented at Carthage by Novatus, who separated from the church when unable to obtain less harsh terms; in Rome by a man of similar name, Novatian, who was in favour of greater rigour than the church would allow. Novatus crossed the sea to aid Novatian in designs at Rome which must have been directly opposed to his own at Carthage. Mainly by his influence Novatian was consecrated a bishop, and thus constituted the head of a schismatic body in Rome. Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. vi. 43) quotes from a letter of bp. Cornelius to bp. Fabius of Antioch, in which he gives an account of his rival, with statistics as to the number of Roman clergy in his day. These were 46 priests, 7 deacons, 7 subdeacons, 42 acolytes, 52 exorcists, 52 readers and ostiarii; 1,500 widows and orphans were provided for by the church.
The Novatianist heresy gave rise to a correspondence between Cyprian and Cornelius. Persecution was revived in Rome by Gallus, and Cornelius, followed by almost the whole church (among whom were many restored libellatics), took refuge at Centumcellae in Etruria. There Cornelius died, and another bishop, Lucius, was at the head of the church when it returned. It is doubtful whether Cornelius died a violent death. Cyprian and Jerome both speak of him as a martyr. He died Sept. 14, 252. His name as a martyr has been found in the Catacombs at some little distance from those of other popes, and in a cemetery apparently devoted almost exclusively to the gens Cornelia, whence De Rossi argues that he probably belonged to that patrician gens (Roma Sotterranea, by Northcote and Brownlow, pp. 177–183).
Cosmas (1) and Damianus, brothers, physicians, "silverless" martyrs. They became types of a class, the ἀνάργυροι, "silverless" martyrs, i.e. physicians who took no fees, but went about curing people gratis, and claiming as their reward that those whom they benefited should believe in Christ. They were certainly not earlier than the last quarter of the 3rd cent., and the legends of martyrs of that time, whose fame is known only by popular tradition, seem in many cases to succeed naturally to the place of those heathen myths that were slowest to die. For Hercules, Christopher; for Apollo, Sebastian; for Diana, Ursula; for Proserpine, Agnes. Cosmas and Damian take the place of Aesculapius, in whose story heathenism made the nearest approach to Christianity. The Greeks distinguished three pairs of these brothers. (1) July 1, in the time of Carinus; (2) Oct. 27, Arabs, with their brothers, Anthimus, Leontius, and Euprepius, martyred under Diocletian; (3) Nov. 1, sons of Theodote. (Menol.) For the legends connected with them see D. C. B. (4-vol. ed.). The names were early inserted in the Canon of the Mass.
Cosmas (3), surnamed Indicopleustes (Indian navigator), a native
of Egypt, probably of Alexandria (lib. ii. 114, vi. 264), originally a merchant
(lib. ii. 132, iii. 178, xi. 336), who flourished about the middle of the 6th cent.
In pursuit of his mercantile business he navigated the Mediterranean, Red Sea, and
Persian
The chief design of the Christian Topography is "to confute the impious heresy of those who maintain that the earth is a globe, and not a flat oblong table, as is represented in the Scriptures" (Gibbon, Decline and Fall, c. xlvii. § i. note i.). The old objections of the Epicureans are revived, and the plane surface is not circular as with Thales, but a parallelogram twice as long as broad, surrounded by the ocean. Its length from E. to W. is 12,000 miles; its breadth from N. to S. 6,000. The parallelogram is symmetrically divided by four gulfs; the Caspian (which joins the Ocean), the Arabian (Red Sea), the Persian, and that of the Romans (Mediterranean). Beyond the ocean, on each side of the interior continent, lies another land, in which is the Garden of Eden. Here men lived till the Deluge, when Noah and his family crossed the intervening flood in the Ark, and peopled the present world. The rivers of Paradise he supposes to run under the sea, Alpheus-like, and to reappear in our earth. The Nile is the Gihon of Eden. The whole area is surrounded by lofty perpendicular walls, from the summit of which the sky stretches from N. to S. in a cylindrical vault, meeting similar vaults at either extremity (lib. iv. 186, 187). Our author divides this huge vaulted chamber into lower, second, and third stories. The dead occupy the nethermost division; the middle compartment is the home of the living; the uppermost, that of the blessed. Heaven is divided from the lower regions by a solid firmament, through which Christ penetrated—and that is the Kingdom of Heaven (lib. iv. 186–188). The vicissitudes of day and night are caused by a mountain of enormous bulk, rising at the N. extremity of the oblong area. Behind this the sun passes in the evening, and reappears on the other side in the morning. The conical shape of the mountain produces the variation in the length of the night; as the sun rises higher above, or sinks down towards the level of the earth. Eclipses are due to the same cause. The round shadow on the moon's disk is cast by the domical summit of the mountain (lib. iv. 188).
The views on cosmography thus propounded, absurd and irrational as they appear
to us, were those generally entertained by the Fathers of the church. Pinning their
faith on the literal meaning of the words of Scripture according to its traditional
interpretation, they deduced a system which had for them all the authority of a
divine revelation, any departure from which was regarded as impious and heretical.
The arguments by which Cosmas supports his theory are chiefly built on isolated
passages of Scripture, as interpreted by the early Fathers. Some, however, are drawn
from reason and the nature of the case—e.g, the absurdity of the supposition
of the existence of antipodean regions, inasmuch as the beings on the other side
of the world must drop off, and the rain would fall upwards instead of downwards;
while the supposed rotatory motion of the universe is disproved by the disturbance
that would be caused to the repose of the blessed in heaven by their being perpetually
whirled through space. Cosmas denounces as heretics those who, following the false
lights of science, venture to maintain opposite views, and speaks in terms of strongest
condemnation of "men who assume the name of Christians, and yet in contempt of Holy
Scripture join with the pagans in asserting that the heavens are spherical. Such
assertions are among the weapons hurled at the church. Inflamed by pride as if they
were wiser than others, they profess to explain the movements of the heavens by
geometrical and astronomical calculations" (lib. i. Prolog.). One of his strongest
arguments in support of his plan of the universe is drawn from the form of the Tabernacle
of Witness, which the words ἅγιον κοσμικόν
(
The subjects of the 12 books are: (1) Against those who claim to be Christians, and assert with pagans that the earth is spherical. (2) The Christian hypothesis as to the figure and position of the universe proved from Scripture. (3) The agreement on these points of the O.T. and N.T. (4) A brief recapitulation, and a description of the figure of the universe according to Scripture, and a confutation of the sphere. (5) A description of the Tabernacle and the agreement of the Prophets and Apostles. (6) The magnitude of the sun (7) The duration of the heavens. (8) Hezekiah's song, and the retrogression of the sun. (9) The course of the stars. (10) Testimonies of the Fathers, including 11 citations from the Festal Epistles of Athanasius, and other important Patristic fragments. (11) A description of the animals of India, and of the island of Ceylon. (12) Testimonies of heathen writers to the antiquity of Holy Scripture.
Setting aside the absurdities of his cosmographical system Cosmas is one of the
His remarks on Scripture manifest a not altogether uncommon mixture of credulity
and good sense. He mentions that, to the discomfiture of unbelievers, the marks
of the chariot wheels of the Egyptians were still visible at Clysma, where the
Israelites crossed the Red Sea (v. 194); but he explains the supposed miraculous
preservation of the garments of the Israelites (
A full account of this work is given by Photius (Cod. xxxvi.), under the inappropriate title Ἑρμηνεία εἰς Ὀκτάτευχον, but without the author's name. From this, Fabricius very needlessly questions whether the author was really named Cosmas, or whether that was an appellation coined to suit the subject of the work, like that of Joannes Climacus. Photius censures the homeliness of the style, which he considers hardly to approach mediocrity. But elegance or refinement of diction is not to be expected from a writer, who, in his own words (lib. ii. 124), destitute of literary training and entangled in business, had devoted his whole life to mercantile pursuits, and had to contend against the disadvantages of very infirm health and weak eyesight, incapacitating him for lengthened study. We learn from his own writings that Cosmas also wrote:
(1) A Cosmographia Universalis, dedicated to a certain Constantine (lib. i. 113), the loss of which is lamented with tears by Montfaucon.
(2) A work on the motions of the universe and the heavenly bodies, dedicated to the deacon Homologus (lib. i. 114, vii. 274).
(3) Ὑπομνήματα on the Canticles, dedicated to Theophilus (lib. vii. 300).
(4) Exposition of the more difficult parts of the Psalms (Du Cange, Gloss. Graec. s.v. Ἰνδικοπλευστής; Bibl. Coislin. p. 244).
(Montfaucon, Collect. Nov. Pat. Gk. (Paris, 1706), vol. ii. 113–346; Gallandi, Bibl. Vet. Patr. (Ven. 1765), vol. ix.; Cave, Hist. Lit. i. 515; Fabric. Bibl. Graec. lib. iii. 25; Vincent, Commerce, ii. 505–511, 533–537, 567; Bredow, Strabo, ii. 786–797; Thevenot, Coll. des voyages, vol. i.; Gosselin, Géogr. syst. des Grecs, iii. 274; Mannert, Einleit. in der Geogr. d. Alien, 188–192; Charton, Voyages, vol. ii.)
Cyprianus (1) Thascius Caecilius. Name.—He is styled Thascius Cyprianus by the proconsul (Vit. Pontii), and styles himself "Cyprianus qui et Thascius" in the singular heading of Ep. 66. He took the name Caecilius, according to Jerome (Cat. Ill. Vir. v.), from the presbyter who converted him, and is called Caecilius Cyprianus in the proscription (Ep. 66).
Cyprian was an orator, and afterwards even
His conversion was then important in the series of men of letters and law who were at this time added to the church, and who so markedly surpass in style and culture their heathen contemporaries. Pearson rightly sets aside the inference of Baronius (from De Dei gratia) that Cyprian was old at his conversion, but that he was so seems to be stated, however obscurely, by Pontius (c. 2, "adhuc rudis fidei et cui nondum forsitan crederetur supergressus vetustatis actatem"). Christian doctrines, especially that of regeneration, had previously excited his wonder, but not his derision (ad Don. iii. iv.). He was converted by an aged presbyter, Caecilian. During his catechesis he analysed and conversed with the circle about him on Scripture Lives, devoted himself to chastity, and sold some estates and distributed the proceeds to the poor. He composed, in his Quod Idola dii non sint, a Christian assault on Polytheism, freely compiling the 1st and 2nd sections of his tract from Minucius, § 20–27, § 18, § 32, and his 3rd section from Tertullian's Apology, § 21–23, with some traces of Tert. de Anima naturaliter Christiana. A comparison of this pamphlet with the originals well illustrates his ideal of style. He mainly retains the very language, but erases whatever seemed rugged, ambiguous, or strained. He maintains a historical kernel of mythology, points out the low character of indigenous Roman worship; illustrates the activity of deluding daemons from the scenes at exorcisms, of which, however, he scarcely seems (as Tertullian does) to have been an eyewitness. He contrasts this with the doctrine of Divine unity, which he describes nobly, but illustrates infelicitously. The history of Judaism, its rejection of its Messiah, and the effects which Christianity is producing in the individual and commencing on society bring him to his new standpoint. He is perhaps the first writer who uses the continuous sufferings of believers as evidence of their credibility. This restatement and co-ordination of previous arguments was probably not ineffective, but as yet Cyprian exhibits no conception that Christianity is to be a world-regenerating power. He deliberately excludes providence from history (Quod Id. v.).
At the Easter following, the season most observed in Africa for this purpose, he was probably baptized, and to the autumn after we refer the ad Donatum, a monologue, a brief Tusculan held in his own villa, on The Grace of God. It already exhibits Cyprian not as a spiritual analyst or subtle theologian, but irrefragable in his appeals to the distinctly New Life which has appeared in the world, amid the contemporary degradations—the repudiation of the responsibility of wealth, the disruption of the client-bond, the aspect of the criminal classes, the pauperization of the mass, and the systematic corruption by theatre and arena. For the present, however, withdrawal from the world into Christian circles is the only remedy in which he can hope. "Divine Grace" is an ascertained psychological fact, and this, though as yet narrow in application, is the subject of the treatise.
He soon after sold, for the benefit of the poor, his horti, which some wealthy friends bought up afterwards and presented to him again. Meantime he resided with Caecilian. We can only understand the expression of Pontius (who lived similarly as a deacon with Cyprian), "erat sane illi etiam de nobis contubernium . . . Caeciliani," to mean that he was at that time "of our body," the diaconate. We find other instances of the closeness of this bond. Baronius and Bp. Fell are equally inexcusable in understanding what is said of Caecilian's family and of Job's wife as having any bearing upon the question of Cyprian's celibacy. There is no indication of his having been married. Caecilian at his death commended his family to him, although not as officially curator or tutor, which would have contradicted both Christian and Roman usage.
His Ordination.—His activity while a member of the ordo or concessus of presbyters is noticed, but he was yet a neophyte when he became bishop. The step was justified on the ground of his exceptional character, but the opposition organized by five presbyters was now and always a serious difficulty to him. The Plebes would listen to no refusal, and frustrated an attempt to escape. He subsequently rests his title (Ep. 43, Ep. 66, Vit.) on their suffrages, and on the "judicium Dei," with the consensus of his fellow bishops. In ordinary cases he treats the election by neighbour bishops as necessary to a valid episcopate (Ep. 57, v.; Ep. 59, vii.; Ep. 66). From this time Cyprian is usually addressed both by others and by the Roman clergy as Papa, though the title is not attributed to the bp. of Rome until long after. An earlier instance of the use of the name occurs at Alexandria, but probably the first application of the name is traceable to Carthage. Some time between July 248 and April 249 Cyprian became bishop, a few months before the close of the "thirty years' peace" of the church.
His Theory of the Episcopal Office seems to have been his own already,
and as it supplies the key to his conception of church government may be stated
at once. The episcopate
The stress laid on the responsibility of the laity is very great. Though the virtue of the office is transmitted by another channel, it is they who, by the "aspiration of God," address to each bishop his call to enter on that "priesthood" and its grace, and it is their duty to withdraw from his administration if he is a "sinner" (Ep. 67). The bishops do not co-opt into or enlarge their own college. Each is elected by his own Plebes. Hence he is the embodiment of it. "The bishop is in the church and the church in the bishop." They have no other representatives in councils; he is naturally their "member." These views appear fully developed in his first epistle, and in the application of texts in his early Testimonies; it is incredible that they should have been borrowed from paganism, and unhistorical to connect them with Judaizers. They are (although Cyprian does not dwell on this aspect) not incompatible with a recognition of the priesthood of the laity as full as that of Tertullian. The African episcopate had declined in character during the long peace; many bishops were engaged in trade, agriculture, or usury, some were conspicuously fraudulent or immoral or too ignorant to instruct catechumens and avoid using heretical compositions in public prayers (de Laps. 4; Ep. 65, iii.; Auct. de Rebapt. ix.; Aug. c. Don. vii. 45; Resp. ad Epp. [Sedatus]). Similarly among the presbyters strange occupations were possible (Tert. de Idol. cc. 7–9) and unmarried deacons shared their chambers with spiritual sisters who maintained their chastity to be unimpaired. The effect of the persecution was salutary on this state of things, and was felt to be so. To the eighteen months of "peace" which remained belong his Epp. 1–4, and the treatise on the dress of virgins, which answers to his description of his employment as "serving discipline" during that interval. In three of the letters his authority is invoked beyond his diocese, and wears something of a metropolitan aspect. Otherwise it is to be noticed that the African bishops rank by seniority. To these letters Mr. Shepherd has taken objections, which, if valid, would be fatal to the genuineness of much of the Cyprianic correspondence; but a rigorous investigation of those objections is conclusive in favour of the epistles.
De Habitu Virginum.—Many Christian women lived, as a "work of piety," the self-dedicated life of virgins in their own homes. Tertullian had killed the fashion of going unveiled, which some had claimed as symbolic of childlike innocence, yet with the avowed object of rendering their order attractive. Vanity, sentiment, and the sense of security were still mischievous elements, and Cyprian writes mainly against the extravagant fashions, half Roman, half Tyrian, in which the wealthier sisters appeared. His book, though in language drawing largely from Tertullian's treatise of similar title, resembles much more in matter and aim his Cultus Feminarum. Cyprian is here so minute and fastidious in his reduction of the violent rhetoric of Tertullian that this might almost pass for a masterly study of writing; and Augustine regards it as a very perfect work, drawing from it illustrations both of the "grand" and of the "temperate" style (Aug. de Doctrina Christiana, bk. iv. pp. 78, 86). In estimating the probable influence of this booklet on ascetic life, it is not satisfactory to find that the incentives used are partly low and partly overstrained—the escape from married troubles, espousals with Christ, higher rank in the resurrection; while efficiency in works of charity, the power of purity, self-sacrifice and intercession, are not dwelt upon.
Testimonia ad Quirinum, libb. iii.—These, though not certainly belonging to this time are more like his work now than afterwards They are texts compiled for a layman (filius). I. in 24 heads on the succession of the Gentile to the Jewish church. II. 30 heads on the Deity, Messiahship, and salvation of Christ. III. 120 on Christian duty. The skill and toil of such a selection are admirable. The importance of the text in elucidation of the Latin versions then afloat is immense, and Hartel is quite dissatisfied with what he has been able to contribute to this object (Hartel, Praefat. Cyp. p. xxiii.).
Decian Persecution.—Cyprian's conviction of the need of external chastisements
for the worldliness of the church was supported by intimations which he felt to
be supernatural. The edict which began to fulfil them in the end of
a.d. 249 aimed at effecting its work by the
removal of leaders, and at first fixed capital penalties on the bishops only (Rettberg,
p. 54; Ep. 66, vii.). Monotheism, even when licensed (like Judaism), had
an anti-national aspect, and Christianity could not be a licita religio,
simply because it was not the established worship of any locality or race. In this,
and in the fact that torture was applied to procure not (as in other accusations)
confession but denial of the charge (Apol. ii.; Cyp. ad Demet. xii.
m), in the encouragement of delation as to private meetings (Dig. xlviii.
4; Cod. ix. 8, iv. vi. vii.), and in the power given to magistrates under
standing edicts to apply the test of sacrifice at any moment to a neighbourhood
or a person, lay the various unfairnesses of which Tertullian and Cyprian complain.
Dionysius of Alexandria, and with him Origen, Gregory Thaumaturgus, Maximus of Nola,
Babylas of Antioch, Alexander of Jerusalem, Fabian of Rome, were all attacked, the
last three martyred. There was no fanaticism of martyrdom as yet. It seemed wrong
to expose a successor to instant death, and no bishop was elected for 16 months
at Rome. Like the former three, Cyprian placed himself (before the end of Jan.;
Lipsius, Röm. Bisch.
The Lapsi.—Five commissioners in each town and the proconsul on circuit (Epp. 43, iii.; 10; 56) administered the Decian edict. The sufferings by torture, stifling imprisonments, and even fire (14, 21) were very severe (Ep. 22). Women and boys were among the victims. Exile and confiscation were employed. In the first terror there was a large voluntary abjuration of Christianity, whether literally by "the majority of his flock" (Ep. 11) may be uncertain, but Cyprian felt himself "seated in the ruins of his house." Scenes of painful vividness are touched in, but these must be passed by. Many of the clergy fell or fled, leaving scarcely enough for the daily duty of the city (Epp. 34, iv.; 40; 29), as did many provincial bishops (Epp. 11, 59). Different classes of those who conformed were the Thurificati, Sacrificati (the more heinous) (Ep. 59), and LIBELLATICI, (q.v. in D. C. A., as also LIBELLI), whose self-excision was less palpable. Of this class there were some thousands (Ep. 24).
Formation of a General Policy.—Cyprian from his retirement guided the policy of the whole West upon the tremendous questions of church communion which now arose. (1) Indifferentism offered the lapsed an easy return by means of indulgences from, or in the names of, martyrs. (2) Puritanism barred all return. The Roman clergy first essayed to deal with the question in conjunction with the clergy of Carthage independently of Cyprian, whose absence they invidiously deplore (Ep. viii.). Their letter was returned to them by Cyprian himself, with some caustic remarks on its style (which are singularly incorrect; see Hartel's Praefatio, xlviii.) as well as on the irregularity of the step. After this an altered tone, and Novatian's marked style, is discernible in their letters (Epp. 30 and? 36).
The granting of indulgences (not by that name) to lapsed persons, by confessors and martyrs, which had been first questioned and then sharply criticised by Tertullian (ad Mart. 1; de Pudic. 22), grew very quickly under the influence of some of those clergy who had opposed Cyprian's election. The veneration for sufferers who seemed actually to be the saviours of Christianity was intense, and many heads were turned by the adulatory language of their greatest chiefs (cf. Ep. x. 24). Their libelli would presently have superseded all other terms of communion.
A strange document (Ep. 23) is extant in the form of an absolution to "all the lapsed" from "all the confessors," which the bishops are desired to promulgate. Rioters in some of the provincial towns extorted communion from their presbyters (Ep. 27, iii.). At Rome itself the influence of Novatian with the confessors created a tendency to strictness rather than indulgence, and there were no such disorders, but they prevailed elsewhere (Epp. 27, 31, 32 ; Ep. 30, iv. q. ; 30, vii.). Cyprian at once proposed by separate letters to his clergy and laity (to whom he writes with warm confidence), to various bishops, and to the Roman confessors and clergy (Epp. 15, 16, 17, 26), one general course of action: to reserve all cases of lapsed, without regard to the confessors' libelli, until episcopal councils at Rome and Carthage should lay down terms of readmission for the deserving (Ep. 20; 55, iv.); then the bishops, with clergy and laity (Ep. 17, iv.; Ep. 31) assisting, to investigate each case; public acknowledgment to be made, readmission to be by imposition of hands by bishop and clergy. Meantime the acts of the confessors to be recognized (Ep. 20, iii.) so far as that persons in danger, who might hold a libellus, should be readmitted by any presbyter, or in extremis by a deacon (Epp. 18, 19). All others to be exhorted to repentance, and commended with prayer to God at their deaths. The grounds he urged were—(1) the wideness of the question, which was too large for individual discretion (totius orbis, Ep. 19, iii. cf. 30, vi.). (2) That if restored at once the lapsed would have fared better than those who had borne the loss of all for Christ. These principles are developed also in the de Lapsis, which, however, is not quite as M. Freppel describes it, "a résumé of the letters," but a résumé of the modified views of Cyprian a little later. In M. Freppel's Sorbonne Lectures (St. Cyprien, pp. 195–221) may be studied with profit the Ultramontane representation of this scheme as equivalent to the modern indulgence system, backed by assertions that the Roman church "indicated to Carthage the only course," which Cyprian "fully adopted." All, however, that the Roman clergy had recommended was mere readmission of sick penitents, without any conception of a policy, or of the method by which it could be worked. These are developed step by step in Epp. 17, 18, 19, and communicated to the Roman church (Ep. 20). In replying through Novatian (Ep. 30, see 55 v.) the Roman presbyters re-state and adopt them (cf. Ep. 31, vi. 41).
Temper in Carthage.—Through the earlier part of the above section of correspondence
is perceptible a reliance on the laity. The clergy do not reply to his letters (Ep.
18), they defer to the libelli, or use them against him (Ep. 27).
In Ep. 17 he entreats the aid of the laity against them. When the concurrence
of the African and Italian episcopate is obtained (Ep. 43, iii.), and that
of Novatian and the Roman clergy and confessors (Epp. 30, 31), assuming a
stronger tone (Ep. 32) with his own clergy, he requires them to circulate
the whole correspondence, which is done (
About Nov. 250, persecution relaxed (possibly owing to the Gothic advance in Thrace), and though it was still unsafe for Cyprian to return, he endeavoured to deal with the distress of sufferers who had lost their all, and to recruit the ranks of the clergy and allay the excitement among the lapsed, by a commission (vicarii) of three bishops, Caldonius, Herculanus, Victor, and two presbyters, Numidicus and Rogatian (Epp. 41, 26).
Declaration of Parties.—The excitement on the question of the lapsed is evinced by two classes of stories then afloat as to judgments following on unreconciled offences and on presumptuous communion (de Lapsis, 24, 25, 26). Cyprian employed both to urge delay, but they do not emanate from his party of moderation. At Carthage the party of laxity became prominent; at Rome, that of exclusiveness.
(1) The party of laxity was composed of confessors, spoiled by flattery (de Laps. 20), fashionable lapsi, who declined all penance (Laps. 30), influential ones, who had forced certain clergy to receive them, but also some clergy who united against Cyprian's policy with the five presbyters who had from the first resisted him. Of these, three were undoubtedly Donatus, Gordius, Fortunatus (Maran. Vit. Cyp. § xvii.; Rettberg, pp. 97–112). That the fourth was Gaius of Didda, or Augendus, is but a guess. The principal in position and ability was the presbyter Novatus (Pearson's Jovinus and Maximus, and Pamelius's Repostus and Felix are impossible). That Cyprian's five original opponents still acted against him is shewn by "olim secundum vestra suffragia" (Ep. 43, v.), though in 43, ii. he seems only to conjecture their complicity with Felicissimus, whom Novatus had associated with himself as deacon in managing a district called Mons (possibly the Bozra itself) (Epp. 52, 59, 36). Cyprian complains of not having been consulted in this appointment, which, owing to the then position of the deacons, gave the party control of considerable funds. All the arrangements hitherto agreed on were disregarded by them, Cyprian's missives unanswered, and his commission of relief treated as an invasion of the diaconal office of Felicissimus, who announced, while other lapsi were at once received into communion, that whoever held communications with or accepted aid from the commission would be excluded from communion or relief from the Mons (Ep. 43, ii.; Ep. 41, where the conjecture in morte, or references to Monte in Numidia, or to the Montenses at Rome, who were Donatists, and were never (anciently) confused with the Novatianists or called Montanistae, are absurd; though Hefele, Novatianischer Schisms, ap. Wetzer and Welte, K. Lexik. and Conciles, t. ii. p. 232, countenances these confusions). It is with the name of Felicissimus that the lax party is generally connected (Ep. 43, iii. v. vii.), and he, with a fellow-deacon Augendus, a renegade bishop Repostus, and certain others, the five presbyters not among them, was presently excommunicated. There is no evidence, nor any contemporary instance, to warrant the belief that Novatus ordained Felicissimus deacon (see the MSS. reading Ep. 52, "satellitem suum diaconum constituit," which Hartel has unwarrantably departed from), nor is there any such appearance of presbyterian principles in this party, as divines of anti-episcopal churches, Neander, Rettberg, d’Aubigne, Keyser, have freely assumed. The party were in episcopal communion, took part in the episcopal election at Carthage, presently elected a new bishop for themselves, and procured episcopal consecration for him. When Novatus visited Rome, he threw himself into the election then proceeding, and, after opposing the candidate who was chosen, procured episcopal consecration for his nominee there also. Felicissimus too must have been a deacon already, or he could not have involved himself and Novatus in the charge of defrauding the church (Epp. 52, i.; 50, i ).
(2) The Puritan Party.—The strength of the Puritans, on the other hand, was in Rome. A group of confessors there, of whom the presbyters Moyses and Maximus were the chief, united with Novatian and the clergy in approving Cyprian's proposals. The modification of discipline by martyrs' merits was never countenanced here (Ep. 28, ii.); nevertheless, Moyses, before his death (which probably happened on the last day of 250), had condemned the extreme tendencies of Novatian towards the non-reconcilement of penitents (see Valesius's correct interpretation of Eus. vi. 43, and Routh, R. S. iii. p. 81). While Cornelius at Rome and Cyprian were moving towards greater leniency than their resolutions had embodied, Novatian, without questioning the hope of salvation for the lapsed, was now for making their exclusion perpetual, and teaching that the purity of the church could not otherwise be maintained.
The earthly conditions of the invisible and visible church had not yet been discussed
as the Donatists compelled them to be, and Novatian's growing error, though in the
present application it completely severed him from Cyprian and the church, was not
in principle different from that which Cyprian (though without producing a schism)
held in relation to Baptism. Early in a.d.
251 the Roman confessors were liberated; they lost whatever influence Moyses had
exercised on them; they had been drawn towards Novatian, and when Novatus, arriving
from Carthage, attached himself to this party, because, though its puritanism was
alien to his own practices at home, it was the only opposition existing in the capital
which threatened to overthrow the Cyprianic side, they were at once organized into
a party to secure the election of a bp. of Rome who would break with Cyprian. The
moment for election was given by the absence of Decius and his leading officers
on the frontier or in Illyria on account of the base alliance of Priscus with Cniva,
and the revolt of Valens. The party of moderation, however, prevailed and secured
the election of Cornelius: and consecrated him in spite of himself by 16 bishops
First Council.—Cyprian returned to Carthage after Easter (
The Reconciliation of the Novatianist Confessors at Rome.—A second embassy of Novatianists followed the report of the first, in order to press Cyprian home—Primus, Dionysius, Nicostratus, Evaristus, and above all, Novatus; to whose leaving Rome Cyprian does not hesitate partly to ascribe his own next success (Ep. 52 (2), ii.). Cyprian's letters to the Novatianist confessors are among the most beautiful and skilful in the collection; and Augustine cites no less than three times a passage from the letter on their return as embodying the absolute scriptural answer to puritan separations. It is the first exposition of the parable of the Tares, and St. Paul's image of the Great House. Prevailed on by the arguments used to them, and shocked by the consequences of their action, the whole party, with numerous adherents, returned to the Catholic side, and were publicly and magnanimously received, like the leaders of the same sect at Nicaea, and the Donatists at Carthage, and the Arians at Alexandria, without forfeit of dignity (Epp. 49, 52, 53, 46, 54, 51). To Cyprian this was more than an occasion of Christian joy. It was the triumph of his theory (Ep. 51 ad fin.). The date of this event may be accurately determined as being after the Carthaginian council (since Cyprian does not mention this as sitting, in his letters on the confessors, and he read the account of their recantation to the church, Ep. 51, not to the bishops), but prior to the Roman council, or else they would have been excommunicated by it, which they evidently were not; and since Cyprian says they recanted on the departure of Novatus, it was after the second embassy had left Rome.
Treatise on Unity.—The principles of this treatise, read in the council,
and sent to the Roman confessors (Ep. 54), so shape all Cyprian's policy,
that it is best to notice it here. It indicates its date minutely by allusions to
the severe party (Novatian's) (iii. ministros, etc., viii, uno in loco, etc., ix.
feritas, x. confessor, xi. episcopi nomen, xiii. aemuli), and by the absence of
allusion to the lax party (Felicissimus), whose schism must have been noticed in
such a paper if the question had not been concluded. In c. v. its original form
as an address to bishops is traceable. The first appearance of Cyprian's characteristic
error about baptism occurs in c. xi. Its first problem is the existence of schism
(as distinct from heresy), "altar against altar," with freedom from corrupt doctrines
and lives. The sole security is the ascertainment of the seat of authority and bond
of unity. This is indicated by Christ's commission given once to Peter alone, yet
again to all the apostles in the same terms. The oneness of the commission and the
equality of the commissioned were thus emphasized. The apostleship, continued for
ever in the episcopate, is thus universal, yet one: each bishop's authority perfect
and independent, yet not forming with the others a mere agglomerate, but being a
full tenure on a totality, like that of a shareholder in a joint-stock property.
"Episcopatus unus est cujus a singulis in solidum pars tenetur." It is in the above
definition, c. iv., that the famous interpolation has been made, which Roman authorities
(Mgr. Freppel, late Professor at the Sorbonne, S. Cypyien et l’Egl. d’Afr.
lect. 12; Prof. Hurter, of Innspruck, SS. PP. Opuscula, v. i. p. 72) even
now feel it important to retain. The loss of it suggested the endeavour to make
up for it by weaving together other texts from Cyprian to prove that this one after
all represented his
The Working of the Legislation.—The legislation had been brought out by
the clergy naturally the austerer class; the one which had most inducements not
to fall. It was too severe. The approach of the great plague evoked edicts for sacrifice
and roused superstitions which renewed the popular feeling against Christians, and
led to the magisterial and popular outbreak of a.d.
252, which is too formally called the Persecution of Gallus (Ep. 59, viii.),
and which supernatural presages, not justified by the event, foreshewed as more
cruel than that of Decius (Epp. 57, vi.; 58, i.). Of the libellatics some
rigorously tried to follow, others openly defied the conciliar enactments (Epp.
57; 65, iii.; 68, ii.). Many palliations appeared on examination. A second council
of 42 bishops at Carthage, held on May 15, 252 (Ep. 59, xiii.), determined
to readmit without exception or postponement all who had continued penitent. Their
synodic letter (Ep. 57), by Cyprian's hand, is a complete answer to his former
sterner strain. The motive cause is the necessity of strengthening by communion
those who will shortly be called to suffer.
The leniency of the bishop and council, the gross mistake of a rival episcopacy, and the popular claim for discipline, rapidly broke up the party (59, xxi.) and reduced its congregation to a handful.
Clerical Appeals under the Same Regulations.—It is not safe to assert
that the terms of readmission for clerics were considered separately at the second
council, but immediately after it is accepted that lapsed bishops and clerks could
never resume orders (Ep. 55, ix.).
Practical Organizations and Christian Culture.—(a) Captivity.—During the session of the council an extensive raid was executed by the Berbers, who, severely ruled as they were without any attempt to civilize them, were beginning that steady advance on Numidia which in a few years replaced the whole range of Ferratus in their possession. In 252 their front line reached from Thubunae on the salt marsh to the terebinth forests of Tucca, and they deported large numbers of the Christians of no less than eight sees. Several inscriptions relate to this invasion (see Revue Afric. vols. iv. vii. viii.). About £800 were subscribed by the 60 bishops and Carthaginian community (Ep. 62), and sent to them.
(b) Plague.—But the great field on which the expanding powers of humanity were gathered up and animated by the church was opened by the great plague which reached Carthage in a.d. 252, having travelled two years from Ethiopia through Egypt. Great physical disturbances had preceded it (ad Dem. ii. 1, vii. 5). The eruption and the brain affection which marked the plague of Athens are not recorded of this; nor yet the pulmonary symptoms, which, perhaps, were not developed in the African climate. The other symptoms seem to be identical, and the devastation far more awful, extensive, and enduring. It lasted 20 years; reduced the population of Alexandria by half; destroyed the armies of Valerian before Sapor; kept the Goths off the Thracian border, and for some time killed 5,000 persons daily in Rome (Eutrop. ix. v.; Hist. Aug. Galli, v. p. 177; Dionys. ap. Eus. vii. 22; Greg. Nys. Vit. Greg. Thaum. § 12). The efforts of the Emperors Gallus and Valerian in burying the dead were appreciated, otherwise their efforts were confined to supplications to Saturn and Apollo. (See three types of coins of Gallus in British Museum, and see Cohen, Médailles Impér. vol. iv. p. 270; Bandusi, vol. i. p. 58.) Horrible scenes of desertion and spoliation ensued in Carthage as in Athens (Pontii Vit. Cyp. and Cyp. ad Dem. 10 [8], 11 [9]), when universal physical terror or audacity overpowered all other sentiments. As in Neo-Caesarea and Alexandria so in Carthage, the Christian clergy stood out as the first champions of life, health, and feeling. Cyprian addressed his community in a speech, which it was wished could have been delivered to the city from the rostrum, on the duty and divineness of prayer and help to the persecutors (Respondere Natalibus was his watchword), and then proposed and carried a scheme for the systematic care of the city. Filled with his motives and under his influence rich and poor undertook the parts he assigned, raised a large fund, formed a nursing staff and burial staff, and allowed no religious distinction in their ministrations. But their abstinence from religious processions and sacrifices marked the Christians as enemies of God and man, and the "overseer of the Christians" was demanded by name for a contest with a lion (Epp. 59, viii.; 66, 44). The terrible work lasted on till his exile five years later, as we must conclude from Pontius's juxtaposition of the events, with his remark that exile was the reward for "withdrawing from human sight a horror like hell."
(c) Ad Demetrianum.—Their chief foe was an aged magistrate (sub
ipso exitu Dem. 25 [22]), not the pro-consul (Pearson), but perhaps one of
the five primores, formerly an inquirer into the truth of Christianity, in
Cyprian's own friendship (i.), now himself an inventor of accusations (c. 2) and
tortures, xii. (10). The pamphlet in which Cyprian assails him is much wider in
its aim than Tertullian's ad Scapulam; both have the remonstrance against
the suppression of the one natural worship, the appeal to the demeanour of the now
prevalent sect (pars paene major cujusque civitatis), to the effects of exorcism,
and the influence through suffering of the Christians. But while Tertullian for
once refrains from denunciation, and is almost gentle in his examples of warning,
Cyprian's object is wider; he answers the question, "Whence all this political and
this physical misery?" The heathen answer attributed it to the divine
(d) On the Mortality.—This treatise, or epistle as Augustine calls it (he quotes it no less than six times), presents to the Christians the consolatory primitive view of the topics set threateningly before Demetrian. It is meant to elevate their view of both the persecution and the plague, from which some expected providential exemptions, while others hated it only as an interference with martyrdom; he explains his theory of probation and of predictions as evidencing a divine plan. He cannot reject, but he gives a Christian turn to the general belief in the world's decay; urges organizations for relief of suffering; treats moral causes in society as affecting general and even physical phenomena. In c. xxvi. occurs what seems more than a coincidence with phrases in the Te Deum. In c. xx. he condemns the use of black for mourners.
(e) On Work and Alms.—A pastoral, which may indeed be connected with the incidents of Ep. 62, but more probably has a wider reference to the demands made by the plague and coincident troubles on the exertions and liberality of the Christians. Among circumstances known to us directly it would be more natural to link it to the great speech which Pontius mentions as having been delivered at that time to the community. Here again we find Cyprian working out the new faith into a life-system; philosophically (as in a kind of Tusculan) adjusting moral feeling and practice to the newly gained higher facts about God and Man. See cc. ix. x. xi. practically developing that "loss is gain," and "gain is loss," to those who are within the care of Christ, xvi. Christianity becomes a social element which uplifts the poor; their claims take precedence of family claims; the possession of a family only increases the obligation to Christ's poor.—In xxii. is a bold passage, almost Goethesque, in which Satan apostrophizes Christ on the superior liberality of his own school.—The doctrine of the first part i–vii. develops the unfortunate conception (roundly stated in Ep. 55, xviii. [14]) of good works acting on sins done after baptism, as baptism acts to remit former sin. Neander (Ch. Hist. vol. i. p. 391, Bohn) remarks that while this same thought appears in Tertullian (de Poenit.), yet no one person can be regarded as the author of it. It is a natural and popular materialistic germ of the doctrines of Rome on penance.
(f) The Exhortation to Confessorship is a practical manual of Scripture passages, connected by brief remarks, under 13 heads of reflection; compiled at the request of a layman, Fortunatus. Its existence sufficiently indicates the extent of suffering which a persecution developed. A more sober tone as to the perfections of the martyrs is perceptible. The introduction of the seven Maccabees not only as examples, but as a type of unity (ad Fort. xi.), dates this as later than de Unitate, where every other possible type is accumulated but not this one. The teaching on probation also marks the stage of his thoughts. He computes the world to be near 6,000 years old (ad Fort. ii.; cf. Tert. de V. V. i.).
(g) On the Lord's Prayer.—To promote intelligent devotion was his
next aim. This treatise is written with precision and with visible delight. The
time is clearly shewn by his deductions on unity (xxiv.; cf. de Unit, xiv.
[12]); on the danger of withholding communion from penitents (de Or. xviii.),
and on the confessor's temptations to arrogance (xxiv.). Cyprian follows Tertullian
freely, not transcribing as before; adopts the African "ne nos patiaris induci"
without remark (cf. Aug. de Dono Persev. vi. 12), and "fiat in caelo" (id.
iii. 6); illustrates more fully from Scripture, and uses a different version. His
silence probably evinces Tertullian's success in remonstrating against superstitious
observances in praying (Tert. Deor. xi. xvi.), and he does not, like his
"master," hail the "confusion of nations" as a mark of the kingdom; but in his expansion
of the symbolism of praying thrice a day we have the earliest use of Trinitas in
Latin as a name of Deity (in Tert. adv. Prax. 3, it is not exactly this).
In a.d. 427 Augustine (Ep. ccxv.)
used the treatise successfully with the monks of Adrumetum to prove the Pelagian
errors contrary to the Cyprianic doctrine. He quotes this short treatise of "victoriosissimus
Cyprianus" elsewhere 13 times to the same effect. Yet not one term occurs in
it which became technical in that controversy—a fact which would alone evince its
early date. Mr. Shepherd, however (Fourth Letter to Dr. Maitland, 1853), has undertaken
to prove that its writer was acquainted with the work of Chromatius (d.
a.d. 406) and is more "sacramental" than
that author, Gregory Nyssen, or Chrysostom, and than Augustine's doubt as to the
application of the "daily bread" allows; he observes that Venantius (6th cent.)
does not use it, though his predecessor, Hilary, refers the readers of his commentary
to it in preference to commenting himself; having thus satisfied himself of the
lateness of the Cyprianic treatise, Mr. Shepherd therefore asperses the genuineness
of the great Augustinian works which cite it. A critical comparison with Chromatius
would require a minuteness and space here inadmissible, but the result of such
Interval.—Cornelius's exile, with others, to Civita Vecchia, his decease
in June 253, as a martyr, in the then sense of the word, the short episcopate of
Lucius, his exile, speedy return, and death, not later than
Changed Relations with Rome, and Cyprian's Error of Rebaptism.—In a.d. 254 Easter was on April 23; Stephanus was made bp. of Rome May 12; the Carthaginian council met towards autumn (September ?). It had seemed to Cyprian a token of divine displeasure with the Novatianists that they did not suffer with the church; and their prosperity might have seemed to form Stephen's policy in so anti-puritan a mould, except for his overindulgence to Marcion, the Novatianist bp. of Arles (Ep. 68); but his was rather a policy of general resistance to the spiritual power compacted by Cyprian and Cornelius; a policy of the widest comprehension on the one basis of submissiveness to his see. The cases of Basilides and Martial have been mentioned. Cyprian's tone to him is one of both compassion and dictation (Ep. 68), and from his letter to Florentius Pupienus (66) it is plain that others besides Stephen felt, rightly or wrongly, more than aversion to the immense influence of Cyprian. And, although the whole church has decided that Stephen was right in the great controversy which arose, it was long before his character recovered the shock of his impetuous collision with Cyprian, and grew capable of his fictitious crown of martyrdom. The next group of documents belongs to a.d. 255 and 256, and is occupied with the controversy on rebaptism (Epp. 69–75, Sentt. Epp. lxxxvii.). For though Cyprian objects to that term (Ep. 73, i.), catholic doctrine insists on the assertion it involves. Notwithstanding the council of Agrippinus, and the reception of thousands of heretics by rebaptism in the African church (Ep. 73, iii.), numbers had been readmitted without it (Ep. 73, xxiii.; Aug. says the practice had fallen off). On the other hand, though Stephen appeals to the constant tradition of his church against rebaptizing, this is simply to ignore the action of Callistus (Hippolytus, p. 291, a passage which is against the idea of that author's Novatianism, but which Hefele monstrously wants to apply to Agrippinus [Hist. des Conciles, vol. i. p. 87, Paris]). An allusion to Stephen (Ep. 69, x.) seems to imply that Stephen stirred the question first. Rettberg considers, after Maran, that his Oriental dispute had already occurred p. 170). So Hefele. But this is not necessary. Cyprian (de Un. xi.) early committed himself to language as strong as he ever used again. The original inquiry is whether the non-heretical Novatianists, baptized as such, can be received to catholic communion. It extended itself (73, iv.), until the cases of Marcionites and even Ophites were debated; Stephen would include, and Cyprian exclude, all. At first the difficulty was only "Is not the exclusive African practice itself a Novatianist mark—being otherwise used only in that sect?" Our briefest method will be first to enumerate the documents, and then to classify their often repeated arguments.
(1) Magnus, a layman, makes the first application, and is replied to by Cyprian
with affectionate respect (Ep. 69). (2) The bishops of Numidia, who, though
without formal vote, had adopted the practice, apply next; the reply is from 33
bishops of Africa, with the presbyters of Carthage (Ep. 71). This is Cyprian's
5th Council and 1st on Baptism. Ep. 70 is their conciliar declaration of
the necessity of (re)baptism. (3) A Mauritanian bishop, Quintus, is answered in
Ep. 71, enclosing Ep. 70, now widely circulated (71, iv.), breathing
an injured tone as towards Stephen, and indicating that the council had not been
unanimous (Ep. 71, i., plurimi . . . nescic qua praesumptione quidam). (4)
The de Bono Patientiae was published about
We will now briefly classify Cyprian's arguments and the answers to them, avoiding
the making him responsible for his partisans, whose judgment in council (vii.) differs
much from his. Firmilian, on the other hand, summarizes sensibly. Cyprian then urges
for rebaptism (A), Objective grounds. (a) The unity of the church,
viz. that in the critical point of "church and non-church," schism does not differ
from heresy (69, iii.): the representation of sacred acts outside not equivalent
to sacred acts within: "one Lord, one faith," there may be, but not "one baptism,"
for this implies "one church," which the schismatic renounces. (b) Unity
of Belief. In its African form the creed ran, "Dost thou believe the remission
of sins and life everlasting through holy church?" and was accordingly null
at the moment of baptism away from the church. (c) Baptism is a function
of holy orders on account of its remissory virtue in respect of sin (not Tertullian's
doctrine [de Bap. xvii.]), and holy orders have no being outside the church
(73, vii.), so that the whole question of episcopal authority as the bond of unity
and divine organization is
involved
(B) Subjective Grounds. (a) Faith of recipient insufficient
(Epp. 73, 75, ix.): to be effective must be true; but is deficient in a cardinal
point, viz. the remission of sins by the church; even if not false and, as often,
blasphemous (73, iv. v; 74). (b) Not secured by the formula. In the
Roman church there was still such absence of rigidity that it was argued that without
the Trinal form baptism into Christ's name sufficed (Ep. 74, v.). Cyprian
however points to the clear words of institution, and appeals to common reason to
decide whether one is truly baptized into the Son who denies His Humanity (Ep.
73, v.),
(C) The historical argument is handled by Cyprian in the most masterly
way. (a) Usage is not worth considering as more than an apology for ignorance;
cannot be matched
(D) Biblical Arguments.—The familiar ones need no more than enumeration:
the one loaf; one cup; the ark; the schismatic (not heretical) gainsaying of Korah;
the apostles' baptism of men who had already received the Spirit, a fortiori needed
for those who confessedly had not. We may admire the ingenuity with which he treats
such passages as
The Last Persecution.—Of the 31 Numidian bishops who sat in the great
council, the next glimpse of church offices shews 9 as convicts
Personal, Theological, and Political Effectiveness.—To sum up the effect
of Cyprian's 13 years' episcopate in briefest terms. Over and above, (1) the
social impressiveness for the time of a convert with such culture and such mental
habits, and of that perfect ἐπιείκεια and
πρᾳότης to which Augustine constantly reverts
with delight, comes (2) his Philosophy. It is usual to expand the fact that
he was no philosopher. Nevertheless his writings on Resentment, Patience, Probation,
Envy, Self-devotion, are most able essays towards establishing a new Christian basis
of Morals, and have a permanent place in the series. (3) Evidences. As against
both contemporary Judaism and contemporary paganism his collections have a distinct
worth. (4) Interpretation. He has a free ideal scheme before him (Ep.
64), but in detail falls from it, and makes mere riddles of texts. (5) Organization.
This is the real epigraph of his career. The magnitude of the effect he produced
is incomparably greater than that of any other person, not excepting Hildebrand.
(a) The Church Council, a local and doubtful institution before, became
through his management a necessary institution and the imperial power of the church,
and, with its system of representation by a life-aristocracy popularly elected,
and its free discussionary scheme, exercised an important
Cultus.—There were two famous basilicas erected, one on the place of his martyrdom (in agro sexti), where was the Mensa Cypriani, from which Augustine often preached; the other on the shore (Aug. Conf. v.; ad Mappalia, Aug. vol. vii. App. p. 37; ad Piscinas, Victor Vitens. i. v. iv.). In this Monica spent the night of her son's departure for Italy, praying and weeping. In Sulpicius Severus (Dial. i. 3) his friend comes hither to pray on his way from Narbonne to Egypt. The adoration reached such a height that Gibbon is charmed to call him "almost a local deity." His feast and the gales which blew then were called Cypriani (Procop. Vand. i. 20, 21; Greg. Naz. Or. 18, ap. Ducange, s.v.). There are still on the "brink of the shore" the massive ruins of a church which must be St. Cyprian's. Davis (Carthage and her Remains, p. 389) describes them fully, and it is not hard to see how he has misled himself into not recognizing what they are. The relics of Cyprian were given (strange conjunction) by Haroun al Raschid to Charlemagne. The sequel may be seen in Ruinart, Acta Mm. Cypr. § 17, and in the epistle of J. de la Haye, prefixed to Pamelius's Cyprian, fol. b. 3.
Texts.—Of the MSS. and their connexions, and also of the edd., a good account is given by Hartel in his preface; cf. D. C. B. (4-vol. ed.). Besides the ed. in Patr. Lat. may be mentioned one by D. J. H. Goldhorn (Leipz. 1838), a useful text-book, well emended. But the best ed. now is by J. Hartel (3 vols. 8vo, 1868–1871), in the Vienna Corpus Scriptt. Eccll. Latt., which contains all the works attributed to Cyprian, with the ad Novatianum, Auctor de Rebaptismate, Pontii Vita, etc., and Indices. It is a new recension, for which above 40 MSS. have been studied, classified, valued, and reduced to a most clear apparatus criticus, with keen attention to orthography, and almost always a judicious discrimination of the preferable readings; a valuable preface on the principles and history of the text formation.
[The authoritative work on St. Cyprian is by the writer of this art. English trans. of several of Cyprian's works and his Epp. are given in the Ante-Nicene Lib. (T. & T. Clark). A simple monograph on his Life and Times is pub. in the cheap A. and M. Theol. Lib. (Griffith); and an Eng. trans. of his treatise On the Lord's Prayer by T. H. Bindley is pub. by S.P.C.K.; the text, with trans., has been ed. by Rev. H. Gee (Bell).]
Cyra. [Marana.]
Cyriacus (l9), 30th patriarch of Constantinople, a.d. 595. He was previously presbyter and steward, οἰκονόμος, of the great church at Constantinople (Chronicon Paschale, p. 378). Gregory the Great received the legates bearing the synodal letters which announced his consecration, partly from a desire not to disturb the peace of the church, and partly from the personal respect which he entertained for Cyriac; but in his reply he warned him against the sin of causing divisions in the church, clearly alluding to the use of the term oecumenical bishop (Gregorii Ep. lib. vii. 4, Patr. Lat. lxxvii. 853). The personal feelings of Gregory towards Cyriac appear most friendly.
Cyriac did not attend to the entreaties of Gregory that he would abstain from
using the title, for Gregory wrote afterwards both to him and to the emperor Maurice,
declaring that he could not allow his legates to remain in communion with Cyriac
as long as he retained it. In the latter of these letters he compares the assumption
of the title to the sin of Antichrist, since both exhibit a spirit of lawless pride.
"Quisquis se universalem sacerdotem vocat, vel vocari desiderat, in elatione sua
Antichristum praecurrit, quia superbiendo se ceteris praeponit" (Greg. Ep.
28, 30). In a letter to Anastasius of Antioch, who had written to him to remonstrate
against disturbing the peace of the church, Gregory defends his conduct on the ground
of the injury which Cyriac had done to all other patriarchs by the assumption of
the title, and reminds Anastasius that not only heretics but heresiarchs had before
this been patriarchs of Constantinople. He also deprecates the use of the term on
more general grounds (Ep. 24). In spite of all this Cyriac was firm in his
retention of the title, and appears to have summoned, or to have meditated summoning,
a council to authorize its use. For in a.d.
599 Gregory wrote to Eusebius of Thessalonica and some other bishops, stating that
he had heard they were about to be summoned to a council at Constantinople, and
most urgently entreating them to yield neither to force nor to persuasion, but to
be steadfast in their refusal to recognize the offensive title (ib. lib.
ix. 68 in Patr. Lat.). Cyriac appears to have shared in that unpopularity
of the emperor Maurice which caused his deposition and death (Theophan. Chron.
p. 242, A.M. 6094; Niceph. Callis.
H. E. xviii. 40; Theophylact. Hist. viii. 9). He still, however, had
influence enough to exact from Phocas at his coronation a confession of the orthodox
faith and a pledge not to disturb the church (Theoph. Chron. p. 243,
A.M. 6094). He also nobly resisted
the attempt of Phocas to drag the empress Constantia and her daughters from their
sanctuary in a church of Constantinople (ib. p. 246,
A.M. 6098). Perhaps some resentment
at this opposition to his will may have induced Phocas to accede more readily to
the claims of Boniface
Cyrillus (2), Κύριλλος, bp. of Jerusalem, was probably born in Jerusalem or its immediate neighbourhood, c. 315. His writings prove that his education was liberal, and embraced a large variety of subjects. Touttée has laboriously collected evidences (c. ii.) of his acquaintance with physics, dialectics, physiology, mythology, etc. That he was a diligent student of Holy Scripture is certain, from the intimate knowledge, at least of the text, shewn in his Catecheses. But he was only acquainted with the LXX. His knowledge of Hebrew was only second-hand, and often incorrect. He was ordained deacon probably by Macarius bp. of Jerusalem, c. 335 (Soz. H. E. iv. 20, where the text is doubtful), and priest by his successor Maximus, c. 345. Maximus, notwithstanding Cyril's youth, entrusted him with the responsible duty of instructing catechumens, and preparing them for baptism. He also allowed him the exceptional privilege, sometimes granted by bishops to presbyters of eminent ability (e.g. to Chrysostom by Flavian of Antioch, and to Augustine by Valerius of Hippo), of preaching to the people in full church on the Lord's Day. In his office of catechist, c. 347, Cyril delivered the catechetical lectures by which his name is chiefly known (Hieron. de Vir. Illust. § 12). These lectures were preached without book on the evenings of the weeks of Lent, in the basilica of the Holy Cross, or Martyrium, erected on Calvary by St. Helena. His references to the locality are numerous and interesting (e.g. iv. 10–14, x. 19, xiii. 4, 22, 39, xviii. 33). The five mystagogical lectures were addressed during Easter-week at noon to those baptized on Easter-eve in the Anastasis, or church of the Holy Sepulchre.
The episcopate of Maximus terminated at the close of 350 or the beginning of
351, and Cyril was chosen to fill the episcopal chair of Jerusalem. A cloud of doubt
and difficulty hangs over his elevation to the episcopate. Jerome can hardly have
been mistaken as to the main fact, though theological prejudice and personal dislike
may have warped his judgment and caused him to represent the case in the least favourable
light. On some leading questions Cyril and Jerome were decidedly opposed. In the
great controversy of the day Cyril belonged to the Asiatic party, Jerome to that
of Rome. In the Meletian schism at Antioch also they took opposite sides: Cyril
supporting Meletius, Jerome being a warm adherent of Paulinus. Jerome asserts (Chronicon
ad ann. 349) that on the death of Maximus the Arians invaded the church of Jerusalem
and promised to appoint Cyril to the vacant throne if he would repudiate his ordination
by Maximus; that Cyril consented to the humiliating terms, served some time in the
church as a deacon, and was then rewarded with the episcopate by Acacius, the semi-Arian
bp. of Caesarea, and according to the seventh Nicene canon metropolitan of Palestine;
that Cyril then dishonourably persecuted Heraclius, whom Maximus, on his deathbed,
had nominated his successor, and degraded him to the presbyterate. This account
is supported by Rufinus (H. E. i. 23, "Sacerdotio, confusa jam ordinatione,
suscepto"). Socrates and Sozomen, though they say nothing of Cyril's repudiation
of his orders, are almost equally unfavourable to his orthodoxy, identifying him
with the semi-Arian party of Acacius and Patrophilus. They also introduce a new
element of confusion by the statement that the see of Jerusalem was vacant not by
death, but by Maximus's deposition and expulsion by the semi-Arians (Socr. ii. 38;
Soz. iv. 20; Theophan. Chronograph. p. 34). This may safely be rejected.
In refutation of Jerome's account, Cyril's advocates triumphantly point to the synodical
letter to pope Damasus of the bishops assembled at Constantinople, the year after
the second oecumenical synod, a.d. 382, which
speaks of Cyril in terms of high eulogy, as a champion of the orthodox faith against
Arian heresy, and affirms his canonical election to the see of Jerusalem (Theod.
H. E. v. 9). But this does not touch the point at issue. Acacius was the
metropolitan of Cyril's province. He and his fellow-bishops were, notwithstanding
their heretical bias, the legitimate authorities for conferring the episcopate.
Cyril's election and consecration was therefore strictly canonical. Besides, the
silence of the members of the synod as to facts occurring 30 years before does not
disprove them. Whatever might have been Cyril's earlier heretical failings, he was
on the orthodox side then (cf. Socr. v. 8, and Soz. vii. 7). His adhesion
was valuable, and it would have been as impolitic as it was needless to revive an
almost forgotten scandal. Yet Cyril's own writings quite forbid us to follow Jerome's
authority in classing him with the Arians, or charging him with heretical tenets.
Circumstances might render his orthodoxy equivocal. His early patron, Maximus, was
somewhat of a waverer. His friends and associates were semi-Arians, and he was chosen
to the episcopate by them, with the hope of his supporting their cause. But no error
of doctrine is to be discovered in his writings, though he avoids the test word
"homoousion" in his catecheses. He is well characterized by the Duc de Broglie (l’Eglise
et l’Empire, iii. 402) as "formant l’extrémité de l’aile droite du Semiarianisme
touchant à l’orthodoxie, ou de l’aile gauche de l’orthodoxie touchant au Semiarianisme,"
and may be regarded, certainly in the later part of his life, as one of those of
whom Athanasius speaks (de Synod. 41) as "brothers who mean what we mean,
and only differ about the word." The first year of Cyril's episcopate was rendered
memorable by the appearance, May 7, 351, of a remarkable parhelion, or other atmospheric
phenomenon, over Jerusalem, which was regarded as a miraculous manifestation of
the symbol of
On the accession of Julian, 361, Cyril was reinstated, together with all the exiled bishops (Socr. iv. 1; Soz. u.s.; Theod. iii. 4; Amm. Marcell. xxii. 5). At Jerusalem Cyril calmly watched the attempts of Julian to rebuild the Temple, and foretold that it must fail (Socr. iii. 20; Rufinus, i. 37).
During the reign of the orthodox Jovian Cyril's episcopate was undisturbed, and
the accession of Valens and Valentinian found him in quiet possession of his see,
364. In 366 Acacius died, and Cyril immediately claimed the nomination to the see
of Caesarea, and appointed Philomenus. Philomenus was deposed by the Eutychian faction,
and another Cyril substituted. He, in return, was deposed by Cyril of Jerusalem,
who consecrated his sister's son Gelasius in his room,
a.d. 367 (Epiphan. Haer. lxxiii. 37).
In 367 Cyril was a third time deposed and exiled, with all the prelates recalled
by Julian, by the edict of the Arian Valens (Socr. ii. 45; Soz. iv. 30; Epiph.
Haer. lxvi. 20). His banishment lasted till Valens died and Theodosius succeeded,
Jan. 15, 379, when he reoccupied his see, which he retained quietly for the 8 remaining
years of his. life (Hieron. Vir. Ill. c. 112; Socr. v. 3; Soz. vii. 2). On
his return he found Jerusalem rent with schisms, infested with almost every form
of heresy, and polluted by the most flagrant crimes. To combat these evils he appealed
to the council held at Antioch, 379, which dispatched Gregory Nyssen to his aid.
But the disease was too deeply seated to admit of an easy or speedy remedy. Gregory
departed hopeless of a cure, and in his Warning against Pilgrimages drew
a dark picture of the depravation of morals in the Holy City (de Euntibus Hieros.
p. 656). In 381 Cyril was present at the second oecumenical council held at Constantinople,
when he took rank with the chief metropolitans, the bps. of Alexandria and Antioch.
He there declared his full adhesion to the Nicene faith,
Cyril died
His works consist of 18 "Catechetical lectures" addressed to catechumens (κατηχήσεις φωτιζομένων), and 5 "Mystagogical lectures" to the newly baptized (μυσταγωγικαὶ κατηχήσεις πρὸς τοὺς νεοφωτίστους). These were composed in his youth (ἅς ἐν τῆ νεότητι συνέταξεν, Hieron. de Vir. Ill. c. 112), c. 347, while still a presbyter. The "Catechetical lectures" possess considerable interest as the earliest example extant of a formal system of theology; from their testimony to the canon of Scripture, the teaching of the church on the chief articles of the creed, and on the sacraments; and from the light they throw on the ritual of the 4th cent. The perfect agreement of his teaching, as Dr. Newman remarks (Lib. of the Fathers, vol. ii. part i. pp. ix.–x.), as regards the Trinity, with the divines of the Athanasian school, is of great weight in determining the true doctrine of the early church on that fundamental question, and relieves Cyril from all suspicion of heterodoxy. But his Catecheses do not rank high as argumentative or expository work, nor has Cyril any claim to a place among the masters of Christian thought, whose writings form the permanent riches of the church.
All previous editions of his works were surpassed by the Benedictine ed. of A. A. Touttée (Paris, 1720, fol., and Venice, 1761, fol.). The introduction contains very elaborate and exhaustive dissertations on his life, writings, and doctrines. These are reprinted in Migne's Patrologia, vol. xxxiii.
The chief modern authorities for Cyril's life and doctrines are Touttée, u.s.; Tillem, Mémoires Ecclés. vol. viii.; Cave, Historia Lit. i. 211, 212; Schröckh, Kirchengeschichte, xii. 343 seq.; Newman, preface to the Oxf. trans., Lib. of the Fathers, ii. 1. Newman's trans. was carefully revised by Dr. E. H. Gifford in the Lib. of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (1844), and furnished with a very important introduction.
Cyrillus (7), St., archbp. of Alexandria. He was a native of Alexandria,
and had learned theology under monastic discipline in "the desert." During this
period he had been reproved by Isidore of Pelusium, who was for years his venerated
monitor, for occupying himself, even in "solitude," with worldly thoughts and interests
(Isid. Ep. i. 25); and it is evident from his whole career that so strong
a will and so vehement a nature could never be thoroughly satisfied with a life
of contemplation. After five years' abode in mount Nitria, his uncle, the then archbp.
Theophilus, summoned him to Alexandria, where he was ordained, and expounded and
preached with great reputation (Neale, Hist. Alex. i. 226). Theophilus died
Oct. 15, a.d. 412. Cyril was put forward
for the vacant chair; and after a tumultuous contest was enthroned, three days after
his uncle's death. (See his first Paschal homily.) His episcopate, begun in trouble
and discord, seemed at first to forebode nothing better than a course of violent
and untempered zeal, as if the fierce spirit of Theophilus were governing his conduct.
He shut up the chamber of the Novatianists, took away their "sacred treasure," and
deprived their bishop, Theopemptus, of all his property (Socr. vii. 7). He then
made an attack upon the large body of Jewish residents. They had provoked him by
implacable hostility. One Hierax, a schoolmaster, always foremost in applauding
Cyril's sermons, was denounced by the Jews as an encourager of sedition when he
was in the theatre at the promulgation of a prefectorial edict. Orestes, the prefect,
who hated Cyril as a formidable rival potentate, had Hierax publicly tortured in
the theatre. Cyril thereupon tried the effect of menaces on the principal Jews of
Alexandria. This only increased their bitterness; they began to organize plots against
the Christians; and one night a cry rang through the streets that "Alexander's church
was on fire." The Christians rushed to save their sanctuary: the Jews, recognizing
each other, as prearranged, by rings made from the bark of palm branches, slew the
Christians whom they met. At daybreak Cyril, at the head of an immense crowd, took
forcible possession of the synagogues, expelled the Jews from the city and abandoned
their property to plunder. Orestes, naturally indignant, complained to the emperor,
Theodosius II., then a boy of fourteen. Cyril addressed to the court an account
of the Jewish outrages, and, at the suggestion of the people, endeavoured to pacify
the prefect. Orestes would not listen. Cyril extended to him, as a form of solemn
appeal, the book of the Gospels; it might well have occurred to Orestes that the
archbishop had forgotten some of its precepts when he in person led a multitude
of Christian zealots to revenge one violence by another. The gifted female philosopher,
Hypatia, the boast of Alexandrian paganism, was dragged from her carriage into the
great Caesarean church, where her body was torn to pieces. This hideous crime, done
in a sacred place and in a sacred season—it was the Lent of 415—brought, as Socrates
expresses it (vii. 15), "no small reproach on Cyril and the church of the Alexandrians."
Was this foul murder what Gibbon calls it, an "exploit of Cyril's"? Did he take
any part in it, or approve it ex post facto? It has been said that "Cyril
was suspected, even by the orthodox, of complicity in the murder" (Stanley's
Lect. on East. Ch. 293). Socrates, as sympathizing with the Novatianists, has
been considered to do Cyril less than justice; but he does not suggest such a suspicion
against him, or against the whole church of Alexandria. He says, fairly, that this
church and its chief pastor were to some extent disgraced by such a deed of members
of it. As for Damascius's assertion that Cyril really prompted the murder (Suidas,
p. 1059), we cannot consider as evidence the statement of a pagan philosopher who
lived about 130 years after the event, and was a thorough hater of Christianity.
We are justified in regarding it, with Canon Robertson (Hist. Ch. i. 401),
as "an unsupported calumny"; but, as he adds, "the perpetrators were mostly officers
of his church, and had unquestionably derived encouragement from
It was but natural that the government should the next year restrain the clergy from political action, especially by restrictions on the number and conduct of the parabolani.
Cyril had inherited his uncle's animosity against John Chrysostom, who, in his opinion, had been canonically deposed; he rejected with bitterness the advice of Atticus of Constantinople to place "John's" name on his church diptychs (Ep. p. 204); and it was not until after the memory of that persecuted saint had been rehabilitated at Constantinople as well as at Antioch that the archbp. of Alexandria, urged by Isidore of Pelusium (Isid. i. 370), consented in 417 to follow these precedents. (See Tillemont, xiv. 281.)
We pass over several uneventful years, during which Cyril doubtless occupied
himself in ordinary church affairs and in theological literature, and come to the
great controversy with which his name is pre-eminently associated. In the end of
428 he became aware of the excitement caused in Constantinople by the preaching
of archbp. Nestorius. The line of thought which Nestorius had entered upon (under
the influence, as it seems, of Theodore of Mopsuestia) led him to explain away the
mystery of the Incarnation by reducing it to a mere association between the Eternal
Word and a human Christ. The Alexandrian see had agents at Constantinople, and the
denial, by Nestorius and his supporters, of the strict personal oneness between
"God the Word" and the Son of Mary—expressed by the formula, "Let no one call Mary
Theotokos"—was an event which was certain to excite the vigilant zeal of a prelate
like Cyril, opposed, alike by temperament and antecedents, to whatever undermined
the mysterious majesty of the Christian faith. Very early in Jan. 429 Cyril dealt
with the subject in his Paschal letter or homily, the 17th of the series; in which,
while affirming with great vividness and emphasis the reality and permanence of
Christ's manhood, he enforced the singleness of his Divine Personality, and applied
to His human mother, in two distinct passages, a phrase even stronger than "Theotokos"—μήτηρ
Θεοῦ. About the end of Apr. 429, when the controversial sermons of Nestorius—exhibiting
no little confusion of thought, but clearly indicating a disbelief in what is theologically
termed the Personal Union—had reached Egyptian monks, Cyril wrote to all who within
his jurisdiction were "practising the solitary life," a long letter, upholding the
term "Theotokos" in its true sense, as not meaning "mother of the Godhead," but
mother, as regarded the manhood, of Him Who, being in the form of God, assumed the
form of a servant, and, being the Lord of Glory, condescended to suffer the death
of the cross. If it was true, Cyril argued, that Jesus Christ was God, it was by
consequence not less true that His mother was "Theotokos." If she was not rightly
so called, her Son was a human individual external to the divine nature, and not
in a true sense Emmanuel. This letter cites at length the Nicene Creed in its original
form, ignoring the alterations made by the council of Constantinople, and insisting
that the creed identified Jesus Christ with the Divine Co-essential Son. Nestorius
was much displeased at the reception given to this letter by some official persons
at Constantinople. He ordered one Photius to answer it, and encouraged some Alexandrians
residing at the imperial city, who had been rebuked by Cyril for gross offences,
to prefer complaints against him (Mansi, iv. 1003, 887). On the other hand, Cyril,
having also been interrogated by Celestine of Rome as to the genuineness of Nestorius's
sermons, wrote his first letter to Nestorius (Cyr. Ep. p. 19; Mansi, iv.
883), the point of which was that the prevailing excitement had been caused, not
by the letter to the monks of Egypt, but by Nestorius's own refusal to allow to
Christ's mother a title which was the symbol of her Son's real Divinity. Cyril also
referred to a work On the Holy and Co-essential Trinity, which he himself
had written in the lifetime of Nestorius's predecessor Atticus, and in which he
had used language on the Incarnation which harmonized with his letter to the monks.
Nestorius replied very briefly, and in a courteous tone; although he intimated dislike
of what he deemed harsh in Cyril's letter (Cyr. Ep. p. 21; Mansi, iv. 885).
He evidently did not wish to quarrel with the see of Alexandria, although he practised
considerable severities on monks of his own city who withstood him to the face.
Cyril, too, was not forward to press the controversy to extremes. During the latter
part of 429 he was even blamed by some for inactivity. But he may have written at
this period, as Gamier thinks, his "Scholia," or "Notes," on the Incarnation of
the Only-begotten (Mar. Merc. ii. 216), and in Feb. 430 (probably after hearing
how Nestorius had upheld a bishop named Dorotheus in his anathema against the word
"Theotokos") he wrote, in synod, a second Ep. to Nestorius—the letter which became
a symbolic treatise sanctioned by general councils. (See it in Cyr. Ep. p.
22; Mansi, iv. 887; cf. Tillemont, xiv. 338). Nothing can be more definite and luminous
than his disclaimer of all Apollinarian notions, which had been imputed by Nestorius
to those who confessed the "Theotokos"; his explanation of the idea intended by
that phrase; his peremptory exclusion of the theory of a mere association as distinct
from a hypostatic or personal union, and his not less emphatic assertion of the
distinctness of the natures thus brought together in the one Christ. "Not that the
difference of the natures was annulled by the union, but rather that one Godhead
and Manhood constituted the one Lord Jesus Christ, by their ineffable concurrence
into unity. . . . Thus we confess one Christ and Lord." The answer of Nestorius
was characterized by ignoratio elenchi, and could not be regarded as a satisfactory
statement of belief (Cyr. Ep. p. 25;
In these treatises, if some texts are strained beyond their natural meaning, there is yet a remarkable exhibition of acuteness and fertility of thought, pervaded and quickened by what Dorner calls Cyril's "warm interest" in Christianity as a religion. Probably c. Apr. 430 Cyril answered the letter of the Roman bishop, received a year before (Ep. p. 26); he informed him that the main body of the faithful of Constantinople (acting on the principle fully recognized in the ancient church, that loyalty to the faith was a higher duty than ecclesiastical subordination) were holding off from the communion of Nestorius, but greatly needed support and countenance; and in very deferential terms asked Celestine to say whether any fellowship could be maintained by orthodox bishops with one who was disseminating heresy (Mansi, iv. 1011). With this letter he sent a series of passages illustrative of what Nestorius held and of what church-writers had taught, translated into Latin "as well as Alexandrians could" perform such a task, and to be shewn by his messenger Posidonius to Celestine, if the latter had received anything from Nestorius. One other letter of Cyril's belongs to the summer of 430: he addressed himself to the aged Acacius, bp. of Berrhoea, who communicated the letter to John, patriarch of Antioch, but informed Cyril that many who had come to Syria, fresh from the preaching of Nestorius, were disposed to think him not committed to heresy. It is observable that Cyril tells Acacius that some had been led on by Nestorianism into an express denial that Christ was God (see Mansi, iv. 1053).
We now reach a landmark in the story. On Aug. 11, 430, Celestine, having held
a synod which pronounced Nestorius heretical, gave Cyril a stringent commission
(see this letter in Mansi, iv. 1017) to "join the authority of the Roman see to
his own" in warning Nestorius that unless a written retractation were executed
We must now return to the events of Nov. 430. Before the Egyptian deputies could reach Constantinople, Theodosius II. issued letters to the metropolitans of his empire, summoning them to meet at Ephesus in the Pentecost of 431, with such bishops as each might select, to hold a general council. This resolution, taken at the instance of Nestorius, had the effect of suspending all hostile action on the part of any individual bishop or provincial synod. Theodosius, who was prejudiced against Cyril, wrote sharply to him, censuring his "meddlesomeness" and "rashness," and complaining of his having written separately to the princesses. In compliance with the imperial order, Cyril arrived at Ephesus with 50 bishops, about June 2, 431. For the details of the history of the Ephesine Council, or third oecumenical synod, see art. "Ephesus, Councils of," in D. C. A. It is enough here to specify the occasions on which Cyril came prominently forward. A fortnight elapsed before the council was opened: Cyril, like other prelates, employed himself in strengthening the cause he had at heart by earnest addresses. After waiting long for the arrival of John of Antioch and his attendant bishops, Cyril received a cordial letter from his brother patriarch, announcing that he had been travelling incessantly for a month, and hoped to "embrace Cyril" in five or six days more (Ep. p. 83). There also arrived two metropolitans, who bore from him a message to the bishops requesting them to proceed with business if he were delayed. The question at once arose—"Should the bishops wait any longer?" It would have been clearly better, even as a matter of policy, to wait a few days for John's arrival. The cause of orthodoxy could never be aided by its being associated with, to say the least, the appearance of unfairness or impatience. But Cyril and his suffragans were probably not at all desirous of John's presence, for they knew he would be hostile to the Cyrilline articles: they encouraged the idea that he was purposely loitering from reluctance to join in measures against Nestorius (an idea which appears to have been unfounded, Evagr. i. 3), and took advantage of the fact that other bishops were weary of waiting, the rather that illness, and even death, had occurred among them. So the council was opened on June 11, 431; and John's message, which evidently referred to a possible delay beyond the six days specified, was unjustifiably quoted to defend a refusal to wait even that period. In this it is impossible to acquit Cyril of blame; and the fault brought its own punishment in the confusions that ensued" (Neale, Hist. Alex. i. 259).
Cyril presided in the assembly; not in virtue of the commission from Celestine to act in his stead—which had been already acted upon in the Alexandrian council of Nov. 430—but as the prelate of highest dignity then present, and as holding the proxy and representing the mind of the Roman bishop, until the Roman legates should arrive (see Tillem. xiv. 393). Cyril called on the council to judge between himself and Nestorius: the main facts were stated by his secretary; when Nestorius refused to appear, Cyril's second letter to him was read, and at Cyril's request the bishops pronounced upon its orthodoxy, declaring it in entire accordance with the faith. His third letter was received merely with a tacit assent, which might be held to extend to the "articles." (The council professed afterwards, that it had approved Cyril's epistles; Mansi, iv. 1237.) After evidence as to Nestorius's opinions and the mind of orthodox Fathers had been laid before the council (great stress being doubtless laid on Nestorius's recent avowal, "I never will admit that a child of two or three months old was God," Mansi, iv. 1181, 1239), his deposition and excommunication were resolved on by the assembled bishops; and Cyril signed the sentence before his brethren in these words: "I, Cyril, bp. of Alexandria, sign, giving my judgment together with the council."
When the patriarch of Antioch, with a few bishops, arrived on June 26 or 27,
in vexation at the course taken by the majority, they held a "council" of their
own, and "deposed" Cyril, and Memnon, bp. of Ephesus, imputing to the former not
only Apollinarianism, but also the heresy of the ultra-Arian rationalist Eunomius.
On the other hand, the council of Ephesus, now reinforced by the Roman legates,
treated Cyril and Celestine as one in faith, and proceeded to summon John—Cyril
being disposed, had not the bp. of Jerusalem prevented it, to move for a sentence
of deposition on the patriarch of Antioch, after the first summons (see Mansi, iv.
1311). Cyril repudiated and anathematized the heresies imputed to him, and coupled
with them the Pelagian errors and those of Nestorius. John of Antioch, having disowned
the council's summons, was excommunicated, with his adherents. Late in July count
John, the imperial high treasurer, was sent by Theodosius to Ephesus, with a letter
in which Cyril, Memnon, and Nestorius were treated as deposed. Accordingly all three
were arrested, and guards slept at Cyril's chamber door. His opponents induced Isidore
of Pelusium to write to him, exhorting him to avoid the bad precedents of his uncle's
violent conduct, and not to give occasion for the charge of personal animosity (Ep.
i. 310). Cyril, for his part, spoke, in a letter to three of his suffragans then
at Constantinople (Ep. p. 91), of infamous falsehoods circulated against
him, but detected by count John. He thanked God for having been counted worthy to
suffer, for His Name's sake, not only bonds but other indignities. He received from
a priest named Alypius a letter describing him in glowing terms as an imitator of
Athanasius. While the two rival assemblies of bishops, the council and the "conciliabulum,"
sent deputies to the court of Theodosius, Cyril wrote an "Explanation" of his "articles,"
vindicating them against the charge of a confusion between the Godhead and the Manhood,
or of teaching inconsistent with the distinct existence of the latter, in the one
Divine Person of the Incarnate Lord. Theodosius finally ordered Cyril and his friends
to return home, but abstained from condemning the "Eastern" bishops, who on their
side complained of his partiality to their opponents.
To return to the history. Maximian, dying in Apr. 434, was succeeded by Proclus,
whose glowing sermon on the Incarnation had been among the earliest expressions
of orthodox zeal against the Nestorian theory, and who deserves to be remembered
as a very signal example of the compatibility of orthodox zeal with charitable tenderness
(Socr. vii. 41). Soon after his accession the imperial court resolved to enforce
on all Eastern bishops the acceptance of the concordat which had reconciled John
of Antioch with Cyril, upon pain of expulsion from their dioceses. The Nestorians,
on their side, were indefatigable in circulating the works of Theodore of Mopsuestia,
who had formed the theological mind of Nestorius; and Cyril, who was informed of
this during a visit to Jerusalem, was stirred to new energy by the evident vitality
of the theory which he so earnestly abhorred. He wrote to the "tribune" Aristolaus,
and to John of Antioch, complaining that, as he was informed, some bishops were
repudiating Nestorianism insincerely or inadequately, and were declaring that its
author had been condemned merely for denying the "Theotokos" (Mansi, v. 996, cf.
ib. 970). He urged that the bishops should anathematize Nestorianism in detail.
John wished no new test to be imposed; and Cyril found he had gone too far (ib.
969, 972, 996). John was much annoyed at Theodoret's pertinacious refusal to anathematize
Nestorius—a refusal in which Theodoret persisted until the eighth session of the
council of Chalcedon (ib. 997). As the Nestorianizers professed entire adhesion
to the Nicene Creed, Cyril drew up an exposition of it (Ep. p. 174, Mansi,
v. 383, cf. ib. 975) addressed to certain "fathers of monks," in which he
urged the incompatibility of that "venerable and oecumenical symbol of faith " with
the denial of the personal unity of the Saviour. In this tract, a copy of which
he sent to Theodosius, he disclaimed, as usual, any "fusion, commixture, or so-called
consubstantiation" (συνουσίωσιν) of the Godhead
with the flesh. He drew up a short treatise in three books to prove that Mary was
Theotokos, that Christ was one and not two, and that while He was impassible as
God, He suffered for us in flesh that was His own. This he intended as an antidote
to the Nestorian arguments which, as he learned, were rife in Syria (Mansi, v. 995).
The name of Theodore of Mopsuestia was at this time a watchword of eager controversy.
Proclus of Constantinople, in his "Tome" addressed to the Armenian clergy, in which
he spoke of "one incarnate person" (not "nature") of God the Word, had condemned
Theodore's opinions without naming him (ib. 421): the messengers who carried
this document to John of Antioch inserted Theodore's name, without authority from
Proclus, as the author of certain passages selected for censure. John and his suffragans
accepted the Tome, but declined to condemn Theodore by name. Proclus rejoined that
he had never wished them to go beyond a condemnation of the extracts. Cyril, so
far from feeling any tenderness towards Theodore, traced Nestorianism to his teaching
and to that of Diodore of Tarsus (ib. 974) and wrote vigorously in support
of this thesis (ib. 992). A synodal letter from John and his suffragans,
stating their objections to Theodore's name being anathematized on the score of
expressions which, they urged, could be taken in a sense accordant with the language
of eminent Fathers, drew forth from Cyril a somewhat indignant reply. Theodore,
he said (Ep. p. 195), had "borne down full sail against the glory of Christ";
it was intolerable that any parallel should be drawn between his language and that
of Athanasius or Basil: he insisted that no one should be allowed to preach Theodore's
opinions; but he did not urge any condemnation of his memory, and even dwelt on
the duty of welcoming all converts from Nestorianism without a word of reproach
as to the past. He saw that it would be imprudent to proceed publicly against the
memory of a theologian so highly esteemed that the people cried out in some Eastern
churches, "We believe as Theodore did," and would rather be "burnt" than disown
him; and he wrote to Proclus advising that no further steps should be taken in the
matter (Ep. p. 199). The remaining events of Cyril's long episcopate may
be
Cyril's character is not, of course, to be judged by the coarse and ferocious invective against his memory, quoted as Theodoret's in the fifth general council (Theod. Ep. 180; see Tillem. xiv. 784). If this were indeed the production of Theodoret, the reputation to suffer would assuredly be that writer's. What Cyril was, in his strength and in his weakness—in his high-souled struggle for doctrines which were to him, as to all thoughtful believers in Christ's Divinity, the expressions of essential Christian belief; or in the moments when his old faults of vehemence and impatience reappeared in his conduct—we have already seen. He started in public life, so to speak, with dangerous tendencies to vehemence and imperiousness which were fostered by the bad traditions of his uncle's episcopate and by the ample powers of his see. It would be impossible to maintain that these evils were wholly exhausted by the grave errors which—exaggerations and false imputations set aside—distinguished his conduct in the feud with the Jews and with Orestes; when, although guiltless of the blood of Hypatia, he must have felt that his previous violence had been taken as an encouragement by her fanatical murderers. The old impatience and absolutism were all too prominent at certain points of the Nestorian struggle; although on other occasions, as must be admitted by all fair judges, influences of a softening and chastening character had abated the turbid impetus of his zeal and had taught him to be moderate and patient. "We may," says Dr. Newman (Hist. Sketches, iii. 342), "hold St. Cyril a great servant of God, without considering ourselves obliged to defend certain passages of his ecclesiastical career. . . . Cyril's faults were not inconsistent with great and heroic virtues, faith, firmness, intrepidity, fortitude, endurance, perseverance." Those who begin by condemning dogmatic zeal as a fierce and misplaced chivalry for a phantom, will find it most difficult to be just to a man like Cyril. But if his point of view, which was indeed that of many great religious heroes, and eminently of Athanasius, be fully understood and appreciated, it ought not to be difficult to do justice to his memory. The issue raised by Nestorianism was to Cyril a very plain one, involving the very essence of Apostolic Christianity. Whatever ambiguities might be raised by a Nestorian use of the word πρόσωπον, it was clear to Cyril that the new theory amounted to a denial of the Word Incarnate. Nor was it a mere theory of the schools. Its promulgator held the great see of the Eastern capital, involving a central position and strong court influence, and was no mere amiable dreamer or scholastic pedant, whose fancies might die away if left to themselves. He has in modern times been spoken of as "the blameless Nestorius": he was in his own times spoken of as "the incendiary" on account of a zeal against other forms of heresy which impelled him to take strong measures against opponents of his own. This was the enemy against whom Cyril did battle for the doctrine of a real Incarnation and a really Divine Christ. He had to reckon on opposition, not only from Nestorius himself, but from large numbers—a miscellaneous company, including civil functionaries as well as prelates—who accepted the Nestorian theology, or who thought strong language against it uncalled-for and offensive. He might have to encounter the displeasure of an absolute government—he certainly had for some time the prospect of that displeasure, and of all its consequences; he had the burden of ill-health, of ever-present intense anxiety, of roughly expressed censure, of reiterated imputations affecting his own orthodoxy, of misconceptions and suspicions which hardly left him a moment's rest. Whatever faults there were in his conduct of the controversy, this at least must be said—not only by mere eulogists of a canonized saint, but by those who care for the truth of history—that the thought as well as the heart of Christendom has for ages accepted, as the expression of Christian truth, the principle upheld by Cyril against Nestorius. A real and profound question divided the disputants; and that stanza of Charles Wesley's Christmas hymn which begins,
conveys the Cyrilline or Ephesine answer to that question in a form which exhibits
its close connexion with the deepest exigencies of spiritual life. Cyril, as a theological
writer, has greater merits than are sometimes allowed by writers defective in a
spirit of equity. His style, as Cave admits, may be deficient in elegance and in
eloquence; he may be often tedious,
Fragments of Cyrilline treatises not otherwise extant are preserved in synodal acts and elsewhere, and other works, as his Paschal Cycles and The Failure of the Synagogue, are mentioned by Sigebert and Gennadius. The Monophysites used on festivals a "Liturgy of St. Cyril," which is substantially identical with the Gk. "Liturgy of St. Mark" (see Palmer's Orig. Liturg. i. 86, and Neale's Introd. East. Ch. i. 324), and their traditionary belief, expressed in a passage cited from Abu’lberkat by Renaudot, Lit. Orient. i, 171, is that Cyril "completed" St. Mark's Liturgy. "It seems highly probable," says Dr. Neale, quoting this, "that the liturgy of St. Mark came, as we have it now, from the hands of St. Cyril"; although, as Palmer says, the orthodox Alexandrians preferred to call it by the name of the Evangelist founder of their see. The Coptic Cyrilline Liturgy is of somewhat later date, and more diffuse in character. It seems not improbable that the majestic invocation of the Holy Spirit which is one of the distinctive ornaments of St. Mark's Liturgy, if it was not composed during the Macedonian controversy in the 4th cent., represents to us the lively zeal of the great upholder of the Hypostatic Union for the essential Divinity of the Third Person in the Godhead.
Cyril's works were well edited by John Aubert (1658) in six volumes, an edition not yet superseded; there is no Benedictine St. Cyril. In 1859 Dr. Payne Smith pub. Cyril's Commentary on St. Luke's Gospel, trans. from a Syriac version. An elaborate edition by P. E. Pusey, M.A., of Christ Church, of the Commentary on the Minor Prophets (2 vols.) and the Commentary on S. John's Gospel (3 vols.) is pub. by the Clarendon Press, as is also the text and trans. with Lat. notes of the Comm. in Luc. ed. by R. P. Smith. An important work has recently been published by Dr. Bethune Baker, of Cambridge, entitled Nestorius and his Teaching, a Fresh Examination of the Evidence, which adduces much, from new discoveries; in vindication of Nestorius from the heresy attributed to him. See also CHRISTOLOGY, in D. C. B. (4-vol. ed.).
Cyrillus (13), of Scythopolis (Bethshan), so called from his birthplace, a hagiologist, fl. c. 555. His father, John, was famous for his religious life. Cyril commenced an ascetic career at the age of 16. On leaving his monastery to visit Jerusalem and the holy places, his mother bid him put himself under the instruction of John the Silentiary, by whom he was commended to Leontius, abbat of the monastery of St. Euthymius, who admitted him as a monk in 522. Thence Cyril passed to the Laura of St. Saba, where he commenced his sacred biographies with the Lives of St. Euthymius and St. Saba, deriving his information from the elder monks who had known those saints. He also wrote the Life of St. John the Silentiary and other biographies, affording a valuable picture of the inner life of the Eastern church in the 6th cent. They have been unfortunately largely interpolated by Metaphrastes. The following biographies are attributed to Cyril by Fabricius (Bibl. Graec. lib. v. c. 41, x. 155): (1) S. Joannes Silentiarius (ap. Surium, May 13); (2) S. Euthymius (Cotelerius, Eccl. Graec. Monum. ii. 200); (3) S. Sabas. (ib. iii. 220); (4) Theodosius the Archimandrite (only found in Latin, of doubtful authenticity; (5) Cyriacus the Anchoret; (6) S. Theognius the Ascetic, bp. of Cyprus (Fabric. Bibl. Graec. u.s.; Cave, Hist. Lit. p. i. 529).
D
Dalmatius (4), monk and abbat, near Constantinople at the time of the council of Ephesus (a.d. 431). His influence arose from his eminent piety, strength of character, and fiery zeal. Under Theodosius the Great he had served in the 2nd company of Guards, married, had children, and led a virtuous life. Feeling a call to a monastic life, he left his wife and children, except a son Faustus, and went to be instructed by abbat Isaac, who had dwelt in the desert since his infancy. Isaac at his death made him Hegumenus, superior of the monastery, under the patriarch Atticus. Consulted by councils, patriarchs, and emperors, he remained in his cell 48 years without quitting it. He is sometimes addressed as chief of the monasteries of Constantinople; but it is uncertain whether this was a complimentary or official title. He is not to be confounded with Dalmatius, monk at Constantinople, bp. of Cyzicus; because the latter was present at the council of Ephesus in that capacity.
During the supremacy of the Nestorian party at Ephesus, letters were conveyed
by a beggar in the hollow of a cane from Cyril and the Athanasian or Catholic bishops
to the emperor Theodosius II., the clergy and people at Constantinople complaining
that they had been imprisoned three months, that the Nestorians had deposed Cyril
and Memnon bp. of Ephesus, and that they were all in the greatest distress. A short
memorial was added to the letter of the bishops, probably for Dalmatius. Dalmatius
was greatly moved, and believed himself summoned to go forth at length from his
retreat in the interests of truth. Accompanied by the monks of all the monasteries,
Damasus, pope, said to have been a Spaniard, the son of Antonius. On the death of Liberius (Sept. a.d. 366) the factions which had disgraced his election broke out with redoubled violence. The original root of bitterness had been Arianism; and Felix the Arian antipope [Felix II.] had been expelled by Liberius. Seven days after the death of Liberius, Felix's partisans met and proclaimed Damasus pope in the Lucina [qy. the crypt of St. Lucina in the catacomb of Callistus?]. Damasus had previously taken up a middle position between the contending parties, which may have specially recommended him to the electors, who could not hope to carry an extreme man. Yet, about the same time apparently the party of Liberius met in the Julian basilica and elected Ursicinus or Ursinus.
It is difficult to ascertain the truth with regard to the strife between the rival popes. Our most detailed account is by personal enemies of Damasus, and the incidents of the struggle are recorded under Ursinus.
Damasus used his success well, and the chair of St. Peter, even if, as his enemies alleged, acquired by violent means, was never more respected nor vigorous than during his bishopric. He appears as a principal opponent of Arian and other heretics. Bp. Peter of Alexandria was his firm friend all along; and was associated with him in the condemnation of Apollinaris (Soz. vi. 25), and in affixing the stigma of Arianism to Meletius of Antioch and Eusebius, who were upheld by Basil (Basil, Ep. cclxvi. iii. 597, ed. Bened.). On Meletius's death Damasus struggled hard to gain the chair of Antioch for Paulinus, and to exclude Flavianus; nor was he reconciled to the latter till some time later (Socr. v. 15).
His correspondence with Jerome, his attached friend and secretary, begins a.d. 376, and closes only with his death a.d. 384. Six of Jerome's letters to him are preserved, two being expositions of difficult passages of Scripture elicited by letters of Damasus asking the aid of his learning. Jerome's desire to dedicate to him a translation of Didymus's work on the Holy Ghost was only stopped by his death. In later letters Jerome speaks in high terms of Damasus; calls him "that illustrious man, that virgin doctor of the virgin church," "eager to catch the first sound of the preaching of continence"; who "wrote both verse and prose in favour of virginity" (Epp. Hieron. 22, 48). From this Milman (Latin Christ. i. 69) conjectures that Damasus was a patron of the growing monastic party—a not improbable conjecture, rendered more likely by the ardent attachment of Jerome, and the veneration in which the memory of pope Damasus was held by later times, when monasticism had taken firm root in the Roman church. But the best-known record of Damasus will always be his labour of love in the catacombs of Rome. Here he searched ardently and devotedly for the tombs of the martyrs, which had been blocked up and hidden by the Christians during the last persecution. He "removed the earth, widened the passages, so as to make them more serviceable for the crowd of pilgrims, constructed flights of stairs leading to the more illustrious shrines, and adorned the chambers with marbles, opening shafts to admit air and light where practicable, and supporting the friable tufa walls and galleries wherever it was necessary with arches of brick and stone work. Almost all the catacombs bear traces of his labours, and modern discovery is continually bringing to light fragments of the inscriptions which he composed in honour of the martyrs, and caused to be engraved on marble slabs, in a peculiarly beautiful character, by a very able artist, Furius Dionysius Filocalus. It is a singular fact that no original inscription of pope Damasus has ever yet been found executed by any other hand; nor have any inscriptions been found, excepting those of Damasus, in precisely the same form of letters. Hence the type is well known to students of Christian epigraphy as the 'Damasine character'" (Roma Sotterranea, by Northcote and Brownlow, p. 97). Damasus also laid down a marble pavement in the basilica of St. Sebastian, recording by an inscription the temporary burial in that church of SS. Peter and Paul (ib. p. 114). He built the baptistery at the Vatican in honour of St. Peter, where de Rossi thinks, from an inscription in the Damasine character, was an actual chair which went by the name of St. Peter's seat (ib. p. 393). and he drained the crypts of the Vatican, that the bodies buried there might not be disturbed by the overflow of water (ib. p. 334). He died in Dec. 384, after a pontificate of 18 years. Before his death he had prepared his own tomb above the catacomb of Callistus, giving his reason in an inscription in what is called the Papal crypt of that catacomb:
(ib. p. 102). Cf. Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, vols. i. and ii.
Damianus (2), M. [Cosmas.]
Daniel (9) the Stylite, of the 5th cent., was a Mesopotamian by birth,
and in his youth had visited Symeon the Stylite. After having
Dativus (3), celebrated senator, martyred under Diocletian Feb. 11, a.d. 304. In spite of orders to the contrary, a company of the faithful met in the town of Abitina, in the proconsulate of Africa, to celebrate Christian worship and communion, at the house of one Felix Octavius. Forty-nine men and women were surprised by the official and magistrates of the town. They marched cheerfully to their destination, chanting hymns and canticles, having at their head Dativus the senator and Saturninus the presbyter. They confessed Jesus Christ, were chained, and sent to Carthage. There the proconsul Anulinus examined them. Dativus, refusing to say who was the chief of their company, was tortured. As he lay under the iron, at a second examination, Dativus was accused by Fortunatianus, advocate, brother of the martyr Victoria one of the arrested, of enticing her and other young girls to Abitina. Victoria, however, indignantly denied that she had gone there but of her own accord. The executioners continued tormenting Dativus, till the interior of his breast could be seen. He went on praying and begging Jesus Christ for patience. The proconsul, stopping the torture, asked him again if he had been present. "I was in the assembly," he answered, "and celebrated the Lord's Supper with the brethren." They again thrust the irons into his side; and Dativus, repeating his prayer, continued to say, "O Christ, I pray Thee let me not be confounded." And he added, "What have I done? Saturninus is our presbyter." Dativus was carried to gaol. Here he soon afterwards died. Many of his companions were also tortured, and most of them were starved to death in prison. Ruinart, Acta Sinc. Mart. p. 382; Ceillier, iii. 20, etc.; AA. SS. Bolland. Feb. ii. p. 513.
David (5), St. (Degui; Welsh, Dewi), the most eminent Welsh saint.
His Period.—The Annales Cambriae, our earliest authority for his existence, date his death a.d. 601; and one reading, which the Monumenta only gives in brackets, under a.d. 458, is: "St. Dewi nascitur anno tricesimo post discessum Patricii de Menevia" (M. H. B. 830, 831). Geoffrey of Monmouth dates his death a.d. 542, and William of Malmesbury a.d. 546. Ussher argues that he died a.d. 544, at the age of 82 (Brit. Eccl. Ant. Works, 1847; vi. 43, 44, Chron. Index, ad ann. 544); but Rice Rees, who has followed him in his computations, places his birth 20 years later, and fixes a.d. 566 as the last date possible for his death. The a.d. 601 of the Ann. Camb. is the date adopted by Haddan and Stubbs (Councils, i. 121, 143, 148), who remark that David would thus come into view just as the history of Wales emerges from the darkness that conceals it for a century after the departure of the Romans.
A résumé of authorities for his Life is given by Jones and Freeman (Hist. of St. David's, 240), and a full and careful list of all known materials, manuscript and printed, by Hardy (Descr. Catal. i. 766).
The Story of his Life.—The asserted facts of St. David's life, omitting such as are clearly legendary, meet with various degrees of credence from authors of repute. Rees, in his Essay on Welsh Saints, while rejecting several circumstances as manifestly fabulous or incredible, such as his going to Jerusalem to be consecrated, is disposed to accept enough to make a biographical narrative.
His father was (in medieval Latin) Xantus or Sanctus, prince of Keretica—i.e.
modern Cardiganshire. David is said to have been educated first under St. Iltutus
in his college (afterwards called from him Llanilltyd Fawr, or Lanwit Major), and
subsequently in the college of Paulinus (a pupil of Germanus and one of the great
teachers of the age), at Tygwyn ar Dâf (Rees, Welsh Saints, 178), or at Whitland
in Carmarthenshire (Jones and Freeman); and here he spent ten years in the study
of Holy Scripture. In course of time David became head of a society of his own,
founding or restoring a monastery or college at a spot which Giraldus calls Vallis
Rosina (derived, as is generally supposed, from a confusion between Rhos,
a swamp, and Rhosyn, a rose), near Hen-Meneu, and this institution was subsequently
named, out of respect to his
As primate, David distinguished himself by saintly character and apostolic zeal, a glowing, not to say an overcharged, description of which is given in Giraldus. It is generally agreed that Wales was divided into dioceses in his time. Rees, in his learned essay on the Welsh saints, shews that of the dedications and localities of the churches of the principality, a large number terminate in David's native name, ddewi, or are otherwise connected with his memory (Welsh Saints, p. 52). These instances, moreover, abound in a well-defined district; and Rees has ingeniously used these circumstances as indicating the limits of the diocese of archbp. David's immediate jurisdiction (ib. pp. 197-199). David's successor was Cynog.
Jones and Freeman (St. David's, 246 seq.) conclude that we may safely accept as historical facts: that St. David established a see and monastery at Menevia early in the 7th cent., the site being chosen for the sake of retirement; that his diocese was co-extensive with the Demetae; that he had no archiepiscopal jurisdiction; that a synod was held at Brefi, in which he probably played a conspicuous part, but that its objects are unknown; and finally that of his immediate successors nothing is recorded (ib. 257). These writers convey a vivid impression of the "strange and desolate scenery" of the spot now named after St. David, and give some curious antiquarian details. Haddan and Stubbs (Councils, i. 115-120) give dates to the synod of Brefi and the synod of Victory, a little before 569 and in 569, later than Rees's latest possible date for David's death; and they regard the accounts given of the synods by Ricemarchus, and Giraldus after him, as purely fabulous, and directed to the establishment of the apocryphal supremacy of St. David and his see over the entire British church. They express much doubt as to the purpose of those assemblies being to crush Pelagianism. Valuable documentary information and references as to the whole subject of the early Welsh episcopate are given in Appendix C (op. cit.), and it is maintained that "there is no real evidence of the existence of any archiepiscopate at all in Wales during the Welsh period, if the term is held to imply jurisdiction admitted or even claimed (until the 12th cent.) by one see over another."
David was canonized by pope Calixtus c.
a.d. 1120, and commemorated on
Decius. The reign of this emperor, though among the shortest in the Roman annals (a.d. 249-251), has gained a pre-eminence in ecclesiastical history altogether disproportioned to its place in general history. It was burnt in on the memories of men as a fiery trial, and occasioned many memorable controversies.
When Cn. Messius Decius Trajanus first appears in history it is with a grown-up son, himself between fifty and sixty, as a member of the Roman senate, in the last year of the reign of Philip the Arabian. The army elected him as emperor, and forced him to lead them into Italy. Near Verona they encountered Philip, who was defeated and slain (June 17, a.d. 249), and Decius began to reign. He associated his own son and Annius Maximus Gratus with him as Caesars.
The edict which made his name a byword of reproach may have been due to a desire
to restore the rigorous morality of the old Roman life, and the old religion which
gave that morality its sanctions. If we may judge by the confessions of the great
Christian teachers, who owned that the church deserved its sufferings, the lives
of its members did not then present a very lovely aspect. Christian men were effeminate
and self-indulgent, trimming their beard and dyeing their hair; Christian women
painted their faces, and brightened their eyes with cosmetics. The clergy were covetous
and ambitious, looking
That policy was opened early in a.d.
250 by an edict no longer extant,
The persecution of Decius (commonly reckoned as the seventh) may fairly be measured as to its extent, if not its actual severity, by the list of martyrs under it still found in the calendar of the Western church. It was more extensive and more systematic than any that had preceded it. Fabian, bp. of Rome, was among the foremost of the victims; Babylas of Antioch, Pionius of Smyrna (seized, it was said, while celebrating the anniversary of the martyrdom of Polycarp), Agatha of Sicily, Polyeuctes of Armenia, Carpus and his deacon of Thyatira, Maximus (a layman) of Asia, Alexander, bp. of Jerusalem, Acacius of the Phrygian Antioch, Epimachus and Nemesius of Alexandria, Peter and his companions of Lampsacus, Irenaeus of Neo-Caesarea, Martial of Limoges, Abdon and Sennen (Persians then at Rome), Cassian of Imola, Lucian a Thracian, Trypho and Respicius of Bithynia, the Ten Martyrs of Crete, have all found a place in the martyrologies of this period, and, after allowing uncertainty to some of the names, the list is enough to shew that there was hardly a province of the empire where the persecution was not felt. Among "confessors" (a title which seems to have been then, for the first time, used in this sense) were Origen, who was tortured on the rack, and the boy Dioscorus who, at the age of 15, offered himself for the crown of martyrdom, but was spared by the Alexandrian prefect in pity for his youth. To this reign belongs the well-known legend of the Seven Sleepers of Ephesus, told for the first time by Gregory of Tours (de Glor. Martyr. c. 95). Confessing the faith, like Dioscorus, in the prime of early manhood, they were, it was said, walled up in a cave, and left to die. They fell asleep, and the place acquired a local fame for its sanctity. In the reign of Theodosius (a.d. 447) the cave was opened, and the sleepers awoke, went forth, and were startled at the changes which they witnessed, temples destroyed and churches standing in their place. Their second life was, however, of short duration. They again lay down together and fell asleep, this time not to wake again.
Happily, the persecution was as short as it was severe. The attacks of the Goths
(or the Carpi, probably a Gothic tribe) drew Decius and his son into Pannonia, where
they fell in battle. In some respects the after-effects of the Decian persecution
were more important than its direct results. It cleared off the crowd of half-hearted
Christians, and left behind those who were prepared by its discipline for the severer
struggles that were to come under Valerian and Diocletian. Questions arose as to
the treatment of those who had apostatized (the lapsi of Cyprian's treatise).
Were the libellatici to be dealt with on the same footing as the
thurificati?
Were either capable of readmission into the fold of Christ? Was that readmission
to be conditional upon the church's normal discipline, or were the confessors to
be allowed to give a certificate of absolution (the libellus pacis) to those
whose weakness or repentance was sufficient reason for indulgence? Some of those
who prided themselves, like many of the Roman confessors, on their constancy, looked
down with scorn on the indulgence
Demetrias, a Roman virgin to whom Jerome wrote his treatise (Ep. 130, ed. Vall.) on the keeping of virginity. Her family was illustrious at Rome, her grandmother Proba (who is much praised by Jerome) having had three sons, all consuls. Demetrias had in early life wished to take the vow of virginity, but feared her parents' opposition. They, however, fully approved, and it gladdened all the churches of Italy. Her father having died just before the sack of Rome by Alaric, the family sold their property and set sail for Africa, witnessing the burning of Rome as they left Italy; and, arriving in Africa, fell into the hands of the rapacious count Heraclian, who took away a large part of their property. Jerome exhorts Demetrias to a life of study and fasting; care in the selection of companions; consecration of her wealth to Christ's service; and to working with her own hands. He warns her not to perplex herself with difficult questions introduced by the Origenists; and recommends the study of Scripture. He exhorts her to prefer the coenobitic to the hermit life, and bears testimony, as he had done 30 years before to Eustochium, to the excellence of the virgin-state, notwithstanding the attacks made upon it.
Demetrius (2) succeeded Julianus A.D. 189, as 11th bp. of Alexandria (Eus. H. E. v. 22). He presided over the see for 43 years, and died a.d. 231-232 (ib. vi. 26). He appears to have been of an energetic and imperious nature. He took an active interest in the Catechetical School, and is said to have sent one of its early chiefs, Pantaenus, on a [second?] mission "to the Indians" on their own request (Hieron. de Vir. Ill. 36). After Clement had left Alexandria, he placed Origen at its head, c. 203 (Eus. H. E. vi. 5), and strenuously encouraged him to continue his work, when his indiscreet zeal had exposed him to misrepresentation (ib. vi. 8). Later (a.d. 217), he sent Origen to the Roman governor of Arabia, at the governor's earnest invitation (ib. vi. 19). Origen fulfilled his mission satisfactorily, but not long afterwards Demetrius's friendship for him was interrupted. [Origen.] According to a late, and not very trustworthy, authority, Demetrius is reported to have written letters on the keeping of Easter, maintaining the view adopted at Nicaea (Eutychius, Ann. pp. 363 ff.; Migne, Patrol. vol. cxi.). Other legendary stories of his life are given in the Chronicon Orientale (pp. 72 f. ed 1685), and more briefly by Tillemont (Mémoires, Origène, art. vii. tom. iii. p. 225, ed. Bruxelles).
The statement that Demetrius first changed the singular ecclesiastical arrangement of Egypt, by appointing three bishops in addition to the bp. of Alexandria, who had formerly governed the whole province, is probably correct, though the only direct authority for it is that of Eutychius, patriarch of Alexandria, in the 10th cent. (cf. Lightfoot, Philippians, p. 230). Possibly this change was due to special views on church government, which may have influenced Demetrius in his harsh judgment on the ordination of Origen beyond the limits of his jurisdiction.
Demophilus, bp. of Constantinople, a.d. 370; expelled 380; died 386; formerly bp. of Berea; born of good family in Thessalonica (Philostorg. H. E. ix. 14). On the death of Eudoxius in 370 he was elected by the Arians to the bishopric of Constantinople (Socr. H. E. iv. 14; Soz. H. E. vi. 13). The people, however, were much divided (Philostorg. H. E. ix. 10). The orthodox party chose Evagrius for their bishop, and he was ordained by Eustathius, the deposed bp. of Antioch. This was the signal for an outburst of fury on the part of the Arians. Eustathius and Evagrius were banished by Valens, and their followers bitterly persecuted (Socr. H. E. iv. 14, 16; Soz. H. E. vi. 13, 14). Demophilus, soon after his accession, went to Cyzicus in conjunction with Dorotheus, or Theodorus, of Heraclea, to procure the election of an Arian bishop, that see having been vacant since the banishment of Eunomius. But the people of Cyzicus refused to acknowledge them till they had anathematized Aetius, Eunomius, and their followers. They were then permitted to ordain a bishop chosen by the people. The bishop who was ordained straightway and clearly taught the consubstantial faith (Philostorg. H. E. ix. 13).
In 380 changed times came and made the reign of Theodosius I. and the patriarchate of Demophilus memorable. The emperor Theodosius offered to confirm him in his see, if he would subscribe the Nicene Creed. Demophilus refused, and was immediately ordered to give up his churches. He then called his followers together, and retired, with Lucius of Alexandria and others, to a place of worship without the walls (Socr. H. E. v. 7). The churches of Constantinople, which had for forty years been in Arian hands, were now restored to the orthodox; and similarly in other cities. It was, in fact, a general dis-establishment of Arianism and re-establishment of Catholicism. Philostorgius (H. E. ix. 19) adds that Demophilus went to his own city, Berea. But this must have been some time afterwards, or he must have returned from exile, for he represented the Arian party at the synod held in Constantinople, a.d. 383 (Socr. H. E. v. 10; Soz. H. E. vii. 12). The same writer says that Demophilus was wont to throw everything into confusion, especially the doctrines of the church, and quotes from a sermon at Constantinople, in which he spoke of the human nature of the Saviour as lost in the divine, as a glass of milk when poured into the sea. Philostorg. Patrol. Gk. lxv.; Soz. and Socr. Patrol. Gk. lxvii.
Dianius or Dianaeus, for more than 20 years bp. of Caesarea in
Cappadocia, a saintly man
Didymus, head of the Catechetical School of Alexandria in the 4th cent., born a.d. 309 or 314 (Tillemont, Mém. x. 387). When only four years old he lost his sight from disease; and consequently was never taught, as he himself declared, even the usual rudiments of learning. But his extraordinary force of character and intense thirst for knowledge triumphed over all disadvantages. He prayed for inward light, "but added studies to prayers" (Rufin. ii. 7). He learned the alphabet by touch from engraved wooden tablets, and words and syllables by attentive listening. Thus he became master of various sciences (Socr. iv. 25; Soz. iii. 15; Theod. iv. 26), and attained a truly wonderful familiarity with the Scriptures. Athanasius made the blind scholar head of the Catechetical School, as a fitting successor to Pantaenus and Clement. He was the twelfth who occupied that chair. In his earlier manhood, Anthony, visiting Alexandria to support the Catholic cause against the Arians, entered Didymus's cell, and despite his modest reluctance obliged him to offer up prayers (Rosweyd. Vit. Patr. 944, 539, ed. 1617), and asked Didymus whether he was sad on account of his blindness. After the question had been twice repeated, Didymus owned that he did feel the affliction painfully. "Do not be distressed," rejoined the saintly hermit, "for the loss of a faculty enjoyed by gnats and flies, when you have that inward eyesight which is the privilege of none but saints." Jerome (Ep. 68; cf. Socr. iv. 29) stayed for a month at Alexandria in 386, mainly (see Prolog. in Eph.) to see Didymus and have Scripture difficulties explained by him (Soz. l.c.). "In many points," wrote Jerome in a.d. 400 (Ep. 84), "I give him thanks. I learned from him things which I had not known; what I did know, his teaching has helped me to retain." Rufinus was also, for a much longer time, a pupil of Didymus. Palladius (Rosweyd. l.c.), who visited him four times, states that he had a dream of the emperor Julian's death at the exact time it occurred in his Persian expedition. Sozomen says that in arguing for the Nicene faith, Didymus was successful by his extreme persuasiveness—he seemed to make every one a judge of the points in dispute (iii. 15); and Isidore of Pelusium (Ep. i. 331) and Libanius (Ep. 321) speak of his great ability.
Our fullest information about him is derived from Jerome, who frequently refers to him as his old teacher, and affectionately describes him as "my seer," in allusion to the contrast between his physical blindness and his keenness of spiritual and intellectual perception. Jerome translated into Latin Didymus's treatise On the Holy Spirit, and prefixed a preface, in which he spoke of the author as having "eyes like the spouse in the Song of Songs," as "unskilled in speech but not in knowledge, exhibiting in his very speech the character of an apostolic man, as well by luminous thought as by simplicity of words." Writing in 392 (de Viris Illustr. 109), Jerome gives a short biographical account of Didymus.
The extent to which Didymus may be called an Origenizer has been discussed. See
Mingarelli's "Commentarius" prefixed to his edition of Didymus's de Trinitate
(Bologna, 1769). In his extant writings there is no assertion of Origenian views
as to the pre-existence of souls, and he affirms, more than once, the endless nature
of future punishment; but seems to have believed that some of the fallen angels
occupied a midway position between angels and demons, and would be ultimately forgiven.
Neither Epiphanius nor Theophilus, nor indeed any one before the 6th cent. except
Jerome, laid Origenism to his charge; and with regard to the alleged condemnation
of his memory by the 5th general council, as he is never named in the Acts, the
utmost that can be made of such a statement is, that the condemnation of Origen
in that synod's 11th anathema (Mansi, ix. 383)
His comments on the Catholic Epistles are extant, as translated by Epiphanius
Scholasticus (see Galland. Bib. Vet. Patr. ii.). His notes on I. Peter shew
a dislike of Chiliasm, as a carnal and frivolous theory; he asserts free will, opposes
Manicheans, admits the possibility of faults on the part of angels being cleansed
through Christ; and in words very characteristic of the indomitable student and
teacher, rebukes Christians who neglect sacred studies and attend only to practical
life (on
His treatise Against the Manicheans (pub. by Combefis in his Auctarium Novum, 1672) begins with logical formulae, intended to disprove the existence of two unoriginated Principles. From the blame and punishment attached to evil, he infers that Satan and his followers are not evil by nature; he discusses the terms "by nature children of wrath" (which he understands to mean "really children of wrath"), "children of this world," "son of perdition," "generation of vipers," with the aim of shewing that they do not contravene the great moral facts of free will and responsibility. The devil, he urges, was created good, and became a devil by his own free will. If it be objected, why then did God make a being who was to become so pestilent? the objection really lies against the whole plan of God's moral government, which intends His rational creatures to become good by choosing goodness, and therefore leaves them capable of choosing evil, and drawing on themselves the result of such a choice. He also asserts the transmission of original sin: a Saviour born by ordinary generation would have incurred the sin entailed on Adam's whole posterity. His three books On the Trinity have not reached us in a perfect state. They are interesting as exhibiting the Athanasian character, so to speak, of his thought in presence of Anomoeans and of Macedonians. He admits II. Peter as genuine: perhaps the opinion he had formerly held as to its non-canonicity had been reconsidered. He is very earnest, almost in the style of the "Athanasian Creed," on the co-equality of the Divine Hypostases (he uses that term in the sense which the younger generation of Catholics had adopted since the earlier days of the Arian strife). He enforces the perpetuity of Christ's kingdom (as if in controversy with Marcellians), and speaks of the Virgin Mother as Theotokos (ii. 4). He bestows much time and pains on the Macedonian controversy. Occasionally he kindles and glows with strong devotional fervour, and concludes an eloquent passage on the glory of the Holy Trinity with a thrice-repeated Amen. Shortly before this passage he invokes the archangels, and expresses his belief in the intercession of the saints (ii. 7).
Dimoeritae, another name for the followers of Apollinarius, probably to be explained by a passage in a letter of Gregory of Nazianzum to Nectarius of Constantinople (Ep. 202, al. Or. 46). Gregory says that Apollinarius's book affirmed that He Who had come down from above had no νοῦς, but that τὴν θεότητα τοῦ Μονογενοῦς τὴν τοῦ νοῦ φύσιν ἀναπληρώσασαν. Hence, as the Apollinarians maintained that our Lord assumed only (διμοιρία) two of the three parts (σῶμα, ψυχή, νοῦς) of which perfect humanity consists, they were called Dimoeritae by Epiphanius, who says (Haer. lxxvii.) that "some denied especially the perfect Incarnation of Christ; some asserted His body consubstantial with His divinity; some emphatically denied that He had ever taken a soul; others not less emphatically refused to Him a mind."
Among the leaders of the Dimoeritae was one Vitalius.
Both Gregory of Nazianzum and Epiphanius came in contact with him; the former while
Vitalius was, it would seem, a presbyter, the latter when he had been made a bishop
of the sect. Epiphanius at Antioch, in a long discussion with Vitalius, put the
crucial question: "You admit the Incarnation, do you also admit that Christ took
a mind (νοῦν)?" "The answer was, "No." Epiphanius
persisted: "In what sense then do you call Christ
τέλειος?" The point was debated without results. Epiphanius urged that not
only was nothing gained by excluding mind, as we understand it, from the nature
of Christ; but also that by such exclusion much was lost which made His nature,
character, and actions intelligible. Vitalius and his followers avoided Epiphanius's
arguments by reverting to their favourite texts, e.g. "We have the mind of
Christ" (
The Dimoeritae probably existed, as a sect, for a few years only, either under that name or as Vitalians, Synusiasts, Polemians, Valentinians, after some favourite leader or opinion. Then they died out, or merged themselves into other bodies holding similar views, or were brought back to the church. The books, psalteries, and hymns composed and issued by Apollinarius and his principal followers were met, and their effects counteracted, by books and hymns such as have given to Gregory of Nazianzum a name among ecclesiastical song writers. Epiphanius, Panaria, iii. 11; Haer. lxxvii. (ed. Dindorf, iii. 1, p. 454); Oehler, Corpus Haereseolog. ii. 330, etc.; and the usual Church histories, e.g. Neander, Niedner, Hase, Robertson, s.v. "Apollinarianism," should be consulted.
Dinooth, Dinothus, abbat of Bangor Iscoed,
We know less about Dinooth than about his famous monastery upon the right bank of the Dee, 10 or 12 miles from Chester. The name of Bangor ys y coed (Bangor under the wood) distinguishes it from other Bangors, especially that of Carnarvonshire, where Deiniol, the son of Dinooth, founded another monastery, which was soon afterwards made the seat of a bishopric. So numerous were the monks of Bangor Iscoed that, as Bede puts it, on their being divided into seven parts with a ruler over each, none of those parts consisted of less than 300 men, who all lived by the labour of their hands. It thus rivalled the Irish Bangor [Comgall], and, from the learned men mentioned by Bede as residing there, must have been as much a college as a monastery. Augustine's prediction was levelled, not against this institution in particular, but the British church and people at large; "if they would not preach the way of life to the English nation, they should at their hands undergo the vengeance of death." The conjunction desired by Augustine ("una cum nobis," Bede) involved their ecclesiastical submission. "Dinooth's Answer," in recognizing this, may have appeared to some one in after-times a sufficient ground to assign the document to this occasion. The judgment came about 10 years afterwards, a.d. 613 (Ann. Cambr. and Ann. Tighern., preferable to earlier dates, as 603 of Flor. Wig. and 606 or 607 of A. S. C.; cf. Haddan and Stubbs, i. 123), when Ethelfrid, the pagan king of Northumbria, invaded the Britons at Chester. Being about to give battle, he observed their "priests," who were there to pray for the soldiers, drawn up apart in a place of greater safety, and under the military protection of prince Brocmail. They had come chiefly from Bangor, after a three days' fast. The invader, regarding them as a contingent of his enemy, attacked them first and slew about 1,200, only 50 escaping. Bede either here uses the term "sacerdotes" and "monachi" as synonymous, or the priests were in charge of the monks, leading their devotions. It was a disastrous blow to Bangor, and was naturally handed down as a fulfilment of Augustine's words; but we do not hear that the monastery itself was attacked. Some 60 years later the annalists record "Combustio Bennchoriae Brittonum" (Hadd. and St. i. 125), probably referring to this Bangor of the Dee. Malmesbury (G. R. ed. Hardy, i. 66) describes the extensive ruins of the place in his day—"tot semiruti parietes ecclesiarum, tot anfractus porticuum, tanta turba ruderum, quantum vix alibi cernas"; the credibility of which description has been almost destroyed by sometimes translating the first clause, "the ruined walls of so many churches." The remains had nearly disappeared in the time of Camden. (Camd. ed. Gough, ii. 422, 429; Smith, ad. Bed. E. H. ii. 2; Tanner, Notit. ed. Nasmith, Flint. ii.) The site is on the road between Wrexham and Whitchurch, about 5 miles from each. Its modern state and surviving vestiges are described in Lewis (Topog. Dict. of Wales, art. "Bangor"). Leland's description is in his Itinerary (vol. v. p. 30, 2nd ed. Hearne).
Diocletian (Docles, Diocles, Caius Valerius Diocletianus Jovius), a.d. 284-305. The acts that make the reign of this emperor memorable in the history of the church belong to its closing years. Had he died before a.d. 303 he would have taken his place among the rulers whose general tolerance helped Christianity to obtain its victory. As it is, his name is identified with the most terrible of its persecutions. For three centuries men reckoned from the commencement of his reign as from the era of martyrs; and the date is still recognized in the Coptic Church as the basis of its chronology.
The earlier years of Diocletian concern us only in connexion with the struggle
which came to a head when his work seemed nearly over. Elected by the soldiers in
Bithynia at the age of 39, after the murder of Numerian, he was formally installed
at Nicomedia. In a.d. 286 he chose
Maximian as his colleague, gave him the title first of Caesar and then of
The appointment of Constantius Chlorus and Galerius in a.d. 293 as Caesars under the two Augusti introduced new elements. Each was called on to prove his loyalty to the system into which he was adopted by a new marriage. Constantius divorced Helena and married Theodora, the step-daughter of Maximian. Galerius, also repudiating his former wife, received the hand of Valeria, the daughter of Diocletian and Prisca. To Constantius was entrusted the government of Gaul and Britain, to Galerius the provinces between the Adriatic and the Euxine. Diocletian kept the provinces of Asia under his own control. Maximian had those of Africa and Italy. The edict of Gallienus, a.d. 259, had placed Christianity in the number of religiones licitae, and there had been no formal persecution since. Diocletian and Maximian began by adopting the same policy; and the martyrdoms which are referred to the earlier years of their reign, like those of St. Maurice and the Theban Legion at Martigny (Octodurum), of St. Victor at Marseilles, of SS. Cosmas and Damian and others in Cilicia, if more than legendary, must be referred to special causes, and not to a general policy of persecution. The somewhat cloudy rhetoric of Eusebius in describing the condition of the church of this time indicates that the last struggle with the old religion could not long be averted. The most trusted and influential eunuchs of the household, Dorotheus and Gorgonius, were avowedly Christians and excused from attending at heathen sacrifices (Eus. viii. 1). Prisca the wife, and Valeria the daughter, of Diocletian were kept back from an open profession of faith; but their absence from all sacrifices made men look on them with suspicion (Lactant. de Mort. Persec. c. 15). The church of Nicomedia was the most conspicuous edifice in the city. The adherents of the old system had good reason for alarm. They saw in every part of the empire an organized society that threatened it with destruction. Symptoms of the coming conflict began before long to shew themselves. Malchus, the disciple of Plotinus (better known as Porphyry), wrote against the religion of the Christians while maintaining a tone of reverence towards Christ Himself, and so became in their eyes their most formidable opponent. Hierocles, first as Vicarius of Bithynia and afterwards, probably, as prefect of Egypt, fought against them with pen and sword, and published Words of a Truth-lover to the Christians, in which Christ was compared with Apollonius of Tyana. Within the imperial circle itself some were impatient of the tolerance of Diocletian. The mother of Galerius, who gave sacrificial banquets almost daily, was annoyed because Christian officers and soldiers refused to come to them. The cases of Maximilian of Theveste, in proconsular Africa, who (a.d. 295) had refused to serve as a soldier and take the military oath, as incompatible with his allegiance to Christ, and of Marcellus (a.d. 298), who at Tingis in Mauritania solemnly renounced his allegiance to the emperor rather than take part in idolatrous festivals, had probably alarmed Galerius himself (Ruinart, Acta Sincera, pp. 309, 312).
Occasions for decisive measures were soon found. Diocletian, who seems to have
had a devout belief in divination, had offered sacrifice, and the haruspices were
inspecting the entrails of the victim to see what omens were to be found there.
The Christian officers and servants of the emperor were present as part of their
duty, and satisfied their conscience by making the sign of the cross upon their
foreheads. The diviners were, or pretended to be, struck with amazement at the absence,
despite repeated sacrifices, of the expected signs. At last they declared their
work hindered by the presence of profane persons. The emperor's rage was roused.
His personal attendants and the officials in his palace were ordered to sacrifice
under penalty of being scourged. Letters were sent to military officers bidding
them to compel their soldiers to a like conformity under pain of dismissal. The
mother of Galerius urged the emperor on, and found but a feeble resistance. He deprecated
the slaughter and wished to confine the edict to servants of his household and soldiers.
He would take counsel with his friends and consult the gods. One of the haruspices
was accordingly sent to the oracle of the Milesian Apollo at Branchidae. The answer
came, not from the priestess only, but, as it were, from the god himself speaking
from the recesses of his cave, telling him that the presence of the self-styled
"just ones" on the earth made it impossible for the oracles to speak the truth.
This turned the scale and the emperor gave way. All he asked for was that bloodshed
might, if possible, be avoided. Galerius had wished to condemn to the flames all
who refused to sacrifice. After many divinations, the Feast of the Terminalia (Feb.
23) of a.d. 303 was chosen as the fit
day for issuing the edict against the new society. At break of day the prefect,
attended by officers and secretaries, went to the church of Nicomedia while Diocletian
and Galerius watched the proceedings from the palace. The doors were broken open.
Search was made for the image of the Christian's God, which they expected to find
there. The books were burned, the church sacked. Fear of the fire spreading made
Diocletian shrink from burning the church, but a body of pioneers with axes and
crowbars razed it in a few hours. Next morning an edict ordained that (1) all churches
were to be demolished; (2) all sacred books burnt; (3) all Christian officials stripped
of their dignities, and deprived of civil rights, and therefore rendered liable
to torture and other outrages; while Christian men who were not officials were to
be reduced to slavery. A Christian who tore it down, with the sarcastic
Individual martyrdoms may be found with more or less fulness in the Acta Sincera of Ruinart, in the Annals of Baronius, in most Church Histories, notably in Fleury, viii. and ix. Here we merely note the extent, continuance, and ferocity which distinguished this persecution from all others. In Syria, Palestine, Egypt, Western Africa, Italy, and Spain the passions of men were let loose, and raged without restraint. In Gaul and Britain only was there any safety. Constantius was said (Eus. Vit. Const. i. 16) to have shewn a marked preference for those who were true to their religion, and refused to sacrifice. Elsewhere every town in the empire witnessed acts of incredible cruelty. The wish to destroy all the sacred books of the Christians, and all the accessories of their worship, led men to seize on the deacons, readers, and others connected with the churches, and to torture them till they gave them up. In Dec. 303, Diocletian went to Rome to celebrate with Maximian the 20th anniversary of his accession. At the Vicennalia the licence of the people offended him, and he left after two weeks for Ravenna. There he was attacked by a severe illness, which detained him for some months. Slowly he made his way to Nicomedia, where he became worse. Prayers were offered for his recovery in all the temples. It was rumoured that his death was concealed till the arrival of Galerius. When he appeared to contradict the rumour, he was so altered that he could hardly be recognized. His mind, it was said, was seriously affected. Galerius came, but it was to press on the emperor the duty and expediency of resigning. Maximian had been already persuaded to do so. After a feeble resistance Diocletian yielded. The two Caesars were to become Augusti. He would fain have named Maxentius the son of Maximian and Constantine the son of Constantius to take their place; but Galerius coerced or persuaded him to appoint Maximin and Severus, in whom he hoped to find more submissive instruments. When the formal acts had been completed, the emperor laid aside his official names Diocletianus and Jovius, and returned to the simple Diocles of his youth. For the history of the following year see Galerius and Constantine. The retired emperor settled at Salona, on the coast of Dalmatia, and occupied himself with building and gardening, and refused to abandon his cabbages for the cares of the state. In 310 Maximian, after vainly struggling against the growing power of Constantine, who had succeeded Constantius, was compelled to end his life by his own hands. In 311 Galerius died in the agonies of a loathsome and horrible disease, and before his death confessed, by an edict of toleration, that the attempt which he had made to crush Christianity had failed. Diocletian survived to witness the alliance between Constantine and Licinius, to receive and decline an invitation to a conference with them at Milan, to hear that Constantine had charged him with conspiring first with Maxentius and then with Maximian, and had ordered his statue and that of Maximian to be thrown down in every part of the empire. In a.d. 313 the end came, some said through poison (Aurel. Vict. Epist. 39), to avoid a worse fate at the hands of Constantine and Licinius. It was characteristic of his fate as representing the close of pagan imperialism, that he was the last emperor who celebrated a triumph at Rome, and the last to receive the honour of apotheosis from the Roman senate (Preuss, p. 169).
Diodorus (3), presbyter of Antioch, and c.
a.d. 379 bp. of Tarsus, of a noble
family of Antioch, where he passed nearly the whole of his life until he became
a bishop (Theod. H. E. iv. 24). He studied philosophy or secular learning
at Athens, where he probably was an associate of Basil and Julian, the future emperor
(Facund. lib. iv. c. 2, p. 59). On his return to his native city, Diodorus and his
friend Flavian, also of noble birth (subsequently bp. of Antioch), embraced a religious
life. Here, while still laymen, during the reign of Constantius, they exerted themselves
energetically for the defence of the orthodox faith against the Arians, who were
covertly supported by bp. Leontius, c. 350. They gathered the orthodox laity
even by night around the tombs of the martyrs, to join in the antiphonal chanting
of the Psalms, which, Theodoret tells us, was first instituted or revived by them,
as a means of kindling religious zeal, after the model ascribed by tradition to
the martyred bishop of their church, the holy Ignatius (Socr. H. E. vi. 8;
Theod. H. E. ii. 24). These services strengthened the faithful to meet the
persecutions. The weight of Diodorus and Flavian at Antioch was proved when in 350
their threat of withdrawal from communion induced Leontius to suspend Aetius
from the diaconate (Theod. u.s.). On the accession of Julian, his attempt
to rekindle an expiring paganism provided a new
The persecution of the Catholic cause by the Arian Valens recalled Diodorus, now a presbyter, to his former championship of the Nicene faith. During the frequent banishments of Meletius, the spiritual instruction of his diocese was chiefly entrusted to him and Flavian, and Diodorus saved the barque of the church from being "submerged by the waves of misbelief" (Theod. H. E. v. 4). Valens having forbidden the Catholics to meet within the walls of cities, Diodorus gathered his congregation in the church in the old town S. of the Orontes. Immense numbers were there "fed by him with sound doctrine" (Chrys. Laus Diodori, § 4, t. iii. p. 749). When forcibly driven out of this church, he gathered his congregation in the soldiers' exercising ground, or "gymnasium," and exhorted them from house to house. The texts and arguments of his discourses were chiefly furnished by Flavian, and clothed by Diodorus in a rhetorical dress. His oratory is compared by Chrysostom to "a lyre" for melody, and to "a trumpet" for the power with which, like Joshua at Jericho, he broke down the strongholds of his heretical opponents. He also held private assemblies at his own house to expound the faith and refute heresy (Theod. H. E. iv. 25; Chrys. l.c.; Facund. iv. 22). Such dauntless championship of the faith failed not to provoke persecution. His life was more than once in danger, and he was forced to seek safety in flight (Chrys. l.c.). Once at least when driven from Antioch he joined his spiritual father Meletius in exile at Getasa in Armenia, where, in 372, he met Basil the Great (Basil, Ep. 187). The intimate terms of Diodorus and Basil are seen from the tone of Basil's correspondence.
Even more than for his undaunted defence of the catholic faith Diodorus deserves the gratitude of the church as head of the theological school at Antioch. He pursued a healthy common-sense principle of exposition of Holy Scripture, which, discarding alike allegorism and coarse literalism, sought by the help of criticism, philology, history, and other external resources, to develop the true meaning of the text, as intended by the authors (Socr. H. E. vi. 3; Soz. H. E. viii. 2; Hieron. de Vir. Illust. No. 119).
Meletius, on being restored to Antioch in 378, appointed Diodorus bp. of Tarsus and metropolitan of the then undivided province of Cilicia (Facundus, viii. 5). His career as bishop, according to Jerome (l.c.), was less distinguished than as presbyter. He took part in the great council of Antioch a.d. 379, which failed to put an end to the Antiochene schism, as well as in the 2nd oecumenical council at Constantinople a.d. 381. By the decree of the emperor Theodosius, July 30, 381, Diodorus was named as one of the orthodox Eastern prelates, communion with whom was the test of orthodoxy (Cod. Theod. lib. xvi. tit. i. 3; t. vi. p. 9). Meletius having died during the session of the council, Diodorus, violating the compact made to heal the schism, united with Acacius of Beroea in consecrating Flavian as bp. of Antioch, for which both the consecrating prelates were excommunicated by the bishops of the West (Soz. H. E. vii. 11). As Phalerius was bp. of Tarsus at a council at Constantinople in 394, the date of Diodorus's death is approximately fixed. Facundus and others tell us that he died full of days and glory, revered by the whole church and honoured by its chief doctors, by Basil, Meletius, Theodoret, Domnus of Antioch, and even by the chief impugner of the soundness of his faith, Cyril of Alexandria.
This high credit was disturbed by the Nestorian controversies of the next cent.
His rationalizing spirit had led him to use language about the Incarnation containing
the principles of that heresy afterwards more fully developed by his disciple Theodorus.
Thus, not without justice, he has been deemed the virtual parent of Nestorianism
and called "a Nestorian before Nestorius." It was his repugnance to the errors of
Apollinarianism which led him to the opposite errors of Nestorianism. His sense
of the importance of the truth of Christ's manhood caused him to insist on Its distinctness
from His Godhead in a manner which gradually led to Its being represented as a separate
personality. He drew a distinction between Him Who according to His essence was
Son of God—the eternal Logos—and Him Who through divine decree and adoption became
Son of God. The one was Son of God by nature, the other by grace. The son of man
became Son of God because chosen to be the receptacle or temple of God the Word.
It followed that Mary could not be properly termed the "mother of God," nor God
the Word be strictly called the Son of David, that designation belonging, according
to human descent, to the temple in which the Divine Son tabernacled. Diodorus therefore
distinguished two Sons, the Son of God and the son of Mary, combined in the person
of Christ. When, then, the great Nestorian controversy set in, Cyril clearly saw
that, apart from the watchword θεοτόκος, which
had not arisen in the days of Diodorus, what men called Nestorianism was substantially
the doctrine of Diodorus as developed by Theodorus of Mopsuestia, and that Nestorianism
could only be fully crushed by a condemnation of the doctrines of Diodorus as the
fountain head. This condemnation was most difficult to obtain. No name was held
in so much reverence throughout the East. Cyril, however, was of far too determined
a spirit to hesitate. If orthodox views of the Incarnation were to be established,
the authority of Diodorus must, at any cost of enmity and unpopularity, be destroyed.
Every means was therefore taken to enforce, by the aid of the emperor and the patriarch
Proclus, his condemnation, together with that of his still more heretical pupil
Theodorus. Cyril himself, in a letter to the emperor, described them in the harshest
terms as the fathers of the blasphemies of Nestorius (Theodoret, t. v. p. 854),
and in a letter to John of Antioch denounced them as "going full sail, as it were,
against the glory of Christ." It is not surprising that Diodorus began to be looked
upon with suspicion by those who had been accustomed to regard him as a bulwark
of the faith, insomuch that Theodoret, when himself accused of Nestorian leanings,
did not venture
Diognetus, Epistle to. The Greek writing known under this name was first printed in 1592 by Henricus Stephanus, along with a companion piece To Greeks, as hitherto unknown writings of Justin Martyr, taken by him from a single faded exemplar.
In his edition, as in the transcript in his own handwriting extant at Leyden, the writing To Greeks was not prefixed, but appended to the writing To Diognetus; but in the MS. from which he took the pieces (identified by Gebhardt with that collated by Cunitz at Strasburg, where it perished in 1870) three works, each ascribed by name to Justin, were followed by the two pieces Of the Same to Greeks and Of the Same to Diognetus. The correctness of the ascription of each of these two pieces to Justin was separately called in question by subsequent critics; but the connexion between the two pieces, the contrast in style presented by both alike to the spurious or dubious works of Justin to which in the MS. they were appended, and the fact that it was not directly to Justin Martyr, but to the author of the address To Greeks that the address To Diognetus was in the MS. ascribed, were forgotten.
In the MS., again, the text given under the heading To Diognetus was broken into three fragments by two clear breaks with marginal notes from the old 13th-cent. scribe, saying, "Thus I found a break in the copy before me also, it being very ancient." Of these two breaks the former, occurring near the end of c. vii., is ignored by Stephanus in his division of the writing into chapters. Whether more or less be missing, the writing comprised in cc. vii.-x. is plainly the continuation of the writing commenced in cc. i.-vii. In the concluding fragment (cc. xi. xii.), appended after the second break, the writer calls himself "disciple of apostles," and on this ground the writer To Diognetus has been included among the apostolic Fathers. But the contrast between cc. i.-x. and cc. xi. xii. is so great that critics have concluded the final appended fragment to be no part of the writing to Diognetus, but the peroration of another treatise by another writer.
No other ancient copy of the Greek of any of the writings published in 1592 has been found; but the writer To Greeks, with whom the writer To Diognetus was in the MS. immediately identified, has been plainly distinguished from Justin by the discovery and publication by Cureton in his Spicilegium Syriacum from a 6th or 7th cent. MS. of a Syriac version of an almost identical discourse ascribed to one "Ambrosius, a chief man of Greece, who became a Christian, and all his fellow-councillors raised a clamour against him." We may thus say that the true traditional writer To Greeks and To Diognetus is a certain otherwise unknown Ambrosius, convert like Justin from Hellenism to Christianity—the reply To Greeks, the assailants of the writer, being naturally followed by the response To Diognetus, the inquirer.
This conclusion is confirmed by internal evidence. The style of the two writings is identical. In each there is the same Attic diction joined with the same Roman dignity. Nay, in each there is the same occurrence of two contrasted styles, the same passage from the scornful vigour of the satirist to the joyous sweetness of the evangelist.
"Come, be taught," says the writer To Greeks (c. v.); and it seems that
Diognetus came. Common as the name was, the only Diognetus known to us after Christ
was a painting master who c. 133 had charge of the young Marcus Aurelius.
Whether this was the Diognetus who came to the Christian teacher we do not know.
The writing addressed to him is not in form an epistle, it seems rather to be a
discourse delivered in a Christian Assembly into which the eminent inquirer had
found his way. His coming implied a triple question: (i) "On what God relying, Christians
despise death and neither reckon those gods who are so accounted by the Greeks,
nor observe any superstition of Jews"; (ii) "What the kindly affection is that they
have one for another"; and (iii) "What, in short, this new race or practice might
be that has invaded
The first two questions of the inquirer are thus answered, and in answering them completely the third question, "What the new institution might be," would be answered along with them; but that answer seems not to be completed before the second break. It could not be complete till it had been carried further than merely saying that "it was God Who implanted the Word," and that He did so "when the time came." "The Word that appeared new" must have been "found old"; and this is the answer that we find in the final fragment (cc. xi. xii.) after the second break. The style has become different. We find ourselves listening to the peroration of a homily, before the withdrawal of the catechumens and the celebration of the mysteries. It does not follow that the final fragment does not belong to the preceding discourse. If Diognetus had shewn his desire for instruction by coming into a Christian assembly, the whole discourse may have been delivered before such an audience as is addressed in the peroration at the close. We are brought into a new region. The satirist of superstition and evangelist of atoning, justifying mercy is succeeded by a mystical believer in a Christ born anew in hearts of saints. The new thing is portrayed as "that which was from the beginning," yet ever new. "This is He that is ever reckoned a Son today." But what it is can be known only by taking up the cross and so coming to be with Christ in Paradise, "Whose tree if thou bearest fruit and if thou choosest thou shalt eat those things that with God are desired."
The loss of intervening matter makes the transition to the new region abrupt and the contrast patent. "The Lord's Passover cometh forth, and, teaching saints, the Word is gladdened." But the course is still straightforward and the guide is not diverse. The style is different only so far as is necessitated by the difference of subject. It exhibits the same anarthrous use of nouns, the same accumulation of clause on clause, not pursued too far; the same unexpected turns at the close of the sentences; the same union of dignity with sweetness, the same blending of Pauline with Johannine teaching; the same persistent subordination of doctrine to life. On these grounds we may venture to differ from the wide consent of critics in imagining a second nameless author.
It is worth noting that an Ambrose, of the consecration of Antioch, is said in a Syriac tradition to have been the third primate of Edessa and the East (Burkitt, Early Eastern Christianity, p. 29). The writer To Greeks and To Diognetus may have been this bringer of Greek Pauline Christianity to the regions beyond Euphrates conquered by Trajan and abandoned by Hadrian, and have been ancestor of the friend of Origen and of the great Milanese archbp. and of the legendary father of King Arthur.
Probably an old copy exhibited three works of Ambrosius—an avowal of Christianity, and answers To Greeks and To Diognetus, each a brave act as well as a solid work, the first now lost, the second a fine sample of a class of controversial works of which samples are numerous, the third, To Diognetus, preserved in fragments only, but unique, not apologetic merely, but catechetical, a portraiture of early Christianity not in its manifestation only, but in its springs, bringing us to the gates of the Paradise of God.
In free allied states like Antioch and Athens avowal of Christianity may have been tolerated when not suffered in Roman or subject regions. In the 2nd cent. the world was not yet all Roman.
The date of the writings may be determined with great probability, not with absolute certainty, except that, if genuine, they cannot be post-Nicene. The picture of the church presented to Diognetus pretty plainly belongs to a date earlier than the accession of Commodus. The chief school of Christian thought would seem still to be at Athens, though on the eve of its transference to Alexandria by Athenagoras. It is among the writings of Tatian, Melito, and Theophilus and the fragments of Apollinaris, Abercius, etc., that these pieces seem most at home. The writer seems to appear in his freshness beside Justin in his ripeness, and to be the meeting-point of the teachings of Justin and Marcion, as he is at the point of departure of Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Origen on the one hand, and Praxeas, Noetus, and Sabellius on the other.
Lost in the crowd of predecessors whom Irenaeus and Clement hardly ever name and merged in Justin's shadow, convinced that God alone can reveal Himself, and content to be hidden in his Saviour's righteousness, the old writer has gradually emerged by virtue of an inborn lustre, at once the obscurest and most brilliant of his contemporaries, and has cast a glory on the early church while remaining himself unknown.
Authorities.—Gallandi, ap. Migne, Patr. Gk. ii. 1159 ff.; Bickersteth, Christian Fathers, (1838); Dorner, Person of Christ, i. 260 ff.; Hefele, Patres Apostolici (Tübingen, 1842); Neander, Church History, ii. 420, 425 (Bohn); Westcott, Canon (ed. 1875), pp. 85 ff.; Bunsen, Hippolytus, i. 187 ff., Analecta Antenicaena, i. 103 ff.; Donaldson, Hist. Christ. Lit. ii. 126 ff.; Davidson, Intro. to N. T. ii. 399; Harnack, Patres Apostolici, i. 205 ff . (Leipz. 1875, 2nd ed. 1878); Cureton, Spicilegium Syriacum (Lond. 1854); Ceillier, Auteurs sacrés, i. 412 (ed. 1865); Bigg, Origins of Christianity; Lightfoot and Harmer, Apost. Fathers, p. 487. An Eng. trans. of the Ep. to Diognetus is included in the Ante-Nicene Lib. and another by L. B. Radford is pub. cheaply by S.P.C.K.
Dionysia (1), virgin martyr at Lampsacus, a.d. 250. Seeing Nicomachus suddenly seized with madness and dying in horror, after having denied the faith under torture, and sacrificed to the heathen gods, Dionysia cried out, "Miserable and most wretched man! Why, for one hour's respite, didst thou take to thyself unceasing and indescribable punishment!" The proconsul Optimus hearing her, asked if she were a Christian. "Yes," she answered, "and that is why I weep for this unhappy man, who loses eternal rest by not being able to suffer a moment's pain." The proconsul dismissed her with a brutal order. Next day, having succeeded in maintaining her chastity, she escaped, and joined Andrew and Paul, two Christians who were being stoned to death. "I wish to die with you here," she said, "that I may live with you in heaven!" Optimus ordered her to be taken from Andrew and Paul, and beheaded, May 15, 250, the 2nd year of Decius. Ruinart, Act. Sinc. Mart. p. 159; Ceillier, ii. 118.
Dionysia (2), at Alexandria, a.d. 251, mother of many children, who, loving her Lord more than her children, died by the sword, along with the venerable lady Mercuria, without being tried by torture, as the prefect had succeeded so ill with Ammonarion that he was ashamed to go on torturing and being defeated by women (Dion. Alex. ad Fab. ap. Eus. H. E. vi. 41).
Dionysia (3), St., a Christian martyr in the 5th cent. According to the narrative of Victor Vitensis, her contemporary, she was a lady of rare beauty in Africa, who preferred tortures, shameful indignities, and death to renouncing her faith; a victim of the persecution of the orthodox or Catholic Christians by Hunneric, king of the Vandals. The date assigned for her martyrdom is 484.
See Victor Vitensis, de Persecutione Africanâ, V. c. 1; ap. Migne, Patr. Lat. lvii.; Tillem., Mémoires, t. xvi. (Paris, 1701, 4to); Baronius, Annales Ecclesiastici, t. viii. p. 463 (Lucae, 1741, fol.).
Dionysius (1), Pseudo-Areopagita. Under the name of Dionysius the
Areopagite there has passed current a body of remarkable writings. Before shewing
that the author of these writings was not the Dionysius converted by St. Paul (
Was, then, the convert of St. Paul at Athens the first apostle of France? The answer would not seem doubtful from the statement of Sulpicius Severus, that the earliest martyrs in Gaul were under the reign of Aurelius (Sacr. Hist. ii. 46), i.e. after a.d. 160; and from the circumstance that neither the old martyrologies nor the old French chroniclers contain any hint of the identity of the two. Gregory of Tours (Hist. Franc. i. 30) fixes the coming of St. Denys into France as late as the reign of Decius, i.e. after a.d. 250; while Usuardus, who wrote his Martyrologium for Charlemagne, assigned Oct. 3 to the memory of the Areopagite, and Oct. 9 to that of the patron saint of France. The reasons for believing St. Denys of France to be the author of these writings are equally slight. Their style and subject-matter all betoken a philosophic leisure, not the active life of a missionary in a barbarous country; and a residence in the East is implied in the very titles of those to whom they are addressed. It is the opinion of Bardenhewer (Patrol. p. 538) that the writings of Stiglmayr and Koch (see under Authorities, infra) have proved "that the Areopagitica were nothing more than a composition written under an assumed name, and in reality dating from about the end of the fifth century."
We may deal with the writings under: (1) External History; (2) Nature and Contents.
(1) It is generally admitted that the first unequivocal mention of them is in the records of the conference at Constantinople in 532. The emperor Justinian invited Hypatius of Ephesus, and other bishops of the orthodox side, to meet in his palace the leaders of the Severians. During the debate, these alleged writings of the Areopagite were brought forward by the latter in support of their Monophysite views; and the objections of Hypatius have been preserved. If genuine, he asked, how could they have escaped the notice of Cyril and others? (Mansi, viii. col. 821); and this question has never been satisfactorily answered. Supposed traces of them have been pointed out in Origen; and other ingenious reasons, explaining their concealment for five centuries, have been confuted again and again. Still, whatever their parentage, they are henceforward never lost sight of. Writers of the school which had at first objected to them soon found how serviceable to their own cause they might be made. Thus a chain of testimony begins to be attached to them in unbroken continuity.
In the Western church we first find them mentioned by pope Gregory the Great
(c. 590) ; but his manner of citing them makes it probable that he only knew
them by report. In any case, they did not become generally known in the West till
after a.d. 827, when Michael the Stammerer
sent a copy to Louis
(2) The Dionysian writings consist of four extant treatises: On the Heavenly Hierarchy; On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy; On the Names of God; On Mystic Theology; after which come ten letters or fragments of letters.
This list, from one point of view, is complete as an exposition of the Dionysian
system, and is also in its proper order. For we may take as its epitome the words
of St. Paul with which the first sentence in the volume concludes: "For of Him and
to Him are all things" (
Yet the author refers to a series of treatises, still more numerous than the preceding, as if he thought them necessary for the completion of his design. These are: On Divine Hymns; Symbolic Theology; On the Objects of Intellect and Sense; Theological Outlines; On the Soul; On the Just Judgment of God. To these are added by Sixtus Senensis and others: On the Properties and Orders of Angels; The Legal Hierarchy.
The question of these missing treatises is most perplexing. Did they ever exist? If so, what has become of them? Are they mere inventions of the author, designed to parry attacks on his own weak points, and to suggest the filling up of deficiencies which in reality he left unsupplied? This last seems very probable. But, if true, while our respect for the intellectual completeness of the author's mind is increased, our opinion of his moral straightforwardness must be diminished. However, he is certainly entitled to the credit of his conception of such a theological system, whether all the parts be duly filled in or not.
Limits of space do not here allow a minute analysis of the extant works. The
Heavenly Hierarchy opens with what sounds almost like the keynote of the
whole, the text πᾶσα δόσις ἀγαθή, κ.τ.λ. of
1. Seraphim, Cherubim, Thrones.
2. Dominations, Virtues, Powers.
3. Principalities, Archangels, Angels.
The long and important treatise On the Names of God (Περὶ
θείων ὀνομάτων) has been shewn by Stiglmayr and Koch to contain an extract
from Proclus's treatise de Malorum Substitentia; which has reached us in
a Latin trans. It is an inquiry into the being and attributes of God as indicated
by the Divine Names in Holy Scripture. These Names, like all outward channels of
spiritual knowledge, can reveal His real nature but very imperfectly; and even so,
not without prayer, which, like the golden chain of Homer, lifts us up to Heaven
while we seem to be drawing it down to earth; or like the rope thrown out to mariners
from a rock, which enables them to draw their ship nearer to the rock, while they
pull as if they would draw the rock to them (Div. Nom. iii. § 1). The first
thing thus revealed is God's goodness, the far-reaching effulgence of His being,
which streams forth upon all, like the rays of the sun (ib. iv. § 1). Evil
is nothing real and positive, but a defect, a negation only:
Στέρησις ἄρα ἐστὶ
τὸ κακόν, καὶ ἔλλειψις,
καὶ ἀσυένεια,
καὶ ἀσυμμετρία, κ.τ.λ. (ib. iv. § 32). As what we
Of two legends, widely known in connexion with the name of Dionysius, from their insertion in the Breviary of the Latin church, one must be noticed here, as found in the present work. When Dionysius was present with Timothy, to whom he is writing, and James, ὁ ἀδελφόθεος, and Peter, ἡ κορυφαία καὶ πρεσβυτάτη τῶν θεολόγων ἀκρότης, and other disciples, "for the spectacle of the body which was the beginning of life and the recipient of God" (ἐπὶ τὴν θέαν τοῦ ζωαρχικοῦ καὶ θεοδόχου—al. φωτοδόχου—σώματος (ib. iii. § 2)), no one but the apostles surpassed Hierotheus, his preceptor, in the inspired hymns and praises which he uttered. This is generally considered to refer to a gathering of the apostles round the deathbed of the Holy Virgin. The language is vague, and the passage comes in with singular abruptness, as a sequel to one on the power of prayer. In the paraphrase of Pachymeres, the names of the apostles are omitted. The explanation of Barradas (quoted by Hipler, ubi inf. p. 48 n.) is that the gathering round the θεοτόκος really represents the assembly of believers for the reception of the Holy Eucharist, bending (as the words of one liturgy express it) "ante splendida et theodocha signa cum timore inclinati."
The short treatise on Mystic Theology indicates the means of approaching more nearly to God, previously set forth under the Divine Names, by reversing the procedure adopted in the Hierarchies. He who would aspire to a truer and more intimate knowledge of God must rise above signs and symbols, above earthly conceptions and definitions of God, and thus advance by negation, rather than by affirmation, κατ᾿ ἀφαίρεσιν, not κατὰ θέσιν. Even in the Hierarchies (Cel. Hier. ii. § 3) Dionysius had spoken of ἀπόφασις as a surer way of penetrating the divine mystery than κατάφασις, and now enforces the same truth by an illustration which, if not taken directly from Plotinus, presents a striking parallel to one used by him—that of the sculptor, who, striving to fashion a beautiful statue, chips away the outer marble, and removes what was in fact an obstruction to his own ideal (Myst. Theol. c. ii.; cf. Plotinus, de Pulchritudine, ed. Creuzer, 1814, p. 62).
Of the Letters, the first two are little more than detached notes on points
of the Mystic Theology—on our ἀγνωσία
of God, and His transcendent nature. The third is a short fragment on the meaning
of the word ἐξαίφνης in
Authorities.—Isaac Casaubon, de Rebus sacris Eccl. Exercitt. xxi.
(1615); Jean Launoy, Varia de duobus Dionysiis (1660); J. Dallaeus, de
Scriptis quae . . . circumferunter (1666); P. F. Chifflet, Opuscula quatuor
(1679); Ussher, Dissertatio de Scriptis . . . appended to his Historia
Dogmatica (1690); M. Lequien, Dissertatio Secunda, prefixed to tom. i.
of Joannis Damasceni Op. (1712); Cave, Script. Eccl. Hist. Lit. (1740);
Brucker, Hist. Crit. tom. iii. (1766); J. L. Mosheim, Commentatio de Turbata
per Recentiores Platonicos Ecclesia (1767); J. A. Fabricius, Biblioth. Graeca,
tom. vii. (1801); J. G. Engelhardt, de Dionysio Areop. Plotinizante (1820);
Milman, Lat. Christ. vol. vi. (1855); Dr. Franz Hipler, Dionysius der
Areopagite (Regensburg, 1861); B. F. Westcott, Essay on Dionysius the Areopagite
in the Contemp. Rev. May 1867; Dean Colet, On the Hierarchies of Dionysius
(1869); J. Fowler, Essay on the works of St. Dionysius the Areopagite, in relation
to Christian art, in the Sacristy, Feb. 1872; H. Koch,
Dionysius (2), St., apostle of France, and first bp. of Paris. Concerning his identity and era there are three principal opinions.
(1) That he was Dionysius the Areopagite, formerly bp. of Athens, who came to Rome and was sent by Clement, bp. of Rome, to preach in Gaul. This is the tradition of the Greek church, and of those of Gaul, Germany, Spain, and Italy. The corresponding legend shortly narrated in the Paris Martyrology, states that his companions were Rusticus, a presbyter and Eleutherus, a deacon, and that all three were put to death by the sword under Sisinnius Fescenninus, prefect of Gaul. This is the opinion of Flavius Lucius Dexter, d. 444 (Chronicon. Patr. Lat. xxxi. 270).
(2) That, although not the Areopagite, he was sent by Clement or the successors of the apostles. This is held in a poem in honour of Dionysius, attributed with some probability to Venantius Fortunatus of Poitiers, who had written a poem on the same subject committing himself to no opinion (Patr. Lat. lxxxviii. 72, 98). It is also supported by Pagius in his notes on Baronius.
(3) That he was sent from Rome in the 3rd cent., and suffered martyrdom c. a.d. 250. This is held by Sulpicius Severus, d. a.d. 410, and Gregory of Tours, d. 595. Sulpicius says, "Under Aurelius, son of Antoninus, raged the fifth persecution. Then first were martyrdoms seen in Gaul, for the religion of God was late in coming over the Alps" (Severi, Chronicon, ii. 32, Patr. Lat. xx. 147). Gregory (Hist. of the Franks, bk. i. c. 28), speaking of the Decian persecution, quotes the Hist. Passionis S. M. Saturnini: "Under the consulship of Decius and Gratus, as is held in faithful recollection, the state of Toulouse began to have a bishop, St. Saturninus, her first and chief. These were the men sent: to Tours, Gatianus the bishop; to Arles, Trophimus the bishop; to Toulouse, Saturninus the bishop; to Paris, Dionysius the bishop, etc. Of these the blessed Dionysius, bishop of the Parisians, afflicted with many pains for the name of Christ, ended this present life under the sword." Probably, therefore, he died under the emperor Aurelian in a.d. 272 (cf. Gall. Christ. vii. 4).
Dionysius (3), bp. of Corinth, probably the successor of Primus, placed by Eusebius in his Chronicle under a.d. 171, (see also Eus. H. E. ii. 25, iii. 4, iv. 21, 23, 35; Hieron. Catal. 27). He was the writer of certain pastoral letters, which gained so much authority in his own lifetime that heretics (probably the followers of Marcion) found it worth while, as he complains, to circulate copies falsified by interpolations and omissions. Eusebius mentions having met with 8 of these letters—viz. seven which he calls "Catholic Epistles," addressed to Lacedemon, Athens, Nicomedia, Gortyna and other churches in Crete, Amastris and other churches in Pontus, Cnossus and Rome; and one to "his most faithful sister Chrysophora." Probably the letters were already collected into a volume and enumerated by Eusebius in the order they occurred there, or he would probably have mentioned the two Cretan letters consecutively. Nothing remains of them, except the short account of their contents given by Eusebius, and a few fragments of the letter to the Roman church which, though very scanty, throw considerable light on the state of the church at the time. Eusebius praises Dionysius for having given a share in his "inspired industry" to those in foreign lands. A bp. of Corinth might consider Lacedaemon and Athens as under his metropolitan superintendence, but that he should send letters of admonition to Crete, Bithynia, and Paphlagonia not only proves the reputation of the writer, but indicates the unity of the Christian community. A still more interesting proof of this is furnished by the letter to the Roman church, which would seem to be one of thanks for a gift of money, and in which he speaks of it as a custom of that church from the earliest times to send supplies to churches in every city to relieve poverty, and to support the brethren condemned to work in the mines, "a custom not only preserved, but increased by the blessed bp. Soter, who administered their bounty to the saints, and with blessed words exhorted the brethren that came up as an affectionate father his children." The epithet here applied to Soter is usually used of those deceased in Christ; but there are instances of its application to living persons, and Eusebius speaks of him as still bishop when the letter of Dionysius was written. This letter is remarkable also as containing the earliest testimony that St. Peter suffered martyrdom in Italy at the same time as St. Paul. The letters indicate the general prevalence of episcopal government when they were written. In most of them the bishop of the church addressed is mentioned with honour; Palmas in Pontus, Philip and Pinytus in Crete, Soter at Rome. That to the Athenians reminds them of a former bp. Publius, who had suffered martyrdom during persecutions which reduced that church very low, from which condition it was revived by the zeal of Quadratus, the successor of Publius. This form of government was then supposed to date from apostolic times, for in the same letter Dionysius the Areopagite is counted as the first bp. of Athens; but the importance of the bishop seems to be still subordinate to that of his church. The letters, including that to Rome, are each addressed to the church, not to the bishop; and Soter's own letter, like Clement's former one, was written not in his own name, but that of his church (ὑμῶν τὴν ἐπιστολὴν). The letters, indeed, of Dionysius himself were written in his own name, and he uses the 1st pers. sing. in speaking of them, but adds that they were written at the request of brethren. Eusebius mentions two, Bacchylides and Elpistus, at whose instance that to the churches of Pontus was written.
The letters also illustrate the value attached by Christians to their sacred
literature. Dionysius informs the church of Rome that the day on which he wrote,
being the Lord's day, had been kept holy, and that they had then read the letter
of the Roman church, and would continue from time to time to read it for their instruction,
as they were in the habit of reading the letter formerly written from the same church
by the hand of Clement; and speaking of the falsification of his own letters, he
adds, "No marvel, then, that some have
We are not told anything of the time or manner of the death of Dionysius. It must have been before the Paschal disputes in a.d. 198, when we find Palmas of Pontus still alive, but a new bishop (Bacchylus) at Corinth. The Greek church counts Dionysius among martyrs, and the Menaea name the sword as the instrument of his death; but there is no authority for his martyrdom earlier than Cedrenus, i.e. the end of the 11th cent. The Roman church only counts him among confessors. The abbey of St. Denis in France claimed to be in possession of the body of Dionysius of Corinth, alleged to have been brought from Greece to Rome, and given them in 1215 by Innocent III. The pope's bull is given by the Bollandists under April 8. See Routh, Rel. Sac. (2nd ed.), i. 178-201.
Dionysius (6) of Alexandria. This "great bishop of Alexandria" (Eus. H. E. vi. Praef.) and "teacher of the catholic church" (Athan. de Sent. Dion. 6), was born, apparently, of a wealthy and honourable family (Eus. H. E. vii. 11, and Valesius ad loc.). He was an old man in a.d. 265 (Eus. H. E. vii. 27), and a presbyter in a.d. 233 (Hieron. de Vir. Ill. 69). His parents were Gentiles, and he was led to examine the claims of Christianity by private study (Ep. Dion. ap. Eus. H. E. vii. 7). His conversion cost him the sacrifice of "worldly glory" (Eus. H. E. vii. 11); but he found in Origen an able teacher (ib. vi. 29); and Dionysius remained faithful to his master to the last. In the persecutions of Decius he addressed a letter to him On Persecution (ib. vi. 46), doubtless as an expression of sympathy with his sufferings (c. A.D. 259), and on the death of Origen (a.d. 253) wrote to Theotecnus bp. of Caesarea in his praise (Steph. Gob. ap. Phot. Cod. 232). Dionysius, then a presbyter, succeeded Heraclas as head of the Catechetical School, at the time, as the words of Eusebius imply, when Heraclas was made bp. of Alexandria, a.d. 232-233 (Eus. l.c.). He held this office till he was raised to the bishopric, on the death of Heraclas, a.d. 247-248, and perhaps retained it till his death, a.d. 265. His episcopate was in troubled times. A popular outbreak at Alexandria (a.d. 248-249) anticipated by about a year (Eus. H. E. vi. 41) the persecution under Decius (a.d. 249-251). Dionysius fled from Alexandria, and, being afterwards taken by some soldiers, was rescued by a friend, escaping in an obscure retirement from further attacks. In the persecution of Valerian, a.d. 257, he was banished, but continued to direct and animate the Alexandrian church from the successive places of his exile. His conduct on these occasions exposed him to ungenerous criticism, and Eusebius has preserved several interesting passages of a letter (c. a.d. 258-259), in which he defends himself with great spirit against the accusations of a bp. Germanus (ib. vi. 40, vii. 11). On the accession of Gallienus, a.d. 260, Dionysius was allowed to return to Alexandria (ib. vii. 13, 21), where he had to face war, famine, and pestilence (ib. vii. 22). In a.d. 264-265 he was invited to the synod at Antioch which met to consider the opinions of Paul of Samosata. His age and infirmities did not allow him to go, and he died shortly afterwards (a.d. 265) (ib. vii. 27, 28; Hieron. de Vir. Ill. 69).
Dionysius was active in controversy, but always bore himself with prudence. In this
Dionysius was a prolific writer. Jerome (l.c.) has preserved a long but not exhaustive catalogue of his books. Some important fragments remain of his treatises On Nature (Eus. Praep. Ev. xiv. 23 ff.), and On the Promises, in refutation of the Chiliastic views of Nepos (Eus. H. E. iii. 28, vii. 24, 25); of his Refutation and Defence, addressed to Dionysius of Rome, in reply to the accusation of false teaching on the Holy Trinity (Athan. de Sent. Dionysii; de Synodis, c. 44; de Decr. Syn. Nic. c. 25); of his Commentaries on Ecclesiastes and on St. Luke, and of his books Against Sabellius (Eus. Praep. Ev. vii. 19).
The fragments of his letters are, however, the most interesting extant memorials of his work and character and of his time; and Eusebius, with a true historical instinct, has made them the basis of the sixth and seventh books of his history. The following will shew the wide ground covered:
a.d. 251.—To Domitius and Didymus. Personal experiences during persecution (Eus. H. E. vii. 11).
a.d. 251-252.—To Novatian, to the Roman Confessors, to Cornelius of Rome, Fabius of Antioch, Conon of Hermopolis; and to Christians in Alexandria, Egypt, Laodicaea, Armenia, on discipline and repentance, with pictures from contemporary history (ib. vi. 41, and vii. 45).
a.d. 253-257.—To Stephen of Rome, the Roman presbyters Dionysius and Philemon, Sixtus II. of Rome on Rebaptism (ib. vii. 4, 5, 7, 9).
a.d. 258-263.—To Germanus: incidents in persecution. Against Sabellians. A series of festal letters, with pictures of contemporary history (ib. vii. 11, 22 ff., 26).
a.d. 264.—To Paul of Samosata (vi. 40).
To these, of some of which only the titles remain, must be added an important canonical letter to Basilides, of uncertain date, discussing various questions of discipline, and especially points connected with the Lenten fast (cf. Dittrich, pp. 46 ff.). All the fragments repay careful study. They are uniformly inspired by sympathy and large-heartedness. His criticism on the style of the Apocalypse is perhaps unique among early writings for clearness and scholarly precision (Eus. H. E. vii. 25).
The most accessible and complete collection of his remains is in Migne's Patr. Gk. x. pp. 1233 ff., 1575 ff., to which must be added Pitra, Spicil. Solesm. i. 15 ff. A full monograph on Dionysius by Dittrich (Freiburg, 1867) supplements the arts. in Tillemont, Maréchal, Lumper, Moehler. An Eng. trans. of his works is in the Ante-Nicene Lib., and his Letters, etc., have been ed. by Dr. Feltoe for the Camb. Patristic Texts (1904).
Dionysius (7), bp. of Rome; a Greek by birth, consecrated July 22, a.d. 259, on the death of Xystus, in the persecution of Valerian. His efforts against heresy are recorded. When Dionysius of Alexandria (q.v.) was accused of holding doctrines akin to those of Sabellius, the Roman Dionysius wrote to him, and extracted so satisfactory a defence that he declared him purged of suspicion (Athan. Ep. de Sent. Dionys. Opp. i. 252; see an Eng. trans. of the Fragm. against Sabellius in Ante-Nicene Lib.). In 264 the Alexandrian and Roman Dionysii acted together with the council of Antioch in condemning and degrading Paul of Samosata. Dionysius of Rome died Dec. 26, 269.
Dionysius (19), surnamed Exiguus because of his humbleness of heart,
was a Scythian by birth, and a monk in the Western church under the emperors Justin
and Justinian. To him we owe the custom of dating events from the birth of our Saviour,
though he is now acknowledged to have placed the era four years too late. His collection
of canons laid the foundation of canon law. He knew Latin and Greek fairly; though
it is obvious that neither
I. The period called after him was borrowed from Victorius of Aquitaine, who flourished 100 years earlier, and is said to have invented it. It is a revolution of 532 years, produced by multiplying the solar cycle of 28 by the lunar of 19 years. It is called sometimes "recapitulatio Dionysii." A note to § 13 of the preliminary dissertation to l’Art de vérif. les dates shews how he improved on his predecessor. His cycle was published in the last year of the emperor Justin, a.d. 527. It began with March 25, now kept as the festival of the Annunciation; and from this epoch all the dates of bulls and briefs of the court of Rome are supposed to run (Butler's Lives of the Saints, Oct. 15: note to the Life of St. Teresa). His first year had for its characters the solar cycle 10, the lunar 2, and the Roman indiction 4, thereby proclaiming its identity with the year 4714 of the Julian period, which again coincided with the 4th year of the 194th Olympiad, and the 753rd of the building of Rome. It was adopted in Italy soon after its publication; in France perhaps a century later. In England it was ordained a.d. 816, at the synod of Chelsea, that all bishops should date their acts from the Incarnation.
II. In his letter to bp. Stephen, to whom he dedicates his collection of Canons, he admits the existence of an earlier, but defective, Latin translation, of which copies have been printed and named, after his naming of it, Prisca Versio by Justellus and others. His own was a corrected edition of that earlier version, so far as regards the canons of Nicaea, Ancyra, Neo-Caesarea, Gangra, Antioch, Laodicea, and Constantinople—165 in all—together with 27 of Chalcedon: all originally published in Greek, and all, except the Laodicean, already translated in the Prisca Versio. The Laodicean, unlike the rest, are given in an abbreviated form, and the chronological order is interrupted to place the Nicene canons first. He specifies as having been translated by himself the 50 so-called canons of the Apostles, which stand at the head of his collection, which he admits were not then universally received: and, as having been appended by himself, the Sardican and African canons, which he says were published in Latin, and with which his collection ends. His collection speedily displaced that of the Prisca. Cassiodorus, his friend and patron, writes of it within a few years of his decease, "Quos hodie usu ecclesia Romana complectitur"; and adds, "Alia quoque multa ex Graeco transtulit in Latinam, quae utilitati possunt ecclesiasticae convenire" (de Inst. Div. Litt. c. 23). It seems certain, from what Cassiodorus says, that Dionysius either translated or revised an earlier translation of the official documents of the 3rd and 4th councils, as well as the canons of the 1st and 2nd.
III. He published all the decretal epistles of the popes he could discover from Siricius, who succeeded Damasus, a.d. 384, to Anastasius II., who succeeded Gelasius, a.d. 496. Gelasius, he says himself, he had never seen in life; in other words, he had never been at Rome up to Gelasius's death. By this publication a death-blow was given to the false decretals of the Pseudo-Isidore, centuries before their appearance. His attestation of the true text and consequent rendering of the 6th Nicene canon, his translating the 9th of Chalcedon into plain Latin, after suppressing the 28th, which, as it was not passed in full council he could omit with perfect honesty, and, most of all, the publicity which he first gave to the canons against transmarine appeals in the African code and to the stand made by the African bishops against the encroachments of pope Zosimus and his successors in the matter of Apiarius, are historical stumbling-blocks which are fatal to the papal claims. Misquotations of the Sardican canons, by which those claims were supported, are, moreover, exposed by his preservation of them in the language in which he avers they were published. Aloisius Vincenzi, writing on papal infallibility (de Sacrâ Monarchiâ, etc. 1875), is quite willing to abandon the Sardican canons in order to get rid also of the African code, which is a thorn in his side.
Dioscorus (1), patriarch of Alexandria, succeeded Cyril about midsummer
444, receiving consecration, according to one report (Mansi, vii. 603), from two
bishops only. He had served as Cyril's archdeacon. Liberatus says that he had never
been married. It is difficult to harmonize the accounts of his character. Theodoret,
whose testimony in his favour cannot be suspected, declared in a letter to Dioscorus,
soon after his consecration, that the fame of his virtues, and particularly of his
modesty and humility, was widely spread (Ep. 60); on the other hand, after
he had involved himself in the Monophysite heresy, he was accused of having gravely
misconducted himself in the first years of his episcopate (Mansi, vi. 1008). According
to a deacon, Ischyrion, Dioscorus had laid waste property, inflicted fines and exile,
bought up and sold at a high price the wheat sent by the government to Libya, appropriated
and grossly misspent money left by a lady named Peristeria for religious and charitable
purposes, received women of notorious character into his house, persecuted Ischyrion
as a favourite of Cyril's, ruined the little estate which was his only support,
sent a "phalanx of ecclesiastics, or rather of ruffians," to put him to death, and,
after his escape, again sought to murder him in a hospital; in proof, Ischyrion
appealed to six persons, one of whom was bath-keeper to Dioscorus (ib. 1012).
According to a priest named Athanasius, Cyril's nephew, Dioscorus, from the outset
of his episcopate ("which he obtained one knows not how," says the petitioner),
harassed him and his brother by using influence with the court, so that the brother
died of distress, and Athanasius, with his aunts, sister-in-law, and nephews, were
bereft of their homes by the patriarch's malignity. He himself was deposed, without
any trial, from the priesthood, and became, perforce, a wanderer for years. According
to a layman named Sophronius, Dioscorus hindered the execution of an imperial order
which Sophronius had obtained for the redress of a grievous wrong. "The
Then, in Nov. 448, the aged Eutyches,
archimandrite of Constantinople and a vehement enemy of Nestorianizers, was accused
by Eusebius, bp. of Dorylaeum, before a council of which Flavian was president,
with an opposite error. He clung tenaciously to the phrase, "one incarnate nature
of God the Word," which Cyril had used on the authority of St. Athanasius; but neglected
the qualifications and explanations by which Cyril had guarded his meaning. Thus,
by refusing to admit that Christ, as incarnate, had "two natures," Eutyches appeared
to his judges to have revived, in effect, the Apollinarian heresy—to have denied
the distinctness and verity of Christ's manhood; and he was deprived of his priestly
office, and excommunicated. His patron, the chamberlain Chrysaphius, applied to
Dioscorus for aid, promising to support him in all his designs if he would take
up the cause of Eutyches against Flavian (Niceph. xiv. 47). Eutyches himself wrote
to Dioscorus, asking him "to examine his cause" (Liberat. c. 12), and Dioscorus,
zealous against all anti-Cyrilline tendencies in theology, wrote to the emperor,
urging him to call a general council to review Flavian's judgment. Theodosius, influenced
by his wife and his chamberlain, issued letters (
This council of evil memory—on which Leo afterwards fastened the name of "Latrocinium,"
or gang of robbers—met on Aug. 8, 449, in St. Mary's church at Ephesus, the scene
of the third general council's meeting in 431; 150 bishops being present. Dioscorus
presided, and next to him Julian, or Julius, the representative of the "most holy
bishop of the Roman church," then Juvenal of Jerusalem, Domnus of Antioch, and—his
lowered position indicating what was to come—Flavian of Constantinople (ib.
607). The archbp. of Alexandria shewed himself a partisan throughout. He did indeed
propose the acceptance of Leo's letter to the council, a letter written at the same
time as, and expressly referring to, the famous "Tome"; but it was only handed in,
not read, Juvenal moving that another imperial letter should be read and recorded.
The president then intimated that the council's business was not to frame a new
doctrinal formulary, but to inquire whether what had lately appeared—meaning, the
statements of Flavian and bp. Eusebius on the one hand, those of Eutyches on the
other—were accordant with the decisions of the councils of Nicaea and Ephesus—"two
councils in name," said he, "but one in faith" (ib. 628). Eutyches was then
introduced, and made his statement, beginning, "I commend myself to the Father,
the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and the true verdict of your justice." After he had
finished his address, Flavian desired that Eusebius, who had been his accuser, should
be called in and heard. Elpidius, the imperial commissioner, vetoed this proposal
on the ground that the judges of Eutyches were now to be judged, and that his accuser
had already fulfilled his task, "and, as he thought, successfully": to let him speak
now would be a cause of mere disturbance (ib. 645). This unjudicial view
of the case was supported by Dioscorus. Flavian was baffled, and the council resolved
to hear the acts of the synod of Constantinople which had condemned Eutyches. The
episcopal deputy of Leo, with his companion the deacon Hilarus, urged that "the
pope's letter" (probably including the "Tome" in this proposal) should be read first,
but this was overruled; Dioscorus moved that the "acts" should be first read, and
then the letter of the bp. of Rome. The reading began (ib. 649). When the
passage was reached in which Basil of Seleucia and Seleucus of Amasia had said that
the one Christ was in two natures after the incarnation, a storm of wrath broke
out. "Let no one call the Lord 'two' after the union! Do not divide the undivided!
Seleucus was not bp. of Amasia! This is Nestorianism." "Be quiet for a little,"
said Dioscorus; "let us hear some more blasphemies. Why are we to blame Nestorius
only? There are many Nestoriuses" (ib. 685). The reading proceeded as far
as Eusebius's question to Eutyches, "Do you own two natures after the incarnation?"
Then arose another storm: "The holy synod
Flavian's own fate was the special tragedy of the Latrocinium. He had lodged
in the hands of the Roman delegates a formal appeal to the pope and the Western
bishops (not to the pope alone; see Leo, Ep. 43, Tillemont, xv. 374). It
was nearly his last act. He was brutally treated, kicked, and beaten by the agents
of Dioscorus, and even, we are told, by Dioscorus himself (see Evagr. i. 1; Niceph.
xiv. 47). He was then imprisoned, and soon exiled, but died in the hands of his
guards, from the effect of his injuries, three days after his deposition (Liberatus,
Brev. 19), Aug. 11,
Dioscorus and his council—as we may well call it—proceeded to depose Theodoret and several other bishops; "many," says Leo, "were expelled from their sees, and banished, because they would not accept heresy" (Ep. 93). Theodoret was put under a special ban. "They ordered me," he writes (Ep. 140), "to be excluded from shelter, from water, from everything."
Confusion now pervaded the Eastern churches. It was impossible to acquiesce in
the proceedings of the "Latrocinium." Leo bestirred himself to get a new oecumenical
council held in Italy: the imperial family in the West supported this, but Theodosius
II. persisted in upholding the late council. In the spring of 450 Dioscorus took
a new and exceptionally audacious step. At Nicaea, on his way to the court, he caused
ten bishops whom he had brought from Egypt to sign a document excommunicating pope
Leo (Mansi, vi. 1009, 1148; vii. 104), doubtless on the ground that Leo was endeavouring
to quash the canonical decisions of a legitimate council. His cause, however, was
ruined when the orthodox Pulcheria succeeded to the empire, and gave her hand to
Marcian, this event leading to a new council at Chalcedon on Oct. 8, 451, which
Dioscorus attended. The deputies of Leo come first, then Anatolius, Dioscorus, Maximus,
Juvenal. At first Dioscorus sat among those bishops who were on the right of the
chancel (ib. vi. 580). The Roman deputies on the opposite side desired, in
the name of Leo, that Dioscorus should not sit in the council. The magistrates,
who acted as imperial commissioners (and were the effective presidents),
asked what was charged against him? Paschasinus, the chief Roman delegate, answered,
"When he comes in" (i.e. after having first gone out) "it will be necessary
to state objections against him." The magistrates desired again to hear the charge.
Lucentius, another delegate, said, "He has presumed to hold a synod without leave
of the apostolic see, which has never been done." (Rome did not recognize the "second
general council" of 381; which, in fact, was not then owned as general.) "We cannot,"
said Paschasinus, "transgress the apostolic pope's orders." "We cannot," added Lucentius,
"allow such a wrong as that this man should sit in the council, who is come to be
judged." "If you claim to judge," replied the magistrates sharply, "do not be accuser
too." They bade Dioscorus sit in the middle by himself, and the Roman deputies sat
down and said no more. Eusebius of Dorylaeum asked to be heard against Dioscorus.
"I have been injured by him; the faith has been injured; Flavian was killed, after
he and I had been unjustly deposed by Dioscorus. Command my petition to the emperors
to be read." It was read by Beronicianus, the secretary of the imperial consistory,
and stated that "at the recent council at Ephesus, this good (χρηστός)
Dioscorus, disregarding justice, and supporting Eutyches in heresy—having also gained
power by bribes, and assembled a disorderly multitude—did all he could to ruin the
Catholic faith, and to establish the heresy of Eutyches, and condemned us: I desire,
therefore, that he be called to account, and that the records of his proceedings
against us be examined." Dioscorus, preserving his self-possession, answered, "The
synod was held by the emperor's order; I too desire that its acts against Flavian
may be read"; but added, "I beg that the doctrinal question be first considered."
"No," said the magistrates, "the charge against you must first be met; wait until
the acts have been read, as you yourself desired." The letter of Theodosius, convoking
the late council, was read. The magistrates then ordered that Theodoret
should be brought in, because Leo had "restored to him his episcopate," and the emperor
had ordered him to attend the council. He entered accordingly. The Egyptians and
some other bishops shouted, "Turn out the teacher of Nestorius!" Others rejoined,
"We signed a blank paper; we were beaten, and so made to sign. Turn out the enemies
of Flavian and of the faith!" "Why," asked Dioscorus, "should Cyril be ejected?"
(i.e. virtually, by the admission of Theodoret). His adversaries turned fiercely
upon him: "Turn out Dioscorus the homicide!" Ultimately the magistrates ruled that
Theodoret should sit down, but in the middle of the assembly, and that his admission
should not prejudice any charge against him (ib. 592). The reading went on;
at the letter giving Dioscorus the presidency, he remarked that Juvenal, and Thalassius
of Caesarea, were associated with him, that the synod had gone with him, and that
Theodosius had confirmed its decrees. Forthwith, a cry arose from the bishops whom
he had intimidated at Ephesus. "Not one of us signed voluntarily. We were overawed
by soldiers." Dioscorus coolly said that if the bishops had not understood the merits
of the case, they ought not to have signed. The reading was resumed. Flavian being
named, his friends asked why he had been degraded to the fifth place? The next interruption
was in reference to the suppression, at the Latrocinium, of Leo's letter. Aetius,
archdeacon of Constantinople, said it had not even been "received." "But," said
Dioscorus, "the acts shew that I proposed that it should be read. Let others say
why it was not read." "What others?" "Juvenal and Thalassius." Juvenal, on being
questioned, said, "The chief notary told us that he had an imperial letter; I answered
that it ought to come first; no one afterwards said that he had in his hands a letter
from Leo." Thalassius (evidently a weak man, though holding the great see of St.
Basil) said that he had not power, of himself, to order the reading of the letter
(ib. 617). At another point the "Orientals," the opponents of Dioscorus,
objected that the acts of Ephesus misrepresented their words. Dioscorus replied, "Each
bishop had his own secretaries . . . taking down the speeches." Stephen of Ephesus
then narrated the violence done to his secretaries: Acacias of Arianathia described
the coercion scene. When the reader came to Dioscorus's words, "I examine the decrees
of the Fathers"
The second session was held Oct. 10 (ib. 937); Dioscorus was absent. After
some discussion as to making an exposition of faith, which led to the reading of
the creed in its two forms—both of which were accepted—and of Cyril's "two canonical
epistles," and of Leo's letter to Flavian (the Tome), which was greeted with "Peter
has spoken by Leo; Cyril taught thus; Leo and Cyril have taught alike," but to parts
of which some objection was taken by one bishop, and time given for consideration,
the usual exclamations were made, among which we find that of the Illyrians, "Restore
Dioscorus to the synod, to the churches! We have all offended, let all be forgiven!"
while the enemies of Dioscorus called for his banishment, and the clerics of Constantinople
said that he who communicated with him was a Jew (ib. 976). In the third
session, Sat. Oct. 13, the magistrates not being present, a memorial to the council
from Eusebius of Dorylaeum, setting forth charges against Dioscorus, was read (ib.
985). It then appeared that Dioscorus had been summoned, like other bishops, to
the session, and intimated his willingness to come; but his guards prevented him.
Two priests, sent to search for him, could not find him in the precincts of the
church. Three bishops, sent with a notary, found him, and said, "The holy council
begs your Holiness to attend its meeting." "I am under guard," said he; "I am hindered
by the officers" (magistriani, the subordinates of the "master of the offices,"
or "supreme magistrate of the palace," see Gibbon, ii. 326); and, after two other
summonses, positively and finally refused to come. He had nothing more to say than
he had said to former envoys. They begged him to reconsider it. "If your Holiness
knows that you are falsely accused, the council is not far off; do take the trouble
to come and refute the falsehood." "What I have said, I have said; it is enough."
They desisted, and reported their failure. "Do you order that we proceed to ecclesiastical
penalties against him?" asked Paschasinus, addressing the council. "Yes, we agree."
One bishop said bitterly, "When he murdered holy Flavian, he did not adduce canons,
nor proceed by church forms." The Roman delegates proposed a sentence, to this effect:
"Dioscorus has received Eutyches, though duly condemned by Flavian, into communion.
The apostolic see excuses those who were coerced by Dioscorus at Ephesus, but who
are obedient to archbp. Leo" (as president) "and the council; but this man glories
in his crime. He prevented Leo's letter to Flavian" (the acts of Ephesus say the
letter to the council, v. supra) "from being read. He has presumed to excommunicate
Leo. He has thrice refused to come and answer to charges. Therefore Leo, by us and
the council, together with St. Peter, the rock of the church, deprives him of episcopal
and sacerdotal dignity" (ib. 1045). A letter was written to Dioscorus, announcing
that he was deposed for disregarding the canons and disobeying the council. Dioscorus
at first made light of the sentence, and said that he should soon be restored; the
council wrote to the two emperors, reciting his misdeeds, as before, and adding
that he had restored the heterodox and justly-deposed Eutyches to his office, in
contempt of Leo's letter, had done injury to Eusebius, and had received to communion
persons lawfully condemned (ib. 1097). The deposition of Dioscorus was confirmed
by the emperor; he was banished to Gangra in Paphlagonia, and died there in 454.
Proterius, archpriest of Alexandria, who adhered to the council of Chalcedon, was
placed in the see of St. Mark, but never gained the goodwill of his people as a
body; they regarded Dioscorus, though de facto deposed, as their legitimate
patriarch; and his deposition inaugurated the schism which to this day has divided
the Christians of Egypt, the majority of whom, bearing the name of Jacobites, have
always disowned the council of Chalcedon, and venerated Dioscorus as "their teacher"
(Lit. Copt. St. Basil), and as a persecuted saint (see Neale, Hist. Alex.
ii. 6). As to his theological position, there is, perhaps, little or nothing in
his own words which might not be interpreted consistently with orthodoxy. Even as
to his conduct, the charges brought by the Alexandrian petitioners at Chalcedon
are too deeply coloured by passion to command our full belief; and a mere profligate
oppressor would not have secured so largely the loyalty of Alexandrian churchmen.
But his public acts in 449 exhibit the perversion of considerable abilities—of courage,
resolution, clear-headedness—under the temptations of excessive
Dioscorus (4), the eldest of four Nitrian monks, Dioscorus, Ammonius, Eusebius, and Euthymius, known from their stature as the "Tall Brethren," who became conspicuous in Chrysostom's early troubles. They were reluctantly induced by Theophilus, patriarch of Alexandria, to leave the desert and to submit to ordination. Eusebius and Euthymius became presbyters, and Dioscorus was consecrated bp. of Hermopolis. Weary of city life and uncongenial duties, and shocked by the avarice and other vices of Theophilus, Dioscorus and his brethren returned to their solitudes, though the indignant patriarch tried to deter them by violent menaces (Socr. H. E. viii. 12). As depositaries of dangerous secrets, they had become formidable to Theophilus, who resolved to wreak vengeance upon them. On the pretext of their adherence to the mystic views of Origen on the Person of the Deity, and their decided opposition to Anthropomorphism, which Theophilus had originally shared with them, Theophilus had them ejected from their monasteries and treated them with the utmost contumely and violence when they went to Alexandria to appeal (Pallad. p. 54). Having procured their condemnation at a packed synod at Alexandria, a.d. 401, Theophilus personally headed a night attack on their monastery, which was burnt and pillaged, and Dioscorus himself treated with violence and indignity (ib. p. 57). Driven from Egypt, the "Tall Brethren" took refuge in Palestine, but later resolved to appeal for protection to the emperor and to Chrysostom in person. Chrysostom manifested much sympathy, but contented himself with writing to Theophilus, urging his reconciliation with them. Theophilus's only reply was an angry remonstrance against his harbouring heretics and interfering with another see. He sent emissaries to Constantinople to denounce the brethren as magicians, heretics, and rebels. The monks then announced their intention of appealing to the secular power for a judicial investigation of the charges against them, and demanded that Theophilus should be summoned to answer for his conduct before a council. The superstitious reverence of the empress Eudoxia, all-powerful with the feeble Arcadius, secured them their desire, and Theophilus was ordered to appear at Constantinople. This appeal to the civil authority displeased Chrysostom, who declined to interfere further in the controversy. For the manner in which Theophilus turned the tables on Chrysostom, becoming the accuser instead of the accused, and securing his deposition, see Chrysostom; Theophilus (8). His main object having been accomplished in the overthrow of his great rival, Theophilus now made no difficulty about reconciliation with the Nitrian monks, who he publicly restored to communion on their simple petition. Dioscorus and Ammonius had, however, died not long before. Socr. H. E. vi. 16; Soz. H. E. viii. 17; Pallad. p. 157.
Docetism, the very early heresy that our blessed Lord had a body like
ours, only in appearance, not in reality. St. Jerome scarcely exaggerates when he
says (adv. Lucif. 23): "While the apostles were still surviving, while Christ's
blood was still fresh in Judea, the Lord's body was asserted to be but a phantasm."
Apart from N.T. passages, e.g.
In the forms of Docetism thus far described there is no evidence that there was involved any more subtle theory than that the senses of the spectators of our Lord's earthly life were deceived. The Docetism of Valentinus was exhibited in a more artificial theory, which is fully set forth in our art. s.v. It appears that Valentinus was only partly docetic. He conceded to Jesus the possession of a real body capable of really affecting the senses, but held that that body was made of a different substance from ours and was peculiar as regards its sustenance by earthly nutriment (Letter to Agathopus, ap. Clem. Alex. Strom. iii. 7, 451). Irenaeus, however (v. 1, 2, and more fully iii. 22), insists that the Valentinian doctrine did not practically differ from pure Docetism; for that if our Lord had not taken substance of flesh in the womb of the Virgin He could not have been the real man Who suffered hunger and thirst and weariness, Who wept at the grave of Lazarus, Who sweat drops of blood, from Whose wounded side came forth blood and water.
The Docetism of Marcion
differed from that of preceding Gnostics. With them the great stumbling-block had
been the sufferings of Christ, and accordingly it is the reality of Christ's passion
and death that their antagonists sought to establish. Marcion, on the contrary,
was quite willing to acknowledge the proof of our Lord's love exhibited in His sufferings
and death, but it was repulsive to him to own His human birth, which according to
his view would have made our Lord the debtor and the subject of the Creator of the
world. Accordingly, while Basilides had admitted a real birth of the man Jesus,
Valentinus at least a seeming birth in which the body elsewhere prepared was ushered
into the world, Marcion would own no birth at all, and began his gospel with the
sudden announcement that in the 15th year of Tiberius Christ
The fourth book of the dialogue against the Marcionites (Origen, i. 853) contains
a polemic against Docetism which is represented as defended by Marinus the disciple
of Bardesanes, who adopts the Valentinian notion that our Lord had come
διὰ Μαρίας, not
ἐκ Μαρίας, and who maintains that His earthly
body was only such as the angels had temporarily assumed who ate and drank with
Abraham. One argument on the orthodox side is used by several Fathers, and the form
of words in which each has expressed himself has been much discussed in modern controversy.
It occurs here in the form "If Christ were without flesh and blood, of what sort
of flesh and blood are the bread and wine, the images (εἰκόνας)
with which He commanded that the memorial of Him should be made?" (cf. Ign. ad.
Smyrn. 7; Iren. iv. 18, v. 2; Tert. adv. Marcion. iv. 40). Of later heretics,
the most considerable who maintained a Docetic theory are the Manicheans. In the
controversy with them the orthodox had exactly the same points to establish as in
the controversy with Marcion, viz. that Christ had come into the world, not merely
as sent by the Father, but as really born of the Virgin; that He was truly incarnate,
and did not assume the form of a body merely as did the angels whose appearances
have been recorded; that He was circumcised, baptized, tempted; that His death was
a real one, as was necessary in order that His resurrection also should be real
(see in particular the disputation between Augustine and Faustus). With regard to
the disputes in the 6th cent. concerning our Lord's body, see
Julianus
(47) of Halicarnassus, and D. C. B. (4-vol. ed.) under
Corrupticolae
and Phantasiastae. It is well known
that Mahommed
Besides formal heresies which have been tainted with Docetism, the same imputation has been cast on more than one of the Fathers. It is very strongly brought by Photius (Bibl. 109) against the hypotyposes of Clement of Alexandria. This book has not survived, but there is no doubt from his extant writings that Clement ascribed to our Lord a real body. In a fragment probably from the lost Hypotyposes preserved in a Latin trans. (p. 1009), he quotes from "the traditions" that when St. John handled the body of our Lord the flesh offered no resistance, but yielded place to the disciple's hand. Redepenning's conclusion (Origenes, ii. 391) is that Clement's doctrine deviated from that subsequently recognised as orthodox, not in respect of our Lord's body, the reality of which he acknowledged, but in holding that His body was directly united to the Divine Logos without the intervention of a human soul capable of feeling pain or suffering. Redepenning (l.c.) also discusses how far Origen is chargeable with Docetism, on which also consult Huet's Origeniana, ii. Qu. iii. 10, 11.
The traditions referred to by Clement have been identified with the contents of a work of Leucius Charinus, purporting to relate travels of the apostles, of which an account is given by Photius (Bibl. 114), and from which extracts are also quoted in the Acts of the second council of Nicaea (Actio v.). In this work, which Grabe seems to have correctly regarded as Marcionite, it was taught that the Son was not man, but only seemed to be so; that He shewed Himself to His disciples sometimes young, sometimes old; sometimes a child, sometimes an old man; sometimes great, sometimes small; sometimes so great as to touch the heavens with His head; that His footsteps left no trace; and that He was not really crucified, but, according to Photius, another person in His place. The account given in the Nicene extracts of a vision seen by St. John on the mount of Olives, at the time of the crucifixion, teaches that the form crucified was not really our Lord, but does not suggest that it was any other person.
Domitianus (1), a.d. 81-96. This emperor, though placed by Lactantius (de Mort. Persecut. c. 3) and others among the persecutors of the church, can hardly be considered as having made any systematic effort to crush Christianity as such. Through the greater part of the empire the Christians seem to have been unmolested. The traces of persecution, such as they are, seem rather to belong to his general policy of suspicion and cruelty. Indirectly they are of interest in shewing how the new religion was attracting notice and spreading.
(1) Vespasian, before his death, had given orders (Eus. H. E. iii. 12) that inquiry should be made for all who claimed to be descendants of the house of David, seeking thus to cut off all who might incite the Jews to a fresh revolt. The fears of Domitian led him to continue the search, and Hegesippus (in Eus. H. E. iii. 19, 20) records one striking incident connected with it. The grandchildren of Judas, the brother of the Lord, were taken to Rome and brought into the emperor's presence. They acknowledged that they were of the kingly line, but stated that the only kingdom they looked for was one spiritual and angelic, to be manifested at the end of the world. The emperor, Hegesippus tells us, thought them beneath his notice, released them, and allowed them to go back to Judea, and put a stop to the persecution against the church which he had begun. This persecution was probably the inquiry itself. The Judean followers of the Christ, whom they habitually spoke of as the seed of David, would inevitably be suspected of being likely to appeal to the hopes of the conquered population.
(2) Towards the close of Domitian's reign a domestic tragedy occurred which there
is good reason for connecting with the progress of Christianity. The emperor had
a cousin named Flavius Clemens, whom at one time he held in high favour. He gave
him his niece Flavia Domitilla in marriage, changed the names of his sons to Vespasian
and Domitian and designated them as heirs to the empire, and nominated Clemens as
his colleague in the consulship. Suddenly, almost within the year of his consulship,
he put Clemens to death, banished his wife to Pandataria, and his daughter (or niece),
who was also called Domitilla, to Pontia. Revenge for these acts had apparently
no small share in the emperor's assassination. One of the most prominent conspirators
concerned was Stephanus, an agent and freedman of the banished widow of Clemens.
Thus the story is told by Suetonius (Domit. cc. 15, 17). It remains to see on what
grounds church writers like Eusebius (H. E. iii. 18) claim the three members
of the Flavian house as among the first illustrious martyrs of royal rank. (i) Flavius
Clemens is described by Suetonius (l.c.) as "contemptissimae inertiae." A
Christian would naturally be so described by men of his own rank and by the outer
world, just as Tertullian complains that the Christians of his time were stigmatized,
when other charges failed, as "infructuosi negotiis" (Apol. c. 42). (ii)
The specific charge against Clemens and the two Domitillae is reported by Dio Cassius
(lxvii. 14) and Xiphilinus (p. 766) to have been atheism. The same accusation, the
latter adds, was brought against many others who shewed a bias towards Jewish customs.
This again agrees with the general feeling of the Roman world towards the Christians
at a later period, and may be regarded as the first instance of that feeling. (iii)
Later tradition confirms these inferences. Jerome tells us (Ep. 27) how Paula
visited Pontia on her way to Jerusalem, as already an object of reverence, and saw
the three cells in which Domitilla and her two eunuchs Achilleus and Nereus had
lived during their exile. They were said to have returned to Rome and suffered martyrdom
under Trajan. A church on the Coelian Hill at Rome dedicated to S. Clement, in which
a tablet was discovered in 1725 to the memory of Flavius Clemens, martyr, and described
by Cardinal Albiani (T. Flavii Clementis Viri Consularis et Martyris Tumulus
Illustratus, 1727), seems therefore to have commemorated the consul and not
the writer of that name. The name of Clement of Alexandria, Titus Flavius Clemens,
may be regarded
(3) With the reign of Domitian is also connected the legend of St. John's presence at Rome, and of his being thrown, before the Porta Latina, at the command of the emperor, into a cauldron of boiling oil, and then banished to Patmos. Tertullian (de Praescript. c. 36) is the first writer who mentions it. The apostle, as the chosen friend of the Son of David, may have been pointed out by the delatores of Ephesus as the descendants of Judas were in Judea. Tertullian, in speaking elsewhere (Apol. c. 5) of Domitian's conduct towards the church, describes him as only attempting a persecution, and then, thinking better of it, recalling those whom he had condemned to exile. In other accounts (Eus. H. E. iii. 20) the decree of recall was connected with the accession of Nerva.
Domitilla Flavia. [Domitianus (1).]
Domnus I. (2), bp. of Antioch, appointed a.d. 269 on the deposition of Paul of Samosata, by the sole authority of the council, without any reference to the clergy and people, the bishops evidently fearing they might re-elect Paul (Eus. H. E. vii. 30). Paul, relying on the support of Zenobia, retained for two years the episcopal residence and its church. The orthodox section appealed to Aurelian after he had conquered Zenobia and taken Antioch, a.d. 272. The emperor decided that the right of occupation should belong to the party in communion with the bishops of Italy and the see of Rome. This decision was enforced by the civil power, and Paul was compelled to leave the palace in disgrace (Eus. u.s.). Domnus died a.d. 274, and was succeeded by Timaeus (Till. Mém. eccl. t. iv. p. 302; Neander, Ch. Hist. vol. i. p. 193, Clark's trans.; Neale, Patr. of Antioch, pp. 52-57).
Domnus II. (4), bp. of Antioch, a friend of Theodoret. He was nephew of John, bp. of Antioch, brought up under Euthymius the famous anchoret of Palestine. He was ordained deacon by Juvenal of Jerusalem on his visit to the Laura of Euthymus in a.d. 429. Two years afterwards, learning that his uncle the bp. of Antioch had become entangled in the Nestorian heresy, he besought Euthymius to allow him to go and extricate him. Euthymius counselled him to remain where he was, telling him that God could take care of his uncle without him; that solitude was safer for him than the world; that his design would not turn out to his ultimate advantage; that he might not improbably succeed to his uncle's dignity, but would become the victim of clever and unprincipled men, who would avail themselves of his simplicity, and then accomplish his ruin; but the old man's counsels were thrown away. Domnus left the Laura without even saying farewell to Euthymius (Vita S. Euthymii, cc. 42, 56, 57). He obtained such popularity at Antioch that on the death of his uncle, a.d. 441, he was appointed his successor, and at once ranked as the chief bishop of the Eastern world. In 445 he summoned a synod of Syrian bishops which confirmed the deposition of Athanasius of Perrha. In 447 he consecrated Irenaeus to the see of Tyre (Theod. Ep. 110; Labbe, Concil. t. iii. col. 1275); but Theodosius II., having commanded that the appointment should be annulled, Irenaeus being both a digamus and a favourer of the Nestorian heresy, Domnus, despite Theodoret's remonstrances, yielded to the imperial will (Theod. u.s.; Ep. 80). Ibas, bp. of Edessa, being charged with promulgating Nestorian doctrines (Labbe, ib. t. iv. col. 658), Domnus summoned a council at Antioch (a.d. 448) which decided in favour of Ibas and deposed his accusers (ib. 639 seq.). Domnus's sentence, though revoked by Flavian, bp. of Constantinople, was confirmed by three episcopal commissioners to whom he and the emperor Theodosius had committed the matter. Domnus was one of the earliest impeachers of the orthodoxy of Eutyches, in a synodical letter to Theodosius, c. 447 (Facundus, viii. 5; xii. 5). At the Latrocinium, held at Ephesus, Aug. 8, 449, on this matter, Domnus, in virtue of an imperial rescript, found himself deprived of his presidential seat, which was occupied by Dioscorus, while precedence over the patriarch of Antioch was given to Juvenal of Jerusalem (Labbe, ib. 115, p. 251). Cowed by the dictatorial spirit of Dioscorus, and unnerved by the violence of Barsumas and his monks, Domnus revoked his former condemnation of Eutyches, and voted for his restoration (ib. col. 258) and for the condemnation of Flavian (ib. col. 306). Domnus was, nevertheless, deposed and banished by Dioscorus. The charges against him were, approval of a Nestorian sermon preached before him at Antioch by Theodoret on the death of Cyril (Mercator, t. i. p. 276), and some expressions in letters written by him to Dioscorus condemning the perplexed and obscure character of Cyril's anathemas (Liberatus, c. 11, p. 74). He was the only bishop then deposed and banished who was not reinstated after the council of Chalcedon. At that council Maximus, his successor in the see of Antioch, obtained permission to assign Domnus a pension from the revenues of the church (Labbe, ib. col. 681; append. col. 770). Finally, on his recall from exile Domnus returned to the monastic home of his youth, and ended his days in the Laura of St. Euthymius, where in 452, according to Theophanes, he afforded a refuge to Juvenal of Jerusalem when driven from his see (Theoph. p 92).
Donatus and Donatism. The Donatists were the first Christians who separated from the church on the ground of discipline, though the church had already been torn by heresies, such as Gnosticism and Manicheism, which had affected doctrines. It is important to remember that Donatism was not heresy, as the word is ordinarily understood. All heretics are, in one sense, schismatics, but all schismatics are not heretics; and the Donatists themselves protested, with justice, against being considered heretics.
Mensurius was bp. of Carthage during and after Diocletian's persecution (a.d.
303). Having been required by consul Anulinus to give up any copies of Holy Scripture
in his possession, he had hid them, and passed off
During his lifetime the storm was brewing, and it fairly broke out when Caecilian succeeded him (a.d. 311). That appointment was felt to be a blow to all who magnified martyrdom. His opponents rested their principal objection on the fact that he had been ordained by a traditor, Felix of Aptunga; and proceeded to elect Majorinus as successor to Mensurius. The charge was a strange one to be made by Caecilian's chief opponent, Secundus, bp. of Tigisis, for documents exist which prove Secundus himself a traditor, in spite of his boast to Mensurius. From that date Donatism, as it was afterwards called, had a separate and schismatical existence. Both sides appealed to Constantine, and the emperor at once subjected the alleged traditorship of Felix to a thorough examination by a council at Rome (a.d. 313), which decided in favour of Felix, cleared his character, and consequently declared the ordination of Caecilian valid. The subject was again exhaustively discussed before the consul Aelianus, who, at the bidding of Constantine, gave the Donatists another opportunity (a.d. 314), at Carthage, of proving their charge against Felix. The finding of the tribunal was unanimous: "Nemo in eum (Felicem) aliquid probare potuerit quod religiosissimas scripturas tradiderit vel exusserit."
Bp. Majorinus died a.d. 315, but had been a leader of little consequence. His followers had called themselves, for convenience' sake, the party of Majorinus; but after his death, if not before, they took the name—Donatists—by which they are best known. There were perhaps 2 bishops named Donatus; (1) of Casae Nigrae, who, before Caecilian's elevation, had shewn his schismatical tendencies; (2) the successor of Majorinus and surnamed "the Great." But this distinction has lately been questioned; see Sparrow Simpson, St. Aug. and Afr. Ch. Divisions (1910), p. 31; Monceaux, Revue de l’Hist. de Religion (1909).
In Donatus the Great personal hostility to Mensurius and Caecilian, and irritation
against the decisions of Rome and Arles [Caecilian],
of Aelianus and Constantine, led to a defiant attitude against both Church and State.
The dissentients to Caecilian had, consistently enough, refused to his church the
title of the Church of God, and appropriated that distinction to themselves. The
Caecilianist clergy were condemned for their league with a traditor and their acts
repudiated as invalid; hence those who followed Majorinus were rebaptized. But Constantine's
edict (a.d. 316) took away from them
their churches, and the heavy hand of Ursacius deprived them of their lives. The
sectarians found in Donatus a man bold enough to denounce the imperial power and
to infuse vigour into their strife against the Caecilianists. He was neither "the
angel" his followers called him nor "the fiend" his opponents described him. He
was a man of unquestionable ability, eloquence, and thoroughness—the Cyprian of
his party, as St. Augustine called him; but also hard and unloving to foe, proud
and overbearing to friend. Optatus and St. Augustine were justified in comparing
with the proud "prince of Tyre" (
When the soldiers of Ursacius appeared in N. Africa, Donatus was ready to resist them, and his courage infected the timid people and prelates. His name became the rallying-point for every man who had real or imaginary grievances against existing ecclesiastical, civil, and social powers, amongst others the Circumcellions. "They were a class of men," says St. Augustine, "who followed no kind of useful occupation, held their own lives in fanatical contempt, and thought no death too cruel for those who differed from them; they wandered about from place to place, chiefly in the country districts, and haunted the cells of the peasants for the purpose of obtaining food. Hence they were called 'Circumcelliones.'" The better class of Donatists turned away in horror from fanatics who imbrued their hands with the blood of the innocent as well as of the guilty; but the offer of partisanship having been once accepted, it was impossible to withdraw it altogether. Donatus, Parmenian, Petilian, and Cresconius in turn were forced to palliate as much as they could the actions of these allies, who preferred to be called Agonistici, Champions of Christ, and who rushed into the battle with "Deo laudes" as their war-cry, and with a weapon dubbed "Israelite" as their war-club.
Constantine soon found that Donatism was not to be put down by the sword. In
a.d. 317 Ursacius was bidden hold his
hand, and Caecilian was exhorted to treat his opponents kindly, and leave vengeance
to God. The emperor's letter was a mixture of truth and sarcasm: "All schisms,"
he wrote, "are from the devil; and these Separatists proceed from him. What good
can you expect from those who are the adversaries of God and the enemies of the
holy church? Such men must split off from the church, and attach themselves to the
devil. Surely we act most wisely, if we leave to them what they have wrenched from
us. By patience and kindness we may hope to gain them. Let us leave vengeance to
God. I rejoice to think that you meet their brutality with gentleness and good temper.
As I understand that these men have destroyed a church in Constantinople, I have
ordered my finance-minister to build you a new one. God grant that these mistaken
Separatists may at last see their error and turn to the one true God!" It was not
a letter calculated to soothe the
Constans, son of Constantine, succeeded to his father's N. African possessions; and, at first, endeavoured to conciliate the Donatists by kindness. He published (a.d. 340) an edict requiring the Donatists to return to the church, urging that "unity must now exist, because Christ was a lover of unity," and instructed his commissioners Ursacius (probably not the Ursacius already mentioned) and Leontius to distribute money, as alms, in Donatist as well as in Catholic churches. The Donatists spurned it as gold offered by the devil to seduce men from their faith. The sword of persecution was then unsheathed to deprive the Donatists of their churches; and the survivors regarded the victims as martyrs and their graves as platforms for preaching resistance. In a.d. 345 Gregorius travelled through the province, offering not only alms but valuable church plate to all who would accept the imperial invitation to submit. Donatus sent circular letters through all the provinces, forbidding the acceptance of any presents; and wrote to Gregorius in a scurrilous style. In a.d. 347 a third commission, composed of Paul, Macarius, and Taurinus, came to Donatus himself, with gold in their hands. The bishop listened impatiently, and at length broke out, "What has the emperor to do with the church?" They were words which meant much at the time, but have meant more since.
The language of Donatus was repeated from every Donatistic pulpit by preachers proclaiming the duty of separation from a church "which committed fornication with the princes of this world," and whose prelates were mere tools of an emperor. Such obloquy served to madden the fanatics, even though it brought upon them furious persecution. The Circumcellions rose, and frightful bloodshed followed. These "Christian champions" traversed the country, subverting everything. Slaves and debtors were deemed brothers; masters and creditors tyrants. The excesses of the Circumcellions were so great that Donatus and his brother-bishops were forced to appeal to Taurinus to check them. The Circumcellions kissed the hands which betrayed them, and turned their fury upon themselves. They longed for martyrdom. They invaded pagan temples that death might be found from the sword of some infuriated idolator; they entered courts of justice and frightened judges ordered their instant execution; travellers were stopped and threatened with instant death if they did not slay the suppliants. Days, hours, and places were named that an admiring crowd might witness them cast themselves headlong from some rock into the graves which their posterity would reverence as those of the martyrs. Macarius did not discriminate between moderate Donatist and extreme Circumcellionist. With an iron hand he crushed both. Donatus was banished, and died in exile. The church was triumphant. Optatus saluted Constans as the servant of God who had been privileged to restore unity; but many regretted that unity had been won at such a price. When Donatists afterwards called Christians "Macarians," in scornful allusion to the persecutor of their sect, St. Augustine replied: "Yes, we are Macarians, for that name means 'blessed,' and who is more blessed than Christ to Whom we belong?" but it was natural to him and worthy of him to add, "Don't let us call one another names. Don't cast at me the times of Macarius, and I won't remind you of the madness of the Circumcellions. Let us, as far as possible, work together, because we are all orphans."
It was probably soon after the cessation of the persecution that Gratus, Caecilian's successor, summoned a synod at Carthage, which established (1) the non-iteration of baptism, when duly administered in the name of the Trinity; (2) the necessary restrictions on reverence for martyrs, and on the assignment of that title.
In a.d. 361 Julian became emperor. His edict "recalled all the bishops and clergy banished in the reign of Constantius, and granted equal freedom to all parties of the Christian church." The Donatists were not included in this. Two of their bishops, Rogatian and Pontus, waited on the emperor; and left with full permission to return to their country. The return was marked by violence and murder. The Donatists treated the churches as places which had been profaned, washed the walls and altars, tore the vestments to pieces, threw the holy vessels outside and the sacred elements to the dogs. Then they reintroduced their rigorous discipline. Apostates were received only after most humiliating penance, laymen were rebaptized, and clerics reordained. For two years Donatism was in the ascendant and basked in the imperial sunshine. But the cry which went up from the dying Julian's lips (a.d. 363), "Galilean, Thou hast conquered," was also the cry which told the Donatist that his day of triumph had ended.
Donatus had been succeeded by Parmenian, perhaps the ablest and least prejudiced
of the Donatist episcopacy. A foreigner by birth, and actually ignorant of many
of the saddest and cruellest episodes of Donatist history, he entered upon his duties
at Carthage free from the passionate views which marked so many of his followers,
and disposed to rate lightly much that to them was of great importance. His literary
merit was great and excited the admiration of Optatus, bp. of Milevi, and of St.
Augustine, each of whom has left a statement of the current Donatist opinions. The
theological disputations between Optatus and Parmenian are preserved in the great
work of the former, and evidently Parmenian's opinions are honestly given. Optatus
was a man of unquestioned piety, dialectical skill, and orthodoxy; perfectly indifferent
to Circumcellion threats, bribery, or corruption; earnestly desirous for unity,
if it could be obtained
There were two points about which, theoretically, both men were agreed: (1) That there was only one church; and (2) that in that one church there was only one baptism, and this not to be repeated. But disagreement soon began. "A church," said the Donatist, "in which traditors both existed and dispensed the sacraments was no church, and baptism administered by traditors was no baptism." Where, then, was the pure church? with the Catholic or Donatist? How far was the validity of the sacraments dependent upon the purity of the church and the personal character of those who dispensed them? These were old questions, but discussed between Optatus and Parmenian as they had never been before. [Optatus (6); Parmenianus.]
The existence of Donatism was next threatened by divisions within. "As Donatus," says St. Augustine, "sought to divide Christ, so was Donatus divided by the divisions which arose daily amongst his own followers." Rogatists and Maximianists, or individuals like Tichonius, arose to contest or moderate the views of the founders of the sect. [Tichonius.]
The fiercest blow to Donatism was, however, given by the Maximianist schism. [Maximianus (2).] Parmenian died a.d. 392, and was succeeded by Primian. Primian imposed a penance on one of his deacons, Maximian; the deacon protested, was excommunicated, and appealed to some neighbouring bishops, who took up his cause and respectfully solicited Primian to give them a hearing or to meet them. Primian declined. In a.d. 393 more than 100 malcontent bishops assembled in synod at Cabarsussis, summoned Primian before them, and, on his again refusing to notice them, recited his misdeeds in an elaborate document, excommunicated him, and elected Maximian, procuring his consecration at Carthage. The Donatists of Carthage, now divided into Primianists and Maximianists, had, in their turn, to experience the misery of altar set up against altar. "God," says St. Augustine, "was repaying to them the measure they had paid to Caecilian." Primian and his party were, however, much the stronger. The bps. of Numidia and Mauritania to the number of 310 sided with him; and at the council of Bagai (a.d. 394), presided over by Primian himself, Maximian was excommunicated, and his ordainers and coadjutors commanded to repent and return to the Primianist party before a certain date. The Maximianists shewed little disposition to acquiesce in this decision, and persecution began. Maximian's church was levelled to the ground and his house handed over to a heathen priest. The proconsul Seranus was asked to assist in carrying out the judgment of the council on the refractory. The Maximianists were hunted from place to place, and the treatment of the aged and beloved bp. of Membresa, Salvius, was scandalous and cruel beyond measure. But few Maximianists, however, returned to the main body; the majority struggled on as martyrs, rebaptizing and reordaining those who joined them. Donatism had received a mortal wound.
The action of the Catholic church and the state during this period further helped to check the extension of Donatism. Many Donatists, priests as well as laymen, disgusted with party squabbles and cruel excesses, turned their eyes to the church. They were met with kindness. In a.d. 393 a council met at Hippo under the presidency of Aurelius, bp. of Carthage. The measures passed were liberal in spirit and intention. They allowed returning Donatist clergy to retain their clerical position and functions, if they had not rebaptized, and if they brought their congregations with them; and decided that children of Donatists, even if they had received Donatist baptism, should not be excluded from the service of the altar.
The action of the state had varied according as political events had directed imperial attention to Donatists or removed it from them. Valentinian's edict (a.d. 373) deposing any clerical person who rebaptized, and Gratian's successive decrees—the first (a.d. 375) commanding the surrender of their churches; the second (a.d. 377) issued to the Donatist, Flavian, the imperial representative in Africa, enjoining further the confiscation of houses used by them; the third (a.d. 378) commanding the expulsion from Rome of one Claudian, who had gone there to propagate Donatist opinions—produced a good deal of misery; but the political disquiet connected with the murder of Gratian (a.d. 383), the wars between Maximus and Theodosius, the deposition of Maximus and restoration of Valentinian (a.d. 388), made it impossible to enforce these or similar injunctions, and for the time the Donatists enjoyed a comparative freedom from interference. In a.d. 392 Theodosius issued his laws against heretics generally, fining all such who performed priestly functions. This was not directed against the Donatists particularly, and was probably not enforced against them previous to the death of Theodosius (a.d. 395). That event was followed by Gildo's usurpation of power in Africa, and his alliance with one of the cruellest Donatist bishops, Optatus of Thamugas. The ravages committed were only stayed by Honorius's victory over Gildo (a.d. 398); and Theodosius's penalty was enforced by Seranus against Optatus and his followers. An edict of Honorius (a.d. 398) decreeing the punishment of death to all who dared to violate churches and maltreat the clergy was evidently directed against the Circumcellions.
Yet the position of the Donatist body was better than that of the Catholic church.
The greater part of Africa was Donatist, the church lay crushed and oppressed. Towards
the end of the 4th cent. it seemed almost as if the place of the ancient, Catholic,
and Apostolic church would be taken by the new usurping
About this time St. Augustine issued other works which throw much light on the Donatist controversy: (a) On the One Baptism, written between a.d. 406 and 411, an answer to a tract of Petilian's bearing the same title. (b) Against Cresconius, written a.d. 409. Cresconius objected to his party being called Donatists: "Not Donatus, but Christ was their founder. It was not heresy but schism which separated them and the Catholic church"; and Cresconius claimed that it was not they who were in schism, but the Catholics, who thereby had lost church and baptism.
The invasion of Rome by Alaric king of the Goths took place
a.d. 408, and it was rumoured that
the Donatists of Africa were ready to support the invader. The emperor Honorius
rescinded his extreme decrees against heathen and schismatic; but in 410 a deputation
of 4 bishops from Carthage again brought complaints against the Donatists to him.
The deputation was charged to petition for a conference of Catholics and Donatists
under imperial presidency. In Oct. 410 Honorius instructed the proconsul of Africa,
Marcellinus, to make all necessary preparations and act as president at the debates.
He issued an edict (Jan. 411) inviting Catholic and Donatist bishops to meet in
June at Carthage and elect representatives, promising safe-conduct and suspending
meanwhile all processes against Donatists. Both parties entered eagerly into the
scheme: 286 Catholic and 279 Donatist bishops came to Carthage in May; and, after
great difficulty in bringing the Donatists to the point, the president pronounced
sentence. The official Acts and the testimony of Holy
The condemned Donatists, among whom were the principal bishops, smarting at their
defeat, reviled Marcellinus and appealed to the emperor. The reply came (a.d.
412), terse and stern, and classed them as heretics. It bade them return to the
church, fined them according to their rank and station, and in the event of contumacy
confiscated their houses and goods. Many Donatists obeyed the edict, others scorned
it. Whole communities, as at Cirta, bishops and laymen everywhere, returned to the
church; some from conviction, others for reasons of expediency and comfort. The
Circumcellions broke out afresh, fired churches, destroyed houses, cast into the
flames those Scriptures which had been found to tell against them, and cruelly maltreated
and even murdered ecclesiastics who expounded them. The less violent proclaimed
with a sneer that the church chests and imperial coffers were enriched with the
gold of the Separatists, and pointed to the death of Marcellinus (a.d.
413) as a divine judgment upon their unrighteous judge. In
a.d. 414 a yet sterner decree announced
that all Donatist church-buildings were to become the property of the Catholic church,
and all Donatist clergy to be suspended and banished. Fines were doubled; confiscation
and banishment stared the Separatists in the face; their testimony in courts of
law was disallowed; their social condition was degraded to the lowest; that the
penalties stopped short of death was owing chiefly to St. Augustine, who strove
successfully to prevent others from imbruing their hands with the blood of mistaken
fanatics. The church, to its credit be it recorded, by kindness and gentleness made
the pain of defeat less bitter to its foes, while it did not neglect to avail itself
of the advantages resulting from victory. As the Catholic bishops returned to their
homes they spread everywhere the news of the victory, and in the following Lent
publicly proclaimed it in their churches. Short summaries of the acts and judgment
of the conference were circulated, one being by St. Augustine himself. These were
intended principally for Catholics; others, as St. Augustine's "ad Donatistas
post collectionem," were addressed to the sectarians who might be swayed by
one-sided reports circulated by Donatist bishops, or by their slanderous abuse of
Marcellinus and the Catholics. In 418 a council at Carthage passed resolutions regulating
the proceedings, when Donatist bishops, clergy, and congregations came back to the
church. Nothing could prove more clearly to what a large extent this had taken place.
The church was no longer suppliant, but triumphant; and the change is observable
also in some letters and acts of St. Augustine at this period, which may be said
to be his last words on the great Donatist controversy. His work de Correctione
Donatistarum is addressed to a soldier, Bonifacius, and is written in a style
and language almost military in its stern enforcement of discipline. Bonifacius
had asked the difference between the Arians and Donatists. St. Augustine, after
answering the question, went on to speak of Donatists as "rebels against the unity
of the church of Christ." The conference at Carthage and the emperor had laid down
laws which they disobeyed, and thus deserved punishment (
The last letters of St. Augustine were addressed to a Donatist bishop Gaudentius. Marcellinus had been succeeded by Dulcitius, who endeavoured to carry out the strong laws against the Donatists with all possible mildness, and specially interested himself in restraining the fanaticism of the Circumcellions. Unfortunately, some words of his were taken to mean that he would punish them with death unless they returned to the church. Gaudentius and his congregation assembled in their church, determined to set fire to it and perish in the flames. Dulcitius contrived to stop this by a letter to Gaudentius, who in two letters defended his proposed action and the views of his party. Dulcitius appealed to St. Augustine, who answered Gaudentius's arguments. His work, contra Gaudentium, in two books, goes over the old ground, also exposing the folly and crime of suicide.
Donatism had now lived its life. No new champions appeared to defend it; and once again only did the schism lift up its head. Towards the end of the 6th cent. there was a momentary revival of energy and proselytism; but popes such as Leo and Gregory the Great and imperial laws were irresistible. The movement died out. The Donatists lingered on till the invasion of Africa by the Mahommedans swept them away or merged them into come other schismatical body.
See Optatus, ed. Alba Spinaeus (Par. 1631), or ed. Dupin (Antw. 1702);
S. Augustini, Opera, vol. vii. (Par. ed. 1635); Vogel, "Donatisten" in Herzog's
Real-Encyclop.; Hefele, do. in Wetzer's Kirchenlexicon and Concil-Geschichte;
Dorothea, virgin, martyred with Theophilus the Advocate, and two other women, Christa and Callista, at Caesarea, in Cappadocia. Some doubt is entertained about these names, as they occur in no Greek menology or martyrology; but they are found in ancient Roman accounts; and details are given by the monk Usuard, bp. Ado, and Rabanus. They are celebrated on Feb. 6. Baronius, Bollandus, and Tillemont all place the death of Dorothea in the persecution of Diocletian.
She was a young girl of Caesarea in Cappadocia, famed so widely for Christian piety that when the governor Fabricius, Sapricius, or Apricius arrived he had her brought before him and tortured. Unable to persuade her to marry, he sent her to Christa and Callista that they might induce her to give up her faith. She converted them; whereupon the governor put them to death in a boiling cauldron.
Dorothea was again tortured, and shewed her joy for the martyrdom of Christa and Callista and for her own sufferings. The governor, insulted and enraged, ordered her head to be cut off. On her way to execution an advocate named Theophilus laughingly asked her to send him some apples and roses from the paradise of her heavenly bridegroom. The legend states that these were miraculously conveyed to him, although Cappadocia was then covered with snow. Theophilus was converted, tortured, and decapitated.
Dorothea's body is said to have been taken to Rome, and preserved in the church across the Tiber which bears her name. On her festival there is a ceremony of blessing roses and apples. Migne, Dict. Hagiograph. i. 779; Bollandus, Acta Sanct. Feb. i. p. 771; Tillem. Hist. eccl. p. 497 (Paris, 1702).
Dorotheus (3), a presbyter of Antioch, ordained by Cyril of Antioch (Hieron. Chron.) c. a.d. 290, who with his contemporary Lucian may be regarded as the progenitor of the sound and healthy school of scriptural hermeneutics which distinguished the interpreters of Antioch from those of Alexandria. Eusebius speaks of him with high commendation, as distinguished by a pure taste and sound learning, of a wide and liberal education, well acquainted not only with the Hebrew Scriptures, which Eusebius says he had heard him expounding in the church at Antioch, with moderation (μετρίως) but also with classical literature. He was a congenital eunuch, which commended him to the notice of the emperor Constantine, who placed him at the head of the purple-dye-house at Tyre Eus. H. E., vii. 32; Neander, Eccl. Hist. vol. ii. p. 528, Clark's trans.; Gieseler, Eccl. Hist. vol. i. p. 247, Clark's trans.
Dorotheus (7), bp. of Martianopolis in Moesia Secunda, and metropolitan; a zealous supporter of the doctrines of Nesturios, and a determined enemy of the title θεοτόκος. Preaching in Constantinople not long before the council of Ephesus, he declared that "if any one asserted that Mary was the mother of God he was anathema" (Ep. Cyrill. ap. Baluz. Concil. col. 402). He attended that council, a.d. 431, signing the appeal to the emperor against the dominant party (Baluz. 701), and joining in the documents warning the clergy and people of Hierapolis and Constantinople against the errors of Cyril, and announcing Cyril's excommunication (ib. 706, 725). He was deposed and excommunicated by Cyril and his friends. This deposition being confirmed by the imperial power, he was ordered by Maximinian's synod at Constantinople to be ejected from his city and throne. His influence, however, with his people was so great that they refused to receive his successor Secundianus, and drove him from the city (Ep. Doroth. ad Cyrill. Baluz. 750), whereupon Dorotheus was banished by the emperor to Caesarea in Cappadocia. Two letters of his to John of Antioch are preserved in the Synodicon (Nos. 78, 115; Baluz. 781, 816), expressing his anxiety at Paul's setting out to Egypt and his distress at hearing that terms had been come to with Cyril, and a third (No. 137; Baluz. 840) to Alexander of Hierapolis and Theodoret, proposing a joint appeal to the emperor.
Dorotheus (10), bp. of Thessalonica 515-520. He wrote on April 28, 515, to pope Hormisdas, urging him to labour for the peace of the church. He testifies respect for the see of Rome, and wishes to see the heresies of Nestorius and Eutyches everywhere condemned.
But in the spring of 517 we find him a Eutychian schismatic, seeking to exercise
over the province of Thessalonica the rights which belonged to its metropolis when
in communion with the Catholic church. He persecuted John bp. of Nicopolis, employing
the secular arm and persuading the emperor Anastasius to support his faction. Complaints
were brought to pope Hormisdas, who pointed out that he might regain his rights
if he rejoined the Catholic church; but the papal legates Ennodius and Peregrinus
were to bring the affair before the emperor, if bp. Dorotheus should persist. The
emperor Anastasius refused the message of the legates, tried to corrupt them, and
wrote to the pope saying that he could suffer insults, but not commands (July 11,
517). The death of the emperor almost exactly a year afterwards altered the balance
against the Eutychians. Justin I., the Thracian, wrote, on his accession, to the
pope, expressing his own wish and that of the principal Eastern bishops for the
restoration of peace between East and West. Hormisdas, with the advice of king Theodoric,
sent a third legation to Constantinople, Germanus bp. of Capua, John a bishop, Blandus
a presbyter, and others. To these men at Constantinople Hormisdas wrote to inquire
personally into the doings of the Eutychians at Thessalonica, and to cite bp. Dorotheus
and his abettor Aristides the presbyter to Rome, that they might give account of
their faith and receive resolution of their doubts. Two days before the arrival
of the legates, Dorotheus baptized more than 2,000 people, and distributed the Eucharistic
bread in large baskets, so that
Dorotheus was now obliged by the emperor to send deputies to Rome to satisfy the pope. He accordingly wrote an agreeable letter, saying that he had exposed his life in defence of bp. John, when the populace had fallen upon him. Pope Hormisdas wrote back, saying that the crime was known to all the world, and required clearer defence; he remitted its examination to the patriarch of Constantinople. Hormisd. Epp., Patr. Lat. lxiii. pp. 371, 372, 408, 445, 446, 452, 468, 473, 481, 499, etc.; Ceillier, x. 616, 618, 619, 625, 626, 628, 632, 633.
Dositheus (1). The earliest ecclesiastical writers speak of a sect of Dositheans, which, though it never spread far outside Samaria, seems to have had some considerable duration in that quarter. It was rather a Jewish sect than a Christian heresy, for Dositheus was regarded rather as a rival than as a disciple of our Lord, but trustworthy information as to his history and his doctrines is very scanty. Only the name of himself and his sect occurs in Hegesippus's list of heresies, preserved by Eusebius (H. E. iv. 22). He is there placed next after Simon and Cleobius. The earliest detailed account of him is given in the Clementine writings, and it is not unlikely that their account was derived from the treatise on heresies of Justin Martyr. The Recognitions (ii. 8) and Homilies (ii. 24) agree in making Simon Magus a disciple of Dositheus, and the Recognitions would lead us to suppose that Dositheus was clearly the elder. They represent him as already recognised as the prophet like unto Moses, whom Jehovah was to raise up; when Simon with difficulty and entreaty obtained election among his 30 disciples. The Homilies make Simon and Dositheus fellow disciples of John the Baptist, to whom in several places the author shews hostility. As our Lord, the Sun, had 12 apostles, so John, the Moon, had 30 disciples, or even more accurately answering to the days of a lunation, 29½, for one of them was a woman. On John's death Simon was absent studying magic in Egypt, and so Dositheus was put over his head into the chief place, an arrangement in which Simon on his return thought it prudent to acquiesce. Origen, who was acquainted with the Recognitions, probably had in his mind the story of the 30 disciples of Dositheus, when he says (contra Celsum, vi. 11) that he doubts whether there were then 30 Dositheans in the world (ib. i. 57) or 30 Simonians. Recognitions and Homilies agree that Simon after his enrolment among the disciples of Dositheus, by his disparagement among his fellow-disciples of their master's pretensions, provoked Dositheus to smite him with a staff, which through Simon's magical art passed through his body as if it had been smoke. Dositheus in amazement thereat, and conscious that he himself was not the Standing one as he pretended to be, inquired if Simon claimed that dignity for himself, and, being answered in the affirmative, resigned his chief place to him and became his worshipper. Soon after he died. Elsewhere (i. 54) the Recognitions represent Dositheus as the founder of the sect of the Sadducees, a sect which, according to their account, had its commencement only in the days of John the Baptist.
Next in order of the early witnesses to the activity of Dositheus is Hippolytus,
who, as we learn from Photius (Cod. 121), commenced his shorter treatise
on heresies with a section on the Dositheans. We gather the contents of this treatise
from Epiphanius (Haer. 13), Philaster (4), and Pseudo-Tertullian, and the
opening sentence of the latter, which relates to the Dositheans, is almost exactly
reproduced by St. Jerome (adv. Luciferianos, iv. 304). The first section
of the work of Hippolytus apparently contained a brief notice of pre-Christian sects,
the foremost place being given to the Dositheans. Hippolytus seems to have adopted
the account of the Recognitions as to the origin of the sect of the Sadducees,
and to have also charged Dositheus with rejecting the inspiration of the prophets.
A statement that Dositheus was a Jew by birth was understood by Epiphanius to mean
that he had deserted from the Jews to the Samaritans, a change which Epiphanies
attributes to disappointed ambition. Origen mentions Dositheus in several places
(cont. Celsum u.s., tract 27 in Matt. vol. iii. 851; in Luc. iii. 962; in
Johann. iv. vol. iv. p. 237; de Princ. iv. 1-17); but only in the last two
passages makes any statement which clearly shews that he had sources of information
independent of the Clementine Recognitions; viz. in the commentary on John
he speaks of books ascribed to Dositheus as being then current among his disciples,
and of their belief that their master had not really died; and in de Princ.
he asserts that Dositheus expounded
It appears that the sect of Dositheans long maintained a local existence. In
Hebed Jesu's catalogue of Chaldee books (Assemani, Bibl. Or. iii. 42) we
read that Theophilus of Persia, who was later than the council of Ephesus, wrote
against Dositheus. And Photius (Cod. 230) reports that he read among the
works of Eulogius, patriarch of Alexandria (d.
a.d. 608), one entitled Definition
against the Samaritans, the argument of which is that the people of Samaria
being divided in opinion as to whether the "prophet like unto Moses" was Joshua
or Dositheus, Eulogius held a synod there (in the 7th year of Marcianus according
to the MSS.; if we correct this to the 7th year of Maurice, it gives
a.d. 588) and taught them the divinity
of our Lord. The independent notices of the continued existence of the sect make
it not incredible that Eulogius may have encountered it. He appears to have really
used Dosithean books, and reports that Dositheus exhibited particular hostility
to the patriarch Judah, and if he claimed to be himself the prophet who was to come,
he would naturally be anxious to exclude the belief that that prophet must be of
the tribe of Judah. The form (Dosthes) given by Eulogius for his name is a closer
approach than Dositheus to the Hebrew Dosthai, which it probably really represents.
Drusius (de Sectis Hebraeorum, iii. 4, 6) and Lightfoot (Disquis. Chorograph.
in. Johann. iv.) shew that this was, according to Jewish tradition, the name
of one of the priests who was sent (
There seems no ground for Reland's conjecture (de Samaritanis, v.) that Dositheus was the author of the Samaritan book of Joshua, since published by Juynboll (Leyden, 1848). Juynboll, p. 113, quotes the testimony of an Arabic writer, Aboulfatah (given more fully, De Sacy, p. 335) that the sect still existed in the 14th cent. This writer places Dositheus in the time of John Hyrcanus, i.e. more than a hundred years before Christ. Jost (Gesch. des Judenthums, i. 66) refers to Beer (Buch der Jubiläen) as giving evidence that the sect left traces in Abyssinia. Several critics who have wished to accept all the statements of the above-mentioned authorities, and who have felt the difficulty of making the founder of the sect of the Sadducees contemporary with John the Baptist, have adopted the solution that there must have been two Dosithei, both founders of Samaritan sects. But we may safely say that there was but one sect of Dositheans, and that there is no evidence that any ancient writer believed that it had at different times two heads bearing the same name. Considering that the sect claimed to have been more than a century old when our earliest informants tried to get information about its founder, we need not be surprised if the stories which they collected contain many things legendary, and which do not harmonise. Probably the Dositheans were a Jewish or Samaritan ascetic sect, something akin to the Essenes, existing from before our Lord's time, and the stories connecting their founder with Simon Magus and with John the Baptist may be dismissed as merely mythical. The fullest and ablest dissertation on the Dositheans is that by Mosheim (Institutiones Historiae Christianae majores, 1739, i. 376). Cf. Harnack, Gesch. der Alt.-Chr. Lit. Theol. pp. 152 f.
Dubhthach (Duach) (3), Mac Ui Lugair. When St. Patrick had come to Tara and was preaching before king Leogaire, we are told that the only one who rose on the saint's approach and respectfully saluted him was Dubhthach, the king's poet, who was the first to embrace the Christian faith in that place; and as Joceline says, "being baptized and confirmed in the faith, he turned his poetry, which in the flower and prime of his studies he employed in praise of false gods, to a much better use; changing his mind and style, he composed more elegant poems in praise of the Almighty Creator and His holy preachers." This was Dubhthach Mac Ui Lugair, descended from Cormach Caech, son of Cucorb, in Leinster. His name occupies a large space in ancient Irish hagiology as a famous poet and the ancestor of many well-known saints. He was the teacher of St. Fiacc (Oct. 12) of Sletty, and recommended him to St. Patrick for the episcopate. [Fiacc.] In the compilation of the Seanchus Mor, said to have been carried on under the auspices of St. Patrick, St. Dubhthach was one of the nine appointed to revise the ancient laws. Colgan says he had in his possession some of the poems of St. Dubhthach (Tr. Thaum. 8 n5.): the Poems of St. Dubhthach are given in O'Donovan's Book of Rights, and with translations and notes in Shearman's Loca Patriciana. His dates are uncertain, but his birth is placed after 370, his conversion in 433, and his death perhaps after 479. See Loca Patriciana, by the Rev. J. F. Shearman, in Journ. Roy. Hist. and Arch. Assoc. Ir. 4 ser. vols. ii. iii., with Mr. R. R. Brash's papers in the same Journal, traversing several of Shearman's assertions; Ware, Irish Writers, 1; Ussher, Eccl. Ant. c. 17, wks. vi. 409-412, and Ind. Chron. a.d. 433; Todd, St. Patrick, 130, 424, 446.
Dubricius, Dubric (Dibric, Dyfrig), arch-bp. of Caerleon, one of
the most distinguished names in the story of king Arthur as related by Geoffrey
of Monmouth. Arthur makes him archbp. of the city of Legions (Galf. Mon. Hist.
viii. 12); he crowns king Arthur (ix. 1);
E
Ebionism and Ebionites. The name Ebionite first occurs in Irenaeus (c. 180-190). It was repeated, probably from him, by Hippolytus (c. 225-235) and Origen († a.d. 254), who first introduced an explanation of the name. Others offered different explanations (e.g. Eus. † c. 340); while other writers fabricated a leader, "Ebion," after whom the sect was called (cf. Philastrius, Pseudo-Tertullian, Pseudo-Jerome, Isidore of Spain, etc.).
These explanations owe their origin to the tendency to carry back Ebionism, or
the date of its founder, as far as possible. Thus the "Ebionite" was (according
to his own statement) the "poor" man (אֶבְווֹן),
he who voluntarily strove to practise the Master's precept (
The records of the church of Jerusalem contained in Acts prove how strong was the zeal for the Law of Moses among the Jewish converts to Christianity. After the fall of Jerusalem (a.d. 70), the church was formed at Pella under Symeon, and the Jewish Christians were brought face to face with two leading facts: firstly, that the temple being destroyed, and the observance of the Law and its ordinances possible only in part, there was valid reason for doubting the necessity of retaining the rest; secondly, that if they adopted this view, they must expect to find in the Jews their most uncompromising enemies. As Christians they had expected a judgment predicted by Christ, and, following His advice, had fled from the city. Both prediction and act were resented by the Jews, as is shewn not only by the contemptuous term (Minim) they applied to the Jewish Christians (Grätz, Gesch. d. Juden. iv. p. 89, etc.), but by the share they took in the death of the aged bp. Symeon (a.d. 106). The breach was further widened by the refusal of the Jewish Christians to take part in the national struggles—notably that of Bar-Cocheba (a.d. 132)—against the Romans, by the tortures they suffered for their refusal, and lastly, by the erection of Aelia Capitolina (a.d. 138) on the ruins of Jerusalem. The Jews were forbidden to enter it, while the Jewish and Gentile Christians who crowded there read in Hadrian's imperial decree the abolition of the most distinctively Jewish rites, and practically signified their assent by electing as their bishop a Gentile and uncircumcised man—Mark (Eus. H. E. iv. 6). Changes hitherto working gradually now rapidly developed. Jewish Christians, with predilections for Gentile Christianity and its comparative freedom, found the way made clear to them; others, attempting to be both Jews and Christians, ended in being neither, and exposed themselves to the contempt of Rabbin as well as Christian (Grätz, p. 433); others receded farther from Christianity, and approximated more and more closely to pure Judaism. The Ebionites are to be ranked among the last. By the time of Trajan (96-117) political events had given them a definite organization, and their position as a sect opposed to Gentile Christianity became fixed by the acts which culminated in the erection of Aelia Capitolina.
The Ebionites were known by other names, such as "Homuncionites" (Gk. "Anthropians" or " Anthropolatrians") from their Christological views, "Peratici" from their settlement at Peraea, and " Symmachians" from the one able literary man among them whose name has reached us. [Symmachus (2).] Acquaintance with Hebrew was then confined to a few, and his Greek version of O.T. was produced for the benefit of those who declined the LXX adopted by the orthodox Christians, or the Greek versions of Aquila and Theodotion accepted by the Jews. Many, if not most, of the improvements made by the Vulgate on the LXX are due to the Ebionite version (Field, Origenis Hexaplarum quae supersunt, Preface).
Ebionism presents itself under two principal types, an earlier and a later, the former usually designated Ebionism proper or Pharisaic Ebionism, the latter, Essene or Gnostic Ebionism. The earlier type is to be traced in the writings of Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Tertullian, etc.; the latter in those of Epiphanius especially.
(a) Ebionism Proper.—The term expresses conveniently the opinions
and practices of the descendants of the Judaizers of the Apostolic age, and is very
little removed from Judaism. Judaism was to them not so much a preparation for Christianity
as an institution eternally good in itself, and but slightly modified in Christianity.
Whatever merit Christianity had, it possessed as the continuation and supplement
of Judaism. The divinity of the Old Covenant was the only valid guarantee for the
truth of the New. Hence such Ebionites tended to exalt the Old at the expense of
the New, to magnify Moses and the Prophets, and to allow Jesus Christ to be "nothing
more than a Solomon or a Jonas" (Tertull. de Carne Christi, c. 18). Legal
righteousness was to them the highest type of perfection; the earthly Jerusalem,
in spite of its destruction, was an object of adoration "as if it were the house
of God" (Iren. adv. Haer. i. c. 22 [al. c. 26]); its restoration would
take place in the millennial kingdom of Messiah, and the Jews would return there
as the manifestly chosen people of God. The Ebionites divided the life of Jesus
Christ into two parts—one preceding, the other following, His Baptism. In common
with Cerinthus and Carpocrates, they represented Him to have been "the Son of Joseph
and Mary according to the ordinary course of human generation" (Iren. l.c.).
They denied His birth of a Virgin, translating the original word in
As might be expected, the Apostle Paul was especially hateful to them. They repudiated
his official character, they reviled him personally. In language which recalls that
of the Judaizers alluded to in Corinthians and Galatians, they represented
him as a teacher directly opposed to SS. Peter, James, and John; they repudiated
his Apostolical authority because (as they affirmed) he had not been "called of
Jesus Christ Himself," nor trained in the Church of Jerusalem. They twisted into
a defamatory application to himself his employment of the term "deceiver" (
In common with the Nazarenes and the Gnostic-Ebionites, the Pharisaic Ebionites used a recension of the Gospel of St. Matthew, which they termed the "gospel according to the Hebrews." It was a Chaldee version written in Hebrew letters, afterwards translated into Greek and Latin by Jerome, who declared it identical with the "gospel of the Twelve Apostles" and the "gospel of the Nazarenes" (see Herzog, Real-Encyklopädie, "Apokryphen d. N. Test." p. 520, ed. 1877). In the Ebionite "gospel" the section corresponding to the first two chapters of St. Matt. was omitted, the supernatural character of the narrative being contradictory to their views about the person of Jesus Christ. It is difficult to say with certainty what other books of the N.T. were known to them; but there is reason to believe that they (as also the Gnostic-Ebionites) were familiar with the Gospels of St. Mark and St. Luke. The existence among them of the "Protevangelium Jacobi" and the Περιοδοὶ τοῦ Πέτρου indicates their respect for those Apostles.
(b) Essene or Gnostic Ebionism.—This, as the name indicates, was a type of Ebionism affected by external influences. The characteristic features of the ascetic Essenes were reproduced in its practices, and the traces of influences more directly mystical and oriental were evident in its doctrines. The different phases through which Ebionism passed at different times render it, however, difficult to distinguish clearly in every case between Gnostic and Pharisaic Ebionism. Epiphanius (adv. Haer. xxx.) is the chief authority on the Gnostic Ebionites. He met them in Cyprus, and personally obtained information about them (cf. R. A. Lipsius, Zur Quellen-Kritik d. Epiphanios, pp. 138, 143, 150 etc.).
Their principal tenets were as follows: Christianity they identified with primitive
religion or genuine Mosaism, as distinguished from what they termed accretions to
Mosaism, or the post-Mosaic developments described in the later books of O.T. To
carry out this distinction they fabricated two classes of "prophets,"
προφῆται
ἀληθείας, and
προφῆται
συνέσεως οὐκ ἀληθείας.
In the former
class they placed Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Aaron, Moses, and Jesus; in
the latter David, Solomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc. In the same spirit they accepted
the Pentateuch alone among the O.T. writings, and emasculated it; rejecting whatever
reflected questionably upon their favourites. They held that there were two antagonistic
powers appointed by God—Christ and devil; to the former was allotted the world to
come, to the latter the present world. The conception of Christ was variously entertained.
Some affirmed that He was created (not born) of the Father, a Spirit, and higher
than the angels; that He had the power of coming to this earth when He would, and
in various modes of manifestation; that He had been incarnate in Adam, and had appeared
to the patriarchs in bodily shape; others identified Adam and Christ. In these last
days He had come in the person of Jesus. Jesus was therefore to them a successor
of Moses, and not of higher
In pursuance of their conception that the devil was the "prince of this world"
they were strict ascetics. They abjured flesh-meat, repudiating passages (e.g.
The conjecture appears not improbable that as the siege of Jerusalem under Titus gave an impetus to Ebionism proper, so the ruin under Hadrian developed Gnostic Ebionism. Not that Gnosticism began then to affect it for the first time, but that Gnostic ideas hitherto held in solution were precipitated and found a congenial home among men who through contact with oriental systems in Syria were already predisposed to accept them (cf. Mansel, The Gnostic Heresies, lect. viii.). This is further evident from the book of Elchasai and the Clementine literature. These works are the production of the Essene Ebionites; and where they speak of Jesus Christ and His Apostles, His sayings and their lives, they do so, not in the words of the canonical Gospels and Epistles, but with additions or omissions, and a colouring which transforms (e.g.) St. Peter, St. Matthew, and St. James the Just into Essenes, and yet with that Gnostic tendency of thought which makes them lineal descendants of the Judaizers who imperilled the church at Colossae. (See Lightfoot, Colossians, p. 73, etc., and Essenism and Christianity, p. 397, etc.)
The Essene or Gnostic-Ebionites differed from the Pharisaic Ebionites in another respect. By missionary zeal, as well as by literary activity, they sought to obtain converts to their views. In the earlier part of the 3rd cent. the Ebionite Alcibiades of Apamea (Syria) repaired to Rome. He brought with him the book of Elchasai, and "preached unto men a new remission of sins (proclaimed) in the third year of Trajan's reign" (a.d. 101). Hippolytus, who gives an account of the matter (Haer. ix. c. viii. etc., ed. Clark), exposed the decided antinomianism which penetrated the teaching of the mythical teacher and of the pupil, but it is evident that many "became victims of the delusion." The immorality which the book—in imitation of the teaching of Callistus—indirectly encouraged probably attracted some, but would discredit the dogmatic views of the missionary.
Ebionite Christianity did not, however, last very long, neither did it exercise much influence west of Syria while it lasted. In Palestine the discomfiture accorded to "a certain one" (probably Alcibiades) who came to Caesarea c. a.d. 247 maintaining the "ungodly and wicked error of the Elkesaites" (Eus. vi. 38; cf. Redepenning, Origines, ii. p. 72) was in keeping with the reception accorded to less extreme Ebionite views from the time of the reconstitution of the mother-church at Aelia Capitolina. Judaism of every kind gradually passed out of favour. The attitude of the bishops of Palestine in the Paschal controversy of the 2nd cent. was that of men who wished to stand clear of any sympathy with Jewish customs; the language of Justin Martyr and of Hegesippus was the language of the representatives of the Samaritan and the Hebrew Christianity of the day, not of the Ebionite. Outside of Palestine Ebionism had even less chance of survival. From the very first, the instructions and memories of St. Paul and St. John excluded it from Asia Minor; in Antioch the names of Ignatius, Theophilus, and Serapion were vouchers for Catholic doctrine and practice; and the daughter-churches of Gaul and Alexandria naturally preferred doctrine supplied to them by teachers trained in the school of these Apostles. Even in the church of Rome, whatever tendency existed in Apostolic times towards Ebionism, the separation—also in Apostolic times—of the Judaizers was the beginning of the end which no after-amalgamation under Clement could retard. The tone of the Shepherd of Hermas—a work which emanated from the Roman church during the first half of the 2nd cent. (see Lightfoot, Galatians, p. 99, n. 3)—however different from the tone of Clement and St. Paul, is not Ebionite, as a comparison with another so-called Roman and certainly later Ebionite work—the Clementine writings—shews. The end of Ebionism had actually come in the Roman church when in the 2nd cent. Jewish practices—notably as regards the observance of Easter—were unhesitatingly rejected. The creed of the Christian in Rome was the creed which he held from Irenaeus in Gaul and Polycarp in Asia Minor, and not from the Ebionite. When the above-named Alcibiades appeared in Rome (a.d. 219), Hippolytus denounced his teaching (that of Elchasai) as that of "a wolf risen up against many wandering sheep, whom Callistus had scattered abroad": it came upon him as a novelty; it had "risen up," he says, "in our own day" (Haer. ix. cc. 8, 12). This language is a proof of the oblivion which had certainly befallen any previous propagation of Ebionism in Rome.
For 200 years more Ebionism—especially of the Essene form—lingered on. A few
Ebionites were left in the time of Theodoret, about the middle of 5th cent.; the
rest had returned to strict Judaism and the utter rejection
The Patristic notices on the Ebionites will be found in the works referred to (cf. on their value, R. A. Lipsius, Die Quellen d. ältesten Ketzergeschichte, 1875). The literature on the subject is further collected by (int. al.) Schliemann, Die Clementinen (1844); Ritschl, Die Entstehung d. alt-katholischen Kirche (1857); Lightfoot, Galatians, Dissertation III. St. Paul and the Three (1876).
Edesius (3) shared the romantic fortunes of his brother Frumentius, the first bp. of Auxumis (Axum), in the 4th cent. The biographical details at our disposal consist of a lengthy narrative, introduced, on the authority of Edesius, by Rufinus into his Ecclesiastical History (lib. i. 9). This narrative has been copied, with slight deviations, by Socrates (H. E. i. 19), Sozomen (ii. 24), and Theodoret (i. 23, 24). Cf. also Baronius (Ann. 327, viii. ix. x.). Frumentius and Edesius, the young relatives of Meropius, a Syrian philosopher (merchant), accompanied him on a voyage of adventure to India. On their return to Phoenicia by way of the Red Sea, they landed "at a certain port," where there was "a safe haven," and there suffered from the barbarous assault of the "Indians," who murdered all the ship's company except the two youths, who were conveyed as prizes to the king. He appointed Frumentius and Edesius as his treasurer and cup-bearer respectively. By their means Christianity was introduced among "the Indians." Their names in Ethiopian documents given by Ludolf (Hist. Eth. iii. 2) are Fremonatos and Sydvacus (cf. Gesenius, Aethiop. Kirche in Ersch and Gruber, and Hoffmann in Herzog's Encyc.). The word "India" is used with the same indefiniteness as are Ethiopia and Libya elsewhere. From the times of Aristotle to those of Eratosthenes and of Hipparchus, India and Africa were believed to unite at some unknown point S. of the Indian Ocean (Dict. Anc. Geogr. vol. ii. p. 45, art. "India"; Pliny, vi. 22-24). These "Indians" were Abyssinians, as we see from the subsequent career of Frumentius. The king, according to Ludolf's Ethiopian Codex, was called Abreha, and on drawing near his end, offered their liberty to the two youths. The queen-mother earnestly besought them to remain, to undertake the education of the young prince Erazanes, and to assist her in the regency during his minority. They consented, and lost no opportunity of diffusing a knowledge of Christ. They sought out Christian merchants trading in the country, gathered Christian disciples, and built houses of prayer, "that worship might be offered, and the Roman ecclesiastical routine observed" (Soz. l.c.). They were not in orders, and Frumentius went to Alexandria and asked for a bishop to be sent to Abyssinia. Athanasius consecrated Frumentius himself. Edesius remained at Tyre and became a presbyter of the church there, where Rufinus met him.
Elagabalus. The short reign of this feeble and profligate emperor, though not coming into direct contact with the history of the Christian church, is not without interest as a phase of the religious condition of the empire.
Varius Avitus Bassianus, as he was named at his birth, was of Phoenician descent, and born at Emesa, in Syria, c. a.d. 205. His mother, Julia Soëmia, and aunt, Julia Mammaea, were devoted to the worship of El-gabal (=God the Creator, or, according to less probable etymology, God of the Mountains), and he and his cousin Alexander Severus were in early childhood consecrated as priests of that deity, and the young Bassianus took the name of the god to whom he ministered.
Julia Mammaea had eclectic tendencies, and by her invitation the great Origen came to Antioch (probably, however, after the death of Elagabalus), and was received with many marks of honour. Eusebius, who relates the fact (H. E. vi. 21), speaks of her as a woman of exceptional piety (γυνὴ θεοσεβεστάτη εἰ καὶ τις ἄλλη γεγονυία), and we may trace her influence in the character of her son Alexander Severus. [Severus (2).] After spending some time at Nicomedia, where he entered on his second consulship, Elagabalus proceeded in a.d. 219 (the year in which Callistus succeeded Zephyrinus as bp. of Rome) to the capital. His short reign there was a frenzy of idolatrous impurity. His jealousy and suspicion led him to imprison Alexander Severus, whose virtue attracted the admiration both of soldiers and people, and whom, at his mother's advice, he had adopted and proclaimed as Caesar soon after arriving in Rome. The troops rose and rescued their favourite. The two sisters, each with her son, appeared at the head of their supporters, and the followers of Severus were victorious. Soëmia and the boy-emperor were thrown into the Tiber (hence the epithet Tiberinus afterwards attached to him in derision), and the senate branded his name with eternal infamy. Dio. Cass. lxxvii. 30-41, lxxix.; Herodian, v. 4-23; Lamprid. Elagab.; Capitolin. Macrinus; Eutrop. viii. 13; Aurel. Victor, de Caes. xxiii., Epit. xxiii.)
Elesbaan, a king, hermit, and saint of Ethiopia during the 6th cent. (Rome, Oct. 27; Ethiopia, Ginbot, xx. May 15; cf. Ludolphus, p. 415), whose exact story is difficult to trace. (Cf. Ludolphus, History of Ethiopia, ed. 1684, p. 167; Lebeau, Histoire du Bas Empire, ed. 1827 viii. 47, note 4; Walch, in Novi Commentarii Soc. Reg. Göttingen. t. iv.; Historia Rerum in Homeritide Saec. vi. Gestarum, p. 4.) The importance of the crusades on which his fame rests is attested by Gibbon, who asserts that, had their purpose been attained, "Mahomet must have been crushed in his cradle, and Abyssinia would have prevented a revolution which has changed the civil and religious state of the world" (Decline and Fall, c. xlii. sub fin.). The details of the saint's wars and character are drawn from the Acta S. Arethae, extant in two forms: the earlier and more authentic, found by Lequien in the Colbert Library (Oriens Christianus, ii. 428), is referred by the Jesuit author of the Acta Sanctorum to the 7th cent. at latest; the later is, at best, but the recension of Simeon Metaphrastes, in the 10th cent.
It was probably during the later years of Anastasius's reign that Elesbaan succeeded
his father Tazena on the throne of Ethiopia. His kingdom was greatly dependent for
its
The death of the viceroy, probably in a.d.
522 or 523, whom Elesbaan had left in Yemen, encouraged Dhu Nowas to come down from
his hiding-place in the hills ("tanquam daemon carne indutus," Acta Sanctorum,
Oct. xii. 316), and reassert himself as king of the Homeritae and champion of Judaism.
Choosing a season when the Arabian Gulf would be an impassable barrier to the intervention
of Elesbaan, he gathered a force which presently numbered 120,000 men and, having
put to death all Christians whom he could find and turned their church into a synagogue,
pressed on to Negran, the head-quarters of the Ethiopian vice-royalty, then held
by Arethas the phylarch. He found the garrison forewarned and the gates closed;
nor were they opened at his threats, when coming to the wall and holding up a wooden
cross he swore that all who would not blaspheme the Crucified and insult the sign
of His suffering should die. At last by treachery Dhu Nowas won an entrance, promising
to hurt none of the citizens and only demanding an exorbitant tribute; but having
entered, he began at once the reckless massacre which has left its mark even in
the Koran (cf. Walch's paper in the Göttingen Commentarii, p. 25). Arethas
and Ruma his wife died with a defiant confession on their lips; more than 4,000
Christian men, women, and children were killed (commemorated in the Roman calendar
on Oct. 24) ; and from the fiery dyke into which the victims were thrown, Dhu Nowas
received the name Saheb-el-Okhdud ("Lord of the Trench"). At this time, probably
in Jan. 524, Simeon, bp. of Beth-Arsam, had been sent by the emperor Justin, together
with Abraham, a priest of Constantinople, to gain the alliance of Mundhir III.,
king of the Arabians of Hira, a friend valuable alike for reasons of commerce and
in regard to the war with Persia. As the ambassadors drew near the king (the story
is told by Simeon in a letter to the abbat of Gabula), they were met by a crowd
of Arabs crying that Christ was driven out of Rome and Persia and Homeritis; and
they learnt that messengers were present from Dhu Nowas with letters to king Mundhir,
in which they heard the long recital of the treachery by which Negran had been taken,
of the insult to the bishop's tomb, of the slaughter of the Christians and the triumph
of Judaism, the confession of the martyr Arethas, and the speech of Ruma urging
the women of Negran to follow her to the abiding city of the divine Bridegroom,
praying that the blood of the martyrs might be the wall of Negran while it continued
in the faith, and that she might be forgiven for that Arethas had died first. They
heard of her brutal murder, and the appeal of Dhu Nowas that Mundhir should at once
enact a like massacre throughout his kingdom. Their own end must have seemed very
near; but the courage of a soldier who stood forth as spokesman of the many Christians
in Mundhir's army decided the hesitation of the king, and the ambassadors went away
unhurt (but apparently unanswered) to Naaman, a port in the Arabian Gulf. There
they heard more fully the story of the massacre, and especially of the constancy
of a boy, who was afterwards known to the bp. of Asia at Justinian's court. Simeon
of Beth-Arsam thus closes his letter, praying that the news may be spread throughout
the church and the martyrs receive the honour of commemoration, and that the king
of Ethiopia may be urged to help the Homeritae against the oppression of the Jew
(cf. Assemani, Bibl. Or. i. 364-379). When this message reached Elesbaan,
it was reinforced by a letter from Justin, elicited by the entreaties of Dous Ibn
Dzi Thaleban, one of the few Christians who had escaped Dhu Nowas (cf. Wright,
Early Christianity in Arabia, p. 56). This letter is given in the Acta
S. Arethae; where also it is told how the patriarch of Alexandria, at the request
of Justin, urged Elesbaan to invade Yemen, offering up a litany and appointing a
vigil on his behalf, and sending to him the Eucharist in a silver vessel. Without
delay Elesbaan collected a great army, which he divided into two parts; 15,000 men
he sent southwards
For the 15,000 Bab-el-Mandeb was indeed a gate of tears: they died of hunger, wandering in the desert. The main body was safely embarked, and sailed S. down the Gulf of Arabia towards the straits; which Dhu Nowas had barred by a huge chain, stretched across the space of two furlongs from side to side. Over this, however, first ten ships and then seven more, including that of the Ethiopian admiral, were lifted by the waves; the rest were driven back by stress of weather, but presently, the chain being, according to one account, broken, forced the passage, and passing the other seventeen, cast anchor farther along the coast. Meanwhile Dhu Nowas, having first encamped on the W. shore, where he thought his chain would force the Ethiopians to land, hurried from his position, and leaving but a few men to resist the smaller fleet, watched with his main army the movements of the rest. Those on the 17 ships under the Ethiopian admiral easily effected a landing near Aden, and defeating the troops opposed to them, pressed on to the chief city, Taphar, or Taphran, which surrendered immediately (cf. Wright, op. cit. 58-60). Discouraged by this disaster, the main body of the Arabians offered a feeble resistance; and Dhu Nowas saw that his downfall was very near. According to the Arabian historians, he threw himself from the cliff and died in the waves; according to the Acta S. Arethae, he bound his seven kinsmen in chains, and fastened them to his throne, lest they should fail to share his fate; and so awaited death at Elesbaan's own hand. The Arabic writers are unsupported in their story of the useless resistance of a successor Dhu Giadan; it was probably at the death of Dhu Nowas that the kingdom of the Homeritae ended, and Yemen became a province of Ethiopia. At Taphar Elesbaan is said to have built a church, digging the foundations for seven days with his own hands; and from Taphar he wrote of his victory to the patriarch of Alexandria. A bishop was sent from Alexandria and appointed to the see of Negran, but there are doubts as to both the orthodoxy and identity of this bishop. The king restored Negran, entrusting it to Arethas's son, rebuilding and endowing the great church, and granting perpetual right of asylum to the place where the bodies of the martyrs had lain, and then returned to Ethiopia (Boll. Acta SS. Oct. xii. 322), leaving a Christian Arab named Esimiphaeus or Ariathus, to be his viceroy over the conquered people. A part of Elesbaan's army, however, refused to leave the luxury of Arabia Felix, and not long after set up as rival to Esimiphaeus one Abrahah or Abraham, the Christian slave of a Roman merchant, who was strong enough to shut up the viceroy in a fort and seize the throne of Yemen. A force of 3,000 men was sent by Elesbaan, under a prince of his house, whom some call Aryates or Arethas, to depose the usurper; and it seems that Abrahah, like Dhu Nowas, sought safety among the mountains. But he soon (c. 540) came down and confronted the representative of Elesbaan; and at the critical moment the Ethiopian troops deserted and murdered their general. To maintain his supremacy and avenge his kinsman, Elesbaan sent a second army; but this, loyally fighting with Abrahah, was utterly defeated, and only a handful of men returned to Ethiopia. The Arabic historians record that Elesbaan swore to yet lay hold of the land of the Homeritae, both mountain and plain, pluck the forelock from the rebel's head, and take his blood as the price of Aryates's death; and they tell of the mixed cunning and cowardice by which Abrahah satisfied the Ethiopian's oath, and evaded his anger, winning at last a recognition of his dignity. Procopius adds that Abrahah paid tribute to Elesbaan's successor; and the Homeritae remained in free subjection to Ethiopia almost to the end of the century.
Records are extant, almost in the very words of the ambassadors, of two embassies from Justinian to Elesbaan. Joannes Malala, in writing of the first, had the autograph of the envoy whom Procopius (de Bello Persico, i. 20) calls Julian; Photius has preserved, in the third codex of his Bibliotheca, Nonnosus's story of his experience in the second mission. Julian must have been sent before 531, for Cabades was still living, and, according to Procopius, Esimiphaeus was viceroy of Homeritis. He was received by Elesbaan, according to his own account, with the silence of an intense joy; for the alliance of Rome had long been the great desire of the Ethiopians. The king was seated on a high chariot, drawn by four elephants caparisoned with gold; he wore a loose robe studded with pearls, and round his loins a covering of linen embroidered with gold. He received Justinian's letter with every sign of respect, and began to prepare his forces to take part in the Persian war even before Julian was dismissed from his court with the kiss of peace (Johannis Malalae, Chronographia, xviii. Bonn. ed. pp. 457, 458). Malala records no sequel of these preparations; Procopius complains that none occurred.
The second embassy was sent primarily to Kaisus or Imrulcays, the prince of the
Chindini and Maaddeni, and only secondarily to the Homeritae and Ethiopians, probably
in the last years of Elesbaan's reign. Nonnosus the envoy belonged to a family of
diplomatists. But Photius does not state the purpose or result of this journey;
only telling of the great herd
The story of Elesbaan's abdication and seclusion is told in the Acta S. Arethae. Having accepted the fealty and recognized the royalty of Abrahah, and having confirmed the faith of Christ in Homeritis, he laid aside his crown and assumed the garb of a solitary. His cell is still shewn to the traveller; it was visited in 1805 by Henry Salt, and has been elaborately described by Mendez and Lefevre. There the king remained in solitude and great asceticism; and the year of his death is unknown. His crown he sent to Jerusalem, praying that it might be hung "in conspectu januae vivifici sepulchri."
Eleusius (2), bp. of Cyzicus, a prominent semi-Arian in the 2nd half of the 4th cent., intimately connected with Basil of Ancyra, Eustathius of Sebaste, Sophronius of Pompeiopolis, and other leaders of the Macedonian party. He is uniformly described as of high personal character, holy in life, rigid in self-discipline, untiring in his exertions for what he deemed truth, and, according to St. Hilary, more nearly orthodox than most of his associates (Hilar. de Synod. p. 133). The people of his diocese are described by Theodoret as zealous for the orthodox faith, and well instructed in the Holy Scriptures and in church doctrines, and he himself as a man worthy of all praise (Theod. H. E. ii. 25; Haer. Fab. iv. 3). Though usually found acting with the tyrannical and unscrupulous party, of which Macedonius was the original leader, and sharing in the discredit of their measures against the holders of the Homoousian faith, Eleusius was uncompromising in opposing the pronounced Arians, by whom he was persecuted and deposed. He held office in the Imperial household when suddenly elevated to the see of Cyzicus by Macedonius, bp. of Constantinople, c. 356 (Soz. H. E. iv. 20; Suidas, s.v. Ἐλεύσιος). He signalized his entrance on his office by a vehement outburst of zeal against the relics of paganism at Cyzicus. He shewed no less decision in dealing with the Novatianists, with whom a community of persecution had caused the Catholics to unite. He destroyed their church, and forbade their assemblies for worship (Socr. H. E. ii. 38; Soz. H. E. iv. 21; v. 15). He soon acquired great influence over his people by his religious zeal and the gravity of his manners. He established in his diocese a large number of monasteries, both for males and females (Suidas, u.s.). He took part in the semi-Arian council at Ancyra a.d. 358 (Hilar. de Synod. p. 127), and was one of the members deputed to lay before Constantius at Sirmium the decrees they had passed, condemnatory of the Anomoeans (Hilar. u.s.; Soz. H. E. iv. 13; Labbe, Concil. ii. 790). At the council of Seleucia, a.d. 359, he replied to the proposition of the Acacians to draw up a new confession of faith, by asserting that they had not met to receive a new faith, but to pledge themselves for death to that of the fathers (Socr. H. E. ii. 39, 40). Being commissioned with Eustathius of Sebaste, Basil of Ancyra, and others, to communicate the result of the synod to Constantius, Eleusius denounced the blasphemies attributed to Eudoxius so vigorously that the latter was compelled by the emperor's threats to retract (Theod. H. E. ii. 23). [Eudoxius; Eustathius of Sebaste.] The wily Acacians, however, speedily gained the ear of Constantius, and secured the deposition of their semi-Arian rivals, including Eleusius, a.d. 360. The nominal charge against him was that he had baptized and ordained one Heraclius of Tyre, who, being accused of magic, had fled to Cyzicus, and whom, when the facts came to his knowledge, he had refused to depose. He was also charged with having admitted to holy orders persons condemned by his neighbour, Maris of Chalcedon (Soz. H. E. iv. 24; Socr. H. E. ii. 42). His old patron, Macedonius of Constantinople, who had been got rid of at the same time, wrote to encourage him and the other deposed prelates in their adherence to the Antiochene formula and to the "Homoiousian" as the watchword of their party (Socr. H. E. ii. 45; Soz. H. E. iv. 27). The subtle Anomoean Eunomius was intruded into the see of Cyzicus by Eudoxius, who had succeeded Macedonius (Socr. H. E. iv. 7; Philost. H. E. v. 3). Eunomius failed to secure the goodwill of the people who refused to attend where he officiated, and built a church for themselves outside the town. On the accession of Julian, a.d. 361, Eleusius, with the other deposed prelates, returned to his see, but was soon expelled a second time by Julian, on the representation of the heathen inhabitants of Cyzicus, for his zeal against paganism (Soz. H. E. v. 15). At Julian's death Eleusius regained possession. He took the lead at the Macedonian council of Lampsacus, a.d. 365 (Socr. H. E. iv. 4). At Nicomedia, a.d. 366, he weakly succumbed to Valens's threats of banishment and confiscation, and accepted the Arian creed. Full of remorse, he assembled his people on his return to Cyzicus, confessed and deplored his crime, and desired, since he had denied his faith, to resign his charge to a worthier. The people, devotedly attached to him, refused to accept his resignation (ib. 6; Philost. H. E. ix. 13). In 381 Eleusius was the chief of 36 bishops of Macedonian tenets summoned by Theodosius to the oecumenical council of Constantinople in the hope of bringing them back to Catholic doctrine. This anticipation proved nugatory; Eleusius and his adherents obstinately refused all reconciliation, maintaining their heretical views on the Divinity of the Holy Ghost (Socr. H. E. v. 8; Soz. H. E. vii. 7). Similarly at the conference of bishops of all parties in 383, to which Eleusius was also invited as chief of the Macedonians, the differences proved irreconcilable, and the emperor manifested his disappointment by severe edicts directed against the Macedonians, Eunomians, Arians, and other heretics (Tillem. Mém. Eccl. vol. vi. passim).
Eleutherus (1), bp. of Rome in the reigns of Marcus Aurelius and Commodus,
during 15 years, 6 months, and 5 days, according to the Liberian catalogue. Eusebius
(H. E. v. prooem.) places his accession in the 17th year of Antoninus
Verus (i.e. Marcus Aurelius), viz.
Hegesippus, quoted by Eusebius (H. E. iv. 22), states that when he himself arrived in Rome, Eleutherus was deacon of Anicetus, who was then bishop, and became bishop on the death of Soter, the successor of Anicetus (cf. Iren. adv. Haeres. iii. 3, and Jerome, de Vir. Illustr. c. 22).
Eleutherus was contemporary with the Aurelian persecution; and after the death of Aurelius the Christians had peace, in consequence, it is said, of the favour of Marcia, the concubine of Commodus; the only recorded exception in Rome being the martyrdom of Apollonius in the reign of Commodus (Eus. H. E. v. 21; Jerome, Catal. c. 42). The chief sufferers under Aurelius were the churches of Asia Minor and those of Lyons and Vienne in Southern Gaul, a.d. 177. In letters to Eleutherus by the hand of Irenaeus the latter churches made known, "for the sake of the peace of the churches" (H. E. v. 3), their own judgment, with that of their martyrs while in prison, respecting the claims of Montanus to inspiration.
The fact of the bp. of Rome having been especially addressed on this occasion has been adduced as an acknowledgment in that early age of his supreme authority. But the letters of the martyrs to Eleutherus do not appear, from Eusebius, to have had any different purport from those sent also to the churches of Asia and Phrygia, nor does their object seem to have been to seek a judgment, but rather to express one, in virtue, we may suppose, of the weight carried in those days by the utterances of martyrs. Their having addressed Eleutherus, as well as the churches where Montanus himself was teaching, is sufficiently accounted for by the prominence of the Roman bishop's position in the West, about which there is no dispute. Of the course taken by Eleutherus with respect to Montanus nothing can be alleged with certainty.
Besides the heresy of Montanus, those of Basilides, Valentinus, Cerdo, and Marcion were then at their height, and gained many adherents in Rome. Valentinus and Cerdo had come there between 138 and 142; Marcion a little later. There is, however, some difficulty in placing the sojourn in Rome of these heresiarchs in the episcopate of Eleutherus; Valentinus, according to other accounts, having died previously (see Tillem. On Eleutherus). Florinus and Blastus also, two degraded presbyters of Rome, broached during the episcopate of Eleutherus certain heresies, of which nothing is known except what may be gathered from the titles of certain lost treatises written against them by Irenaeus (Eus. H. E. v. 14, 15, 20, Pacian, Ep. i.). The visit of Irenaeus to Eleutherus gave the latter opportunity to become acquainted with the prevalent heresies, against which he became the most distinguished champion.
Especially interesting to Englishmen is the story connecting Eleutherus with the origin of British Christianity (Bede, H. E. c. iv.). [Lucius (16)]. This account, written some 500 years after the event, is the earliest mention of it in any historian. It seems pretty certain that it was from a Roman catalogue that Bede got his information, Gildas, his usual authority, being silent on the subject. In the hands of chroniclers after Bede the story receives several and growing additions. The story is first found in its simplest form in the Pontifical annals at Rome, in the 6th cent.; is introduced into Britain by Bede in the 8th; grows into the conversion of the whole of Britain in the 9th; and appears full-fledged, enriched with details, and connected with both Llandaff and Glastonbury, in the 12th. There is, however, nothing improbable in the original story itself, and it is more likely to have had some fact than pure invention for its origin, and the Welsh traditions about Lleirwg, though unnoticed by Gildas, may have been ancient and genuine ones, independent of Bede's account. Lingard takes this view, laying stress on the dedication of churches in the diocese of Llandaff to Lleirwg and the saints associated with him, and supposing him to have been an independent British prince outside the Roman pale. In confirmation of the story is alleged further the fact that, shortly after the time of Eleutherus writers first begin to speak of British Christianity. For Tertullian, Origen, and Arnobius are the first to allude to the triumphs of the Gospel, though partial, in this remote island. What they say, however, is quite consistent with the earlier, and other than Roman, origin of the British church; and it may be that it was the very fact of their having borne this testimony that suggested Eleutherus, a pope shortly anterior to their date, as one to whom the mission might be assigned.
Elias (1) I., bp. of Jerusalem,
A.D. 494-513; an Arab by birth who was educated with Martyrius, in one of
the Nitrian monasteries. Driven from Egypt by Timothy Aelurus, the two friends took
refuge, a.d. 457, in the laura of St.
Euthymius, who received them with great favour, and predicted that they would both
be bishops of Jerusalem. After a time they quitted the laura, and Elias constructed
a cell at Jericho. In 478 Martyrius succeeded Anastasius as bp. of Jerusalem, and
was followed by Sallustius in 486, and in 494 by Elias. Moschus records that Elias
practised total abstinence from wine both as monk and bishop (Prat. Spiritual.
c. 25). His residence became the nucleus of a collection of cells of ascetics, which
developed into a monastery adjacent to the church of the Anastasis (Cyril. Scythop.
Vit. S. Sabae, c. 31). When Elias succeeded to the patriarchate, the Christian
world exhibited a melancholy spectacle of discord. There were at least four great
parties anathematizing one another. When the Monophysites (Acephali) in Syria, under
the leadership of Xenaias of Hierapolis, broke into open insurrection, treating
as heretics all who acknowledged the two natures, Elias was one of the chief objects
of their attack. In 509 they demanded a confession of his faith, and Anastasius
required him to convene a council to repudiate the decrees of Chalcedon. Elias declined,
but drew up a letter to the emperor, containing a statement of his belief, accompanied
by anathemas of
Elkesai, Elkesaites (Ἠλχασαί, Hippolytus; Ηλξαί, Ἐλκεσσαῖοι, Epiphanius; Ἑλκεσαιταί, Origen). A book bearing the name of Elkesai and purporting to contain angelic revelations, was, at the end of the 2nd cent., in high repute among certain Ebionite sectaries, who were most numerous in the district E. of the lower Jordan and the Dead Sea. This book first became known to orthodox writers in the 3rd cent., and we have accounts of it from three independent primary sources, Hippolytus, Origen, and Epiphanius. Hippolytus (Ref. ix. 12, p. 292) gives several extracts, and states that it was brought to Rome by a certain Alcibiades, a native of Apameia in Syria, and indicates that the time was during, or immediately after, the episcopate of Callistus—i.e. c. a.d. 222. The great controversy then agitating the church of Rome was whether, and with what limitations, forgiveness might be bestowed on grievous post-baptismal sin. Hippolytus took the side of rigour and Callistus of leniency. This book of Elkesai announced a new method of forgiveness of sin, asserted to have been revealed in the third year of Trajan, by which any person, no matter of what sins he might have been guilty (some of the very grossest are expressly mentioned), might obtain forgiveness by submitting to a new baptism with the use of a certain formula of which we shall speak presently. A similar baptism was prescribed as a remedy for the bite of a mad dog or a serpent or for disease. Hippolytus takes credit for resisting the teaching of Alcibiades, and blames Callistus for having, by the laxity of his doctrine and practice concerning church discipline, pre-disposed men's minds to the easy methods of forgiveness expounded in this book. Origen, in a fragment of a homily on the 82nd Psalm, preserved by Eusebius (H. E. vi. 38) and assigned by Redepenning to a.d. 247, speaks of the teaching of the Helcesaites, some specimens of which he gives, as having then but lately troubled the churches. Epiphanius, though a later witness, professes to speak from personal acquaintance with the book, and this is confirmed by his coincidence in a number of details with the other authorities. We may count the Pseudo-Clementine writings as a fourth source of information concerning the books of Elkesai. Hippolytus states that the book, according to its own account, had been obtained from Seres, in Parthia, by a righteous man named Elkesai; that its contents had been revealed by an angel 96 miles high, accompanied by a female of corresponding size; that the male was Son of God, and the female was called Holy Spirit. Epiphanius speaks of Elkesai as a false prophet. Probably this Elkesai was an imaginary personage, and we must reject the account of Epiphanius who assigns to him a certain part in the history of the Ebionite sects.
The book is evidently of Jewish origin. Jerusalem is made the centre of the world's devotion, and the right rule of prayer is to turn not necessarily to the East, but towards Jerusalem. The names of the book are formed from Hebrew roots. A further mark of Aramaic origin is the representation of the Holy Spirit as a female. The book ordered compliance with ordinances of the Jewish law, but condemned the rite of sacrifice, so involving the rejection of parts of O.T., and of the eating of flesh. The superiority of the forgiveness of sins by the washing of water over that by the fire of sacrifice is based on the superiority of water to fire (Hipp. ix. 14; Epiph. Haer. 19, p. 42; Clem. Rec. i. 48; Hom. xi. 26). It is taught that Christ is but a created being, but the greatest of creatures, being Lord over angels as well as over every other created thing. The name Great King is applied to Him (Epiph. Haer. 19, p. 41; Hipp. ix. 15; Hom. viii. 21). The formula of baptism runs, In the name of the Most High God and of His Son, the Great King; but this Great King is not exclusively identified with Jesus of Nazareth, for He appeared in the world in successive incarnations, Adam being the first. The book agreed with the Clementines in complete rejection of St. Paul. It taught the lawfulness of denying the faith under persecution (Eus. vi. 38; Epiph. 19), thus getting rid of the class of offences as to the forgiveness of which there was then most controversy.
The statement of the book that the revelation was made in the 3rd year of Trajan
is of no historic value. The work, however, which was the common groundwork of the
Clementine Recognitions and Homilies [Clementine
Literature] asserts that a new
gospel was published (the Homilies add "secretly") after the destruction of the
Holy Place; and it seems on other grounds probable that a number of Essenes, who
had always held the Temple sacrifices in abomination, were brought to recognize
Jesus as the true Prophet when the destruction of the Temple and the abolition of
its sacrifices fulfilled His prediction. At this time, then, probably arose those
Ebionite sects which combined a certain reverence for our Lord's utterances, and
an acknowledgment of Him as a divine prophet, with the retention of a host of Essene
usages and doctrines. Hence the book of Elkesai may have been, as it professed to
be, a considerable time in secret
It would seem to be long before the sect of Elkesaites disappeared. En-hedim, an Arabic author (c. a.d. 987) quoted by Chwolson (Die Sabier, i. 112, ii. 543), tells of a sect of Sabeans of the Desert who practised frequent religious washings, and who counted one El-Chasaiach as their founder. See Ritschl, Zeitschrift für histor. Theol. (1853), pp. 573 sqq., Entstehung der altkatholischen Kirche, pp. 234 sqq.; Hilgenfeld, Nov. Test. extra Canonem Receptum, iii. 153, where all the fragments of the book are collected; Uhlhorn, Hom. u. Recog. des Clem. Rom. p. 392; and Lightfoot's Dissertation on the Essenes, "Ep. to Colossians," pp. 118 sqq.
Elpidius (8), bp. of Laodicea in Syria at the close of the 4th cent. and opening of the 5th. He was originally a priest of Antioch under Meletius, whose confidence he enjoyed and with whom he resided (σύσκηνος) (Theod. H. E. v. 27). He shared in his master's sufferings under Valens, and accompanied by Flavian, attended him at the council of Constantinople a.d. 381 (Labbe, ii. 955). We next find him as bishop at a council at Constantinople a.d. 394 (Labbe, ii. 1151), and again at Constantinople at the close of a.d. 403, as a member of the council summoned by Chrysostom's enemies, and issuing in his deposition. Elpidius had been an intimate friend of Chrysostom at Antioch, and now lent the weight of his age and well-deserved reputation to the defence of his old associate. When the validity of the canons of the council of Antioch, of suspected orthodoxy, used by Chrysostom's enemies as an instrument to secure their object, came into question before the emperor, Elpidius adroitly turned the tables on Acacius and his party by proposing that the advocates of the canons should declare themselves of the same faith with those who had promulgated them (Pallad. Dial. c. 9, p. 80). After Chrysostom's deposition and exile, Elpidius exerted himself strenuously in his behalf, dispatching letters to bishops and faithful laity in all parts of the world, exhorting them to remain true to Chrysostom, and encouraging them to bear up against persecution. Chrysostom wrote to Elpidius shortly after his arrival at Cucusus in 404, thanking him most warmly, and giving him information concerning the place of his banishment, his companions, and his health (Chrys. Ep. 114). Four other letters from Chrysostom to Elpidius are extant, all written from Cucusus (Epp. 25, 138, a.d. 405; Ep. 131, a.d. 406; Ep. 142, a.d. 407).
Elpidius suffered for his fidelity to his friend in the persecution against the Joannite party under Atticus and Porphyry. In 406 he was deposed from his see, and was closely imprisoned in his house for three years (Pallad. Dial. p. 195). In 414 Alexander, succeeding Porphyry as bp. of Antioch, restored Elpidius to his see in a manner which testified deep reverence for his character, and pope Innocent heard of it with extreme satisfaction (Baron. 408 §§ 35, 37; Tillem. xi. 274).
Emilianus (8) (Aemilianus, San Millan), solitary; claimed by the Spanish Benedictines as joint patron of Spain with St. James (Sandoval, Fundaciones de San Benito en España, Madrid, 1601). The only original source of information about him is his Life by St. Braulio bp. of Saragossa, written about 50 years after his death, on the testimony of four of his disciples. St. Braulio gives no dates and no names of parents, but the common tradition is that St. Emilianus was born c. 473, and died c. 572. His birthplace and the site of his oratory have caused much controversy, Castile claiming him as born at Berceo, close to the existing monastery of San Millan, while Aragon urges Verdeyo, near Calatayud.
He began life as a shepherd, and while following his flock over the mountains had the dream which caused his conversion. He betook himself to St. Felix, a neighbouring hermit, for instruction in Catholic belief and practice. He soon left Verdejo for the mountains, wandering N.W. into the remotest parts between Burgos and Logrono. For 40 years he lived a hermit's life there, mostly on or near the peak of La Cogolla (according to the tradition of the monastery; there is no mention of the Cogolla of St. Braulio's life), whence the after-name of the monastery which commemorated him—San Millan de la Cogolla. Didymus, bp. of Tarrazona (Turiasso), much against the saint's will; ordained him presbyter, and gave him the cure of Vergegium. Here his entire unworldliness drew upon him the hatred of his brother clergy. He was accused before Didymus of wasting the goods of the church, and deprived of his cure. Thus released from an unwelcome office, Emilianus passed the rest of his life at an oratory near Vergegium. During this second retirement, although his personal asceticism increased rather than diminished, he allowed himself to be surrounded by a small circle of disciples, and became widely famed for charity and tenderness towards the poor. St. Braulio nowhere speaks of him as monachus, but only as presbyter. Tamayo de Salazar, Martyr. Hisp. vi. 109; Esp. Sagrada, l. 2; Mabillon, saec. i.; Yepes, Chron. Benedictin. i. ann. 572; Sanchez, Poesias Cast. ant. al Siglo XV. vol. ii.
Encratites (Ἐγκρατεῖς,
Irenaeus; Ἐγκρατηταί, Clem. Alex.;
Ἐγκρατῖται, Hippol.), heretics who abstained
from flesh, wine, and the marriage bed, believing them essentially impure. Persons
who so abstained called themselves continent (ἐγκρατεῖς,
Iren. i. 28, p. 107); and the slightly modified form, Encratites, soon became a
technical name to denote those whose asceticism was regarded as of a heretical character
(Clem. Alex. Paed. ii. 2, p. 182; Strom. i. 15, p. 359, vii. 17, p.
900; Hippol. Ref. viii. 20, p. 276). We are not bound to suppose that all
who were known by the name formed a single united sect. Irenaeus, e.g. (l.c.),
says that some of the earliest of them were followers of Saturninus and Marcion;
and it is reasonable to understand by this, not that they united in a single heretical
body, but that, independently using the same mode of life and making the same boast
of continence, they were known to the orthodox by the same name. The practice of
such abstinence was older than Christianity. Not to speak of the Indian ascetics
(to whom Clement of Alexandria refers
The account given by Hegesippus of James the Just (Eus. H. E. ii. 23)
shews that righteousness of the Essene type was clearly held in admiration in the
Christian church; and
Ennodius (1) Magnus Felix, bp. of Pavia, born at Arles (Ennod. Ep. lib. vii. 8) c. 473; connected with Romans of distinction (ib. iv. i 25). The invasion of the Visigoths, and the consequent loss of his patrimony, caused him to migrate at an early age to Milan, where he was educated in the house of an aunt. In 489, the year in which Theodoric invaded Italy, his aunt died, and he was saved from beggary by marriage (Eucharist. de Vit.). A dangerous sickness (Ep. viii. 24) led him to serious thought and suggested the composition of his Eucharisticon, in which he reviews with penitence his past life. He was subsequently ordained deacon by Epiphanius bp. of Pavia, whose exhortations determined him to renounce his marriage, with the consent of his wife, who retired into a convent. In 494 he accompanied Epiphanius (Ennod. Vit. Epiphan. 234 A) on a mission to Gundebaud, king of the Burgundians, to procure the ransom of certain Ligurian prisoners. Upon the death of Epiphanius two years later he visited Rome, and gained reputation by composing an apology for pope Symmachus and the synod which acquitted him, as well as by a public panegyric in honour of Theodoric. The former of these was inserted in the Acta Conciliorum; the latter is generally included in collections of the Panegyrici Veteres. Under the next pope, Hormisdas, he succeeded Maximus II. in the see of Pavia, and was sent in 515, and again in 517, on an embassy to the emperor Anastasius to oppose the spread of the Eutychian heresy. Both embassies were unsuccessful. Anastasius, failing to corrupt or bend the bishop, had him placed on board an unseaworthy vessel. Ennodius, however, arrived safely in his diocese, which he continued to administer for four years. He died at the age of 48, and was buried in the church of St. Michael at Pavia, July 17, 521.
His writings exemplify throughout a profane tendency of thought and expression which Christian writers in Gaul were slow to abandon. Many of his letters suit the pen of a heathen rhetorician rather than of a Christian bishop. His illustrations are commonly drawn from Greek mythology. He speaks of divine grace as descending "de Superis," and sets the Fates side by side with Jesus Christ. His style is turgid, involved, and affected. He seems to shrink from making himself intelligible lest he should be thought commonplace, and the result is unattractive. His works are reprinted with notes in Migne's Patr. vol. lxiii. For his Life see Sirmond's ed.; Ceillier, Auteurs sacr. et ecclés. x. 569; for a just estimate of his literary merits, Ampère, Hist. lit. de la France, t. ii. c. vii.
Ephraim (4) the Syrian, usually called Ephrem Syrus, from the Syriac form
of his name Aphrem, was born in Mesopotamia, for he describes his home as lying
between the Tigris and the Euphrates (Opp. Syr. i. 23), probably at Nisibis.
As Edessa became the chief scene of his labours, he is generally styled the Edessene.
It is comparatively certain that he died, as stated by St. Jerome, "in extreme old
age," c. a.d. 373, and therefore
was probably born c. a.d. 308.
The story of his parents seeking to train him in idolatry is at variance with his own statements. In his Confession (Opp. Gr. i. 129) he says, "When I sinned, I was already a partaker of grace: I had been early taught about Christ by my parents; they who had begotten me after the flesh had trained me in the fear of the Lord. I had seen my neighbours living piously; I had heard of many suffering for Christ. My own parents were confessors before the Judge: yea, I am the kindred of martyrs." Or again, in his Syriac works (Opp. Syr. ii. 499): "I was born in the way of truth; and though my boyhood understood not the greatness of the benefit, I knew it when trial came."
In 337 Constantine the Great died, and Sapor, king of Persia, seized the opportunity of invading Mesopotamia. He commenced the siege of Nisibis in 338, and in 70 days had brought it to the verge of surrender. But Ephrem induced the aged bishop James to mount the walls and pray for the Divine succour. Shortly afterwards swarms of mosquitoes and horse-flies made the horses and elephants unmanageable, and Sapor withdrew his forces lest he should bring upon himself heavier chastisement. Before the end of 338 St. James died, when Ephrem probably left Nisibis, and after a short stay at Amid, to which city his mother is said to have belonged, travelled towards Edessa, the chief seat both of Christianity and of learning in Mesopotamia.
Knowing no handicraft and having no means of living, Ephrem there entered the service of a bath-keeper, but devoted his spare time to teaching and reasoning with the natives. While so engaged one day his words were overheard by an aged monk who had descended from his hermitage into the city, and being rebuked by him for still mingling with the world, Ephrem withdrew into a cavern among the mountains, adopted the monastic dress, and commenced a life of extreme asceticism, giving himself up to study and to writing. His works were widely diffused, and disciples gathered round him, of whom many rose to eminence as teachers, and several of whom he commemorates in his Testament. The growing fame of Basil, bp. of Caesarea in Cappadocia, inspired Ephrem with a strong desire to visit one who had been shewn him in a dream as a column of fire reaching from earth to heaven.
His journey to Caesarea is vouched for by Basil's brother Gregory, and by Ephrem
himself in his Encomium on Basil.
Far more creditable is the last act recorded of Ephrem. While withdrawn in his rocky cavern he heard that Edessa had been visited by a severe famine. He came down to the city, and induced the richer citizens to bring out their secret stores of food, on condition, however, that Ephrem should himself take charge of them. He managed them with such skill, prudence, and honesty that they sufficed for the Edessenes and for numerous strangers also. The next year was one of great plenty, and Ephrem resumed his solitary life amidst the prayers and gratitude of all classes.
His death followed shortly afterwards, fully foreseen by himself, as his Testament proves. In this hymn, written in heptasyllabic metre, after playing upon his own name and professing his faith, he commands his disciples not to bury him beneath the altar, nor in a church, nor amongst the martyrs, but in the common burying-ground of strangers, in his gown and cowl, with no spices nor waxlights, but with their prayers. It ends with an account of Lamprotata, daughter of the prefect of Edessa, who earnestly sought permission to be buried in due time at Ephrem's feet.
The works of Ephrem were most voluminous. Sozomen (Eccl. Hist. iii. 16) says that he wrote three million lines, but a large proportion has perished. What remains is said by Bellarmine to be "pious rather than learned." The great edition of his works is that in six vols. fol., pub. at Rome in 1732-1743, under the editorship of the Maronite Peter Mobarek, better known by the Latin translation of his surname Benedict, and completed after his death by J. S. E. Asseman, titular bp. of Apamaea, who is answerable, however, for the translation of only vol. vi. pp. 425-687. The first three vols. consist of sermons and discourses in Greek with a Latin translation. Many of these are probably genuine, for Sozomen says that already in his lifetime works of Ephrem were translated into Greek, and as both Chrysostom and Jerome were acquainted with them, and Gregory of Nyssa quotes his Testament, it is certain that several of his writings were very soon thus made available for general use. But some pieces must be received with caution, and one (Opp. Gr. ii. 356 seq.) is almost certainly not genuine.
The other three vols. contain his Syriac works, the most important being his Exposition of O.T. Of the commentary upon the Gospels few traces remain, but Dionysius Barsalibi, bp. of Amid, says that Ephrem had followed the order of the Diatessaron of Tatian. As copies of Dionysius's own commentary exist in the British Museum, the Bodleian Library, and elsewhere, some portions of Ephrem's work, as well as some idea of Tatian's arrangement, might be obtained from it. A collection of Armenian translations of Ephrem's works, pub. in 4 vols. 8vo by the Mechitarists at Venice in 1836, includes one (in vol. iii.) of his commentary on St. Paul's epistles.
Following upon the commentary are 12 metrical expositions of portions of Scripture, such as the creation of man in God's image, the temptation of Eve, the translation of Enoch, etc., occupying pp. 316-319. Some of these, especially that upon the mission of Jonah and the repentance of the Ninevites, have been translated into English by the Rev. H. Burgess (Lond. 1856), the author also of Select Metrical Hymns and Homilies of Ephraem Syrus (two vols. Lond. 1853). These expositions are followed by 13 metrical homilies upon the Nativity, pp. 396-436. Next come 56 homilies against false doctrines (pp. 437-560); chiefly against Bardesan, Marcion, and Manes.
In vol. iii., after the Acta S. Ephraems (i.-lxiii.), the first place is held by 87 homilies on the Faith, in answer to freethinkers. The last seven of these are called sermons upon the Pearl, which Ephrem takes as an emblem of the Christian faith, working out the idea with great beauty, though with that diffuseness which is the common fault of his writings. Three very long controversial homilies (pp. 164-208) follow, repeating many of the same thoughts.
A sermon against the Jews, preached on Palm Sunday (pp. 209-224), has been translated
by the Rev. J. B. Morris into English.
Next come four short homilies on Free-will (pp. 359-366), partly following the
order of the Syriac alphabet; then 76 homilies on Repentance (pp. 367-561). Next,
12 sermons on the Paradise of Eden (pp. 562-598); and finally, 18 sermons on miscellaneous
subjects (pp. 599-687). Considerable activity has been displayed in editing other
Syriac works of Ephrem—e.g. by Dr. J. J. Overbeck, in S. Ephraemi Syri,
Rabulae, Balaei, aliorumque Opera Selecta (Oxf., Clarendon Press, 1865). Almost
more important is "S. Ephraemi Syri Carmina Nisibena, ed. by Dr. G. Bickell,
Lipsiae, 1866." Of these hymns, the first 21 treat of the long struggle between
Sapor and the Romans for the possession of Nisibis, from its siege in 350 to just
before its miserable surrender by Jovian in 363. The next 5 hymns have perished;
in Nos. 26-30 the scene is Edessa, and the subject the schism there in the bishopric
of Barses, a.d. 361-370. Bickell thinks
these were written c. 370, towards the close of Ephrem's life. Hymns 31-34
treat of Haran and the many troubles its bishop, Vitus, endured from the pagans
there. The other hymns (35-77) treat of the Overthrow of Death and Satan by our
Lord, of the Resurrection of the Body in refutation of Bardesan and Manes,
Bertheau edited a Syriac homily of St. Ephrem from a MS. at Rome (Göttingen, 1837), and another from the Museum Borghianum was pub. by Zingerle and Mösinger in Monumenta Syriaca (Innsbruck, 1869), vol. i. pp. 4-12; in vol. ii. (pub. 1878) numerous fragments from MSS. at Rome are found, pp. 33-51. In most Chrestomathies specimens of Ephrem's writings are given, and that by Hahn and Sieffert consists entirely of them.
As a commentator Ephrem holds a middle place between the literal interpretation
of Theodore of Mopsuestia and the allegorical method of Origen. As Basil and Gregory
were both strongly influenced by Origen, Ephrem's independence is the more remarkable.
In commenting on
The question has often been asked whether he really possessed any competent acquaintance with Hebrew and Greek. He had not had a learned education, but nevertheless displays considerable knowledge, including some of physical science, and in his discourses on fate, freewill, etc., he manifests, without parade, a sufficient mastery of Greek philosophy to refute the Gnostic errors prevalent in the East. We need not be surprised, therefore, that Sozomen says (H. E. iii. 16) that Basil wondered at his learning.
The chief places which suggest some knowledge of Hebrew are as follow. Commenting
on the creation of whales in
On
These points might have been picked up from conversation with others, and there is a marked absence of acquaintance with the language in his commentary as a whole.
Of Greek he also shews but a very moderate knowledge, though a more real acquaintance with it than with Hebrew. His own words in Opt. Syr. ii. 317 are to the point: "Not from the rivulet of my own thought have I opened these things for thy drinking, for I am poor and destitute alike of meat and drink; but, like a bottle from the sea or drops from a caldron, I have begged these things from just men, who were lords of the fountain."
An example will shew him much more at home in Greek than in Hebrew. In
From his intense devotion and piety, his hymns were largely adopted into the services of the church, and prayers also composed by him are found in most Oriental liturgies. His personal character deserves high praise. He was an extreme ascetic, passing his whole life in poverty, raggedness, humility, and gentleness. His gentleness has been denied on account of the fierce language sometimes used in controversial writings. We may, however, take his words in his Testament as literally true (Opp. Gr. ii. 396): "Throughout my whole life, neither by night nor day, have I reviled any one, nor striven with any one; but in their assemblies I have disputed with those who deny the faith. For if a wolf is entering the fold, and the dog goes not out and barks, the master beats the dog. But a wise man hates no one, or if he hates at all, he hates only a fool."
"His words reach the heart, for they treat powerfully of human joys and cares;
they depict the struggles and storms of life, and sometimes its calm rest. He knows
how to awaken terror and alarm, as he sets forth before the sinner his punishment,
God's righteous judgment, his destined condemnation; he knows, too, how to build
up and comfort, where he proclaims the hopes of the faithful and the bliss of eternal
happiness. His words ring in mild, soft tones when he paints the happy rest of the
pious, the peace of soul enjoyed by those who cleave to the Christian faith; they
thunder and rage like a storm wind when he scourges heretics, or chastises pride
and folly. Ephraim was an orator possessed of spirit and taste, and his poetical
gifts were exactly those calculated to give weight and influence to his authority
as a teacher among his countrymen" (Roediger). As such they venerated him, giving
him especially the title of Malphono, the teacher; but one of his greatest services
to the church was the marvellous variety and richness which he gave to its public
worship. Ephraim's quotations from the Gospels have been collected by F. C. Burkitt
(Texts and Studies, vol. vii. No. 2, Camb. Univ. Press). His Commentary on
the Diatessaron was trans. into Latin by J. B. Aucher, and pub. in this form by
G. Mösinger (Venice, 1876). See
Ephraim (6) (Ephrem, Ephraemius, or, as Theophanes gives the name, Euphraimius), bp. of Antioch and patriarch, a.d. 527-545. The title, ὁ Ἀμίδιος, given him by Theophanes, indicates that he was a native of Amida in Armenia. He devoted the early part of his life to civil employments, and became Count of the East in the reign of Justin I. The city of Antioch having been nearly destroyed in a.d. 525 and 526 by earthquake and conflagration, Ephraim was sent by Justin as commissioner to relieve the sufferers and restore the city. The high qualities manifested in the fulfilment of these duties gained the affection and respect of the people of Antioch, who unanimously chose him bishop on the death of Euphrasius (Evagr. H. E. iv. 5, 6). His consecration is placed in a.d. 357. As bishop he exhibited an unwavering firmness against the heretical tendencies of his day. Theophanes says that he shewed "a divine zeal against schismatics" (Chronogr. p. 118). Moschus tells a story of his encounter near Hierapolis with one of the pillar ascetics, a follower of Severus and the Acephali (Prat. Spiritual. c. 36). Ephraim examined synodically the tenets of Syncleticus, metropolitan of Tarsus, who was suspected of Eutychian leanings but was acquitted (Phot. Cod. 228). In 537, at the bidding of Justinian, he repaired with Hypatius of Ephesus and Peter of Jerusalem to Gaza to hold a council in the matter of Paul the patriarch of Alexandria, who had been banished to that city and there deposed. In obedience to the emperor Justinian, Ephraim held a synod at Antioch, which repudiated the doctrines of Origen as heretical (Liberat. c. 23, apud Labbe, Concil. v. 777 seq.; Baronius, Annal. 537, 538) He was the author of a large number of theological treatises directed against Nestorius, Eutyches, Severus, and the Acephali, and in defence of the decrees of Chalcedon. In 546, yielding to severe pressure, he subscribed the edict Justinian had put forth condemning "the three chapters" (Facund. Pro Defens. Trium Capit. iv. 4). He did not survive the disgrace of this concession, and died in 547.
His copious theological works have almost entirely perished, and we have little knowledge of them save through Photius (Biblioth. Cod. 228, 229), who speaks of having read three of the volumes, but gives particulars of two only. Some few fragments of his defence of the council of Chalcedon, and of the third book against Severus, and other works, are given by Mai (Bibl. Nov. iv. 63, vii. 204) and are printed by Migne (Patr. Gk. lxxxvi. par. 2, pp. 2099 seq.). Theophanes, Chronogr. ad ann. 519, p. 118 d; Moschus, Prat. Spiritual. cc. 36, 37; Cave, Hist. Lit. i. 507; Fabric. Bibl. Graec. lib. v. c. 38; Le Quien, Oriens Christ. ii. 733).
Epiphanes, a Gnostic writer about the middle of the 2nd cent., or earlier. Clement of Alexandria (Strom. iii. p. 511) gives the following account of him. He was the son of Carpocrates, by a mother named Alexandria, a native of Cephallenia. He died at the age of 17, and at Same, a city of Cephallenia, a handsome temple and other buildings were raised in his memory; and at the new moon the Cephallenians were wont to celebrate his apotheosis as a god by sacrifices, libations, banquets, and the singing of hymns. He had been instructed by his father in the ordinary circle of arts and sciences, and in the Platonic philosophy. He was the founder of the "Monadic Gnosis," and from him flowed the heresy of those afterwards known as Carpocratians. He was the author of a work on Justice, which he made to consist in equality. He taught that, God having given His benefits to all alike and in common, human laws are censurable which instituted the distinction of meum and tuum, and which secure to one as his peculiar possession that to which all have an equal right. This communistic doctrine he extended to the sexual relations. Whatever may have been the origin of the phrase "Monadic Gnosis," the doctrine here described seems the direct opposite of Dualism. Instead of accounting for the existence of evil as the work of a hostile principle, this theory would represent moral evil as a mere fiction of human laws, perversely instituted in opposition to the will of the Creator.
There is a passage in Irenaeus (I. xi. 3, p. 54) which, it has been contended,
gives us another specimen of the teaching of Epiphanes. In giving an account of
the doctrines of some followers of Valentinus, after stating the theory of Secundus,
he goes on to mention the description which another "illustrious teacher of theirs"
(clarus magister) gives of the origin of the primary Tetrad. In this the
first principle is stated to be one existing before all things, surpassing all thought
and speech, which the author calls Oneliness (μονότης).
With this Monotes co-existed a power which he calls Unity (ἑνότης).
This Monotes and Henotes constituting absolute unity (τὸ
ἓν οὖσαι) emitted (though not in any proper sense of that word) a principle
the object of thought only, which reason calls Monad. And with this Monad co-existed
a power consubstantial with it, which the author calls Unit (τὸ
ἓν). From this Tetrad came all the rest of the Aeons. Pearson conjectured
(see Dodwell, Dissect. in Iren. iv. §§ 25) that the "clarus magister" of
the old Latin translation represented ἐπιφανὴς διδάσκαλος,
and that this Epiphanes was a proper name, or at least that there was a play upon
words referring to that name. The doctrine of the extract, then, which seems an
attempt to reconcile the theory of a Tetrad with strong belief in the unity of the
First Principle, might well be a part of the Monadic Gnosis, of which Epiphanes
was said to be the author. Pearson's restoration of the Greek has since been pretty
nearly verified by the recovery of the passage as reproduced by Hippolytus (Ref.
vi. 38), where it runs ἄλλος δέ τις
ἐπιφανὴς διδάσκαλος
αὐτῶν. Here the word in question is plainly an adjective, and Tertullian
so understood it, who translates (adv. Valent. 37) "insignioris apud eos
magistri." On the other hand, Epiphanius understood the passage of Epiphanes. On
examining what he tells of that heretic (Haer.
Epiphanius (1), bp. of Salamis in Cyprus, zealous champion of orthodox faith and monastic piety, was born at Besanduke, a village near Eleutheropolis in Palestine. As in 392, twelve years before his death, he was an aged man, we may conjecturally date his birth between 310 and 320. Much of his early lifetime was spent with the monks of Egypt, among whom he not only acquired a burning zeal for ecclesiastical orthodoxy and the forms of ascetic life then coming into favour, but also first came in contact with various kinds of heretics. When twenty years old he returned home and built a monastery near Besanduke, of which he undertook the direction. He was ordained presbyter by Eutychius, then bp. of Eleutheropolis. With St. Hilarion, the founder of Palestinian monasticism, Epiphanius early stood in intimate relation, and at a time when the great majority of Oriental bishops favoured Arian or semi-Arian views, he adhered with unshaken fidelity to the Nicene faith, and its persecuted champions, Eusebius of Vercelli and Paulinus of Antioch, whom Constantius had banished from their sees. In 367 he was elected bp. of Constantia, the ancient Salamis, in Cyprus, where for 36 years he discharged the episcopal office with the zeal he had shewn in his monastery. The whole island was soon covered with monastic institutions. With the monks of Palestine, and especially of his own monastery at Eleutheropolis, he continued as bishop to hold uninterrupted communication. People consulted him on every important question. Some years after his elevation to the episcopate, he addressed a letter to the faithful in Arabia, in defence of the perpetual virginity of Mary, afterwards incorporated in his great work, Against all Heresies (Haer. lxxviii.). Soon after, several presbyters of Suedra in Pamphylia invoked his assistance in their controversy with Arians and Macedonians. Similar applications came from other quarters; e.g. by an Egyptian Christian named Hypatius, and by a presbyter, Conops, apparently a Pisidian, who, with his co-presbyters, sought instruction in a long series of disputed doctrines. This was the origin of his Αγκυρωτός (Ancoratus) in 374, an exposition of the faith, which, anchor-like, might fix the mind when tossed by the waves of heresy. A similar occasion produced his great heresiological work, written in the years 374-377, the so-called Πανάριον, on which his fame chiefly rests. He wrote this at the request of Acacius and Paulus, two presbyters and heads of monasteries in Coele-Syria, and in it attacks the Gnostic sects of the 2nd and 3rd cents., and the Arians, semi-Arians, Macedonians, Apollinarians, Origenists, of his own time. About 376 he was taking an active part in the Apollinarian controversies. Vitalis, a presbyter of Antioch, had been consecrated bishop by Apollinaris himself; whereupon Epiphanius undertook a journey to Antioch to recall Vitalis from his error and reconcile him to the orthodox bp. Paulinus. His efforts, however, proved unsuccessful. Though not himself present at the oecumenical council of Constantinople, 381, which ensured the triumph of the Nicene doctrine in the Oriental churches, his shorter confession of faith, which is found at the end of his Ancoratus (c. 120) and seems to have been the baptismal creed of the church of Salamis, agrees almost word for word with the Constantinopolitan formula. He took no part in the synod held at Constantinople in 382; but towards the end of that year we find him associated with St. Jerome, Paulinus of Antioch, and the three legates of that synod, at a council held under bp. Damasus at Rome, which appears to have dealt with the Meletian and Apollinarian controversies. At Rome he was domiciled in the house of the elder Paula, who, under the spiritual guidance of St. Jerome, had dedicated her ample fortune to the poor and sick, and Epiphanius seems to have strengthened her in a resolution to forsake home and children for an ascetic life at a great distance from Rome. Early in 383, when the bishops were returning to their sees, Paula went on pilgrimage to the Holy Land. She stayed with Epiphanius in Salamis about 10 days. Somewhat later St. Jerome also visited Epiphanius, on his way to Bethlehem, bringing a train of monks to Cyprus, to salute "the father of almost the whole episcopate, the last relic of ancient piety." Thenceforward we find Epiphanius in almost unbroken intercourse with Jerome, in alliance with whom he began his Origenistic controversies. He had indeed already, in his Ancoratus (c. 54) and still more in his Panarion, attacked Origen as the ancestor of the Arian heresy.
On hearing that Origenism had appeared in Palestine, he hastened thither, in
old age (a.d. 394) to crush it. His
appearance sufficed to drive the ci-devant Origenist Jerome into the bitterest
enmity with his former friends, who refused to repudiate their old attachment. Epiphanius,
received with all honours by the bp. of Jerusalem, preached in the most violent
manner in the church of the Resurrection. Bp. John, after expressing his disapproval
by gestures only for a time, sent his archdeacon to beg him to abstain from speaking
further on these topics. The sermon being over, Epiphanius, as he walked by the
side of John to the church of the Holy Cross, was pressed upon by the people, as
Jerome tells us, from all sides with tokens of veneration. Bp. John, irritated by
the sermon, evidently preached against himself, took the next opportunity to preach
against certain simple and uneducated persons who represented God to themselves
in human form and corporeity. Whereupon Epiphanius rose, and expressing his full
concurrence with this, declared that it was quite as necessary to repudiate the
heresies of Origen as of the Anthropomorphists. He then
According to another account, Theophilus accused him, as well as John, of Anthropomorphism. Epiphanius certainly received in this controversy little or no support from other bishops. He returned to his diocese, followed by Paulinianus. In this way the chief source of dispute between John and the monks of Jerusalem was removed, and Jerome provisionally renewed communion with the bp. of Jerusalem, as well as with his old friend Rufinus. A few years after the close of this first Origenist controversy, Epiphanius found himself involved in much more unpleasant transactions. Among the monks of Egypt the controversy between Anthropomorphists and Origenists continued to rage. Theophilus of Alexandria having in 398 directed a paschal epistle against the Anthropomorphists, a wild army of monks from the wilderness of Scete rushed into Alexandria, and so frightened the bishop that he thought his life depended on immediate concession. From that time Theophilus appears as a strong opponent of Origenism. In his paschal epistle of 399 he opposes the heresies of Origen in the most violent manner. [Theophilus (9).]
Great joy was expressed by Epiphanius. "Know, my beloved son," he writes to Jerome, "that Amalek is destroyed to the very root; on the hill of Rephidim has been erected the banner of the cross. God has strengthened the hands of His servant Theophilus as once He did those of Moses." Epiphanius was soon drawn yet more deeply into these transactions. The bishops began on all sides to speak against the heresies of Origen.
Theophilus having involved himself in a separate conflict of his own with Chrysostom at Constantinople and finding his cause there opposed by the "Long Brothers" from Egypt [Chrysostom], made strenuous efforts to gain the assistance of Epiphanius against the action of those Origenistic monks, calling upon him to pass judgment upon Origen and his heresy by means of a Cypriote synod. Epiphanius assembled a synod, prohibited the works of Origen, and called on Chrysostom to do the same. He was then moved by Theophilus to appear personally, as an ancient combatant of heresy, at Constantinople. In the winter of 402 Epiphanius set sail, convinced that only his appearance was required to destroy the last remains of the Origenistic poison. Accompanied by several of his clergy, he landed near Constantinople. Chrysostom sent his clergy to give him honourable reception at the gates of the city, with a friendly invitation to take up his abode in the episcopal residence. This was rudely refused by the passionate old man, who declared himself unable to hold church communion with Chrysostom until he had expelled the "Long Brothers," and had subscribed a condemnation of the writings of Origen. This Chrysostom gently declined, with a reference to the synod about to be holden; whereupon Epiphanius at once assembled the many bishops already gathered at Constantinople, and required them all to subscribe the decrees of his own provincial council against the writings of Origen. Some consented willingly, others refused. Whereupon the opponents of Chrysostom urged Epiphanius to come forward at the service in the church of the Apostles, and openly preach against the Origenists and their protector Chrysostom. Chrysostom warned Epiphanius to abstain, and the latter may by this time have begun to suspect that he was but a tool in the hands of others. On his way to the church he turned back, and soon after, at a meeting with the "Long Brothers," confessed that he had passed judgment upon them on hearsay only, and, growing weary of the miserable business, determined to return home, but died on board ship in the spring of 403.
His story shews him as an honest, but credulous and narrow-minded, zealot for church orthodoxy. His frequent journeys and extensive reading enabled him to collect a large store of historical information, and this he used with much ingenuity in defending the church orthodoxy of his time. But he exercised really very small influence on dogmatic theology, and his theological polemics were more distinguished by pious zeal than by penetrating intelligence. His refutation of the doctrine of Origen is astoundingly superficial, a few meagre utterances detached from their context being all he gives us, and yet he boasted of having read 6,000 of Origen's works, a much larger number, as Rufinus remarks, than Origen had written.
Those of his time regarded Epiphanius as a saint; wherever he appeared, he was surrounded by admiring disciples, and crowds waited for hours to hear him preach. His biography, written in the name of Polybius, an alleged companion of the saint (printed in the edd. of Petavius and Dindorf), is little more than a collection of legends.
Among his writings the most important are the Ancoratus and Panarion.
The Ancoratus
Besides these two, he had access to many original works of heretics themselves and numerous trustworthy oral traditions. Very valuable are his extracts (Haer. xxxi.) from an old Valentinian work, the Ep. of Ptolemaeus to Flora, which is quoted entire (xxxiii.), and the copious extracts from Marcion's gospel (xlii.). Against the Montanists (xlviii.) he uses an anonymous controversial work of great antiquity, from which Eusebius also (H. E. v. 17) gives large extracts; in his article on the Alogi (Haer. li.) he probably uses the work of Porphyry against the Christians. In the section against Origen (xliv.) copious extracts are introduced from Methodius, περί ἀναστάσεως. Several notices of heresies existing in Epiphanius's own time are derived from his own observation. The last main division of the Panarion (Haer. lxv.-lxxx.), where he carefully notes the different opinions of Arians, semi-Arians, Photinians, Marcellians, Pneumatomachi, Aerians, Aetians, Apollinarists, or Dimoirites, is one of the most important contemporary authorities for the Trinitarian and Christological controversies since the beginning of the 4th cent. Although a fanatical partisan, and therefore not always to be relied on, Epiphanius speaks almost everywhere from his own knowledge and enhances the value of his work by the literal transcription of important documents. Of far inferior value are his attempted refutations, which are further marred by fanatical abuse, misrepresentation of opinions, and attacks on character. He takes particular pleasure in describing real or alleged licentious excesses on the part of heretics; his refutations proper contain sometimes really successful argument, but are generally weak and unhappy. The work concludes with the section περί πιστεως, a glorifying description of the Holy Catholic Church, its faith, its manners, and its ordinances, of great and manifold significance for the history of the church at that time. Each section is preceded by a short summary. An Ἀνακεφαλαίωσις, probably the work of Epiphanius himself (preceded by a short extract from an epistle of Epiphanius to Acacius and Paulus, and followed by an extract from the section setting forth the Catholic faith), almost literally repeats the contents of these summaries. This Ἀνακεφαλαίωσις, a work used by St. Augustine and St. John Damascene, apparently circulated as an independent writing, as did bk. x. of the Philosophumena and the summary added to Hippolytus's σύνταγμα against all heresies and preserved in a Latin translation in the Praescriptiones of Tertullian. Of another more copious epitome—midway between the brevity of the Ἀνακεφαλαίωσις and the details of the Panarion, a large fragment was pub. by Dindorf from a Paris MS., No. 854, in his ed. of Epiphanius, vol. i. pp. 339-369 from a transcript made by Fr. Duebners (cf. also the various readings given by Dindorf from a Cod. Cryptoferrar. vol. iii. p. 2, praef. pp. iv.–xii.).
The best ed., that of W. Dindorf (Leipz. 1859-1862, 5 vols. sm. 8vo), contains
all the genuine writings (the Ancoratus, Anacephalaeosis, Panarion, and
de Mensuris et Ponderibus in the Gk. text, de Gemmis in all three
text forms, and the two epistles in Jerome's trans.), and also the spurious homilies,
the epitome, and the Vita Epiphanii of Polybius. Of works and treatises concerning
Epiphanius may be mentioned the book attributed to the abbé Gervais, L’Histoire
et la vie de St.
Epiphanius (17), 16th bp., 5th patriarch of Constantinople, a.d. 520-535, succeeding John II.
The eastern empire was now rising to great splendour through the victories of its generals, Belisarius and Narses. Idolatry was universally suppressed, heathen books were burnt, pagan images destroyed, the professors of the old religion imprisoned and flogged. At Constantinople the zeal of Justinian for a church policy was shewn during the patriarchate of Epiphanius by laws (e.g. in 528 and 529) regulating episcopal elections and duties. These enactments, and the passivity of Epiphanius and his clergy, are remarkable proofs of the entire absence as yet of any claims such as the clergy later asserted for exclusively clerical legislation for the spirituality.
The first conspicuous office of Epiphanius was the charge of the catechumens at Constantinople. In 519, the year before his election, he was sent with bp. John and count Licinius to Macedonia to receive the documents "libellos," or subscriptions of those who wished reunion with the Catholic church, at the request of the apocrisiarius of Dorotheus bp. of Thessalonica. On Feb. 25, 520, he was elected bishop by the emperor Justin, with the consent of bishops, monks, and people. He is described in the letter of the synod of Constantinople to pope Hormisdas as "holding the right faith, and maintaining a fatherly care for orphans" (Patr. Lat. lxiii. 483). He accepted the conditions of peace between East and West concluded by his predecessor, the patriarch John, with pope Hormisdas; ratifying them at a council at Constantinople, where he accepted also the decrees of Chalcedon. Dioscorus, agent of Hormisdas at Constantinople, writes of his fair promises, but adds, "What he can fulfil we don't know. He has not yet asked us to communion" (ib. 482). Four letters remain of Epiphanius to Hormisdas, telling him of his election, sending him his creed, and declaring that he condemned all those whose name the pope had forbidden to be recited in the diptychs. Epiphanius adopts the symbol of Nicaea, the decrees of Ephesus, Constantinople, and Chalcedon, and the letters of pope Leo in defence of the faith. His second letter was accompanied by a chalice of gold surrounded with precious stones, a patina of gold, a chalice of silver, and two veils of silk, which he presented to the Roman church. In order to make the peace general, he advises the pope not to be too rigorous in exacting the extrusion of the names of former bishops from diptychs. His excuse for the bishops of Pontes, Asia, and the East is composed in very beautiful language. The answers of Hormisdas are given in the Acts of the Council of Constantinople held under Mennas. He trusts to the prudence and experience of Epiphanius, and recommends lenity towards the returning, severity to the obdurate. Epiphanius is to complete the reunion himself. (Labbe, Concil. iv. 1534, 1537, 1545, 1546, 1555, ed. 1671; Patr. Lat. lxiii. 497, 507, 523) The severe measures by which Justin was establishing the supremacy of the Catholics in the East were arousing Theodoric, the Arian master of Italy, to retaliation in the West. Pope John I., the successor of Hormisdas, became thoroughly alarmed; and in 525, at the demand of Theodoric, proceeded to Constantinople to obtain the revocation of the edict against the Arians and get their churches restored to them (Marcellin. Chron. ann. 525; Labbe, Concil. iv. 1600). Great honour was paid to pope John in the eastern capital. The people went out twelve miles to receive him, bearing ceremonial tapers and crosses. The emperor Justin prostrated himself before him, and wished to be crowned by his hand. The patriarch Epiphanius invited him to perform Mass; but the pope, mindful of the traditional policy of encroachment, refused to do so until they had offered him the first seat. With high solemnity he said the office in Latin on Easter Day, communicating with all the bishops of the East except Timothy of Alexandria, the declared enemy of Chalcedon (Baron. 525, 8, 10; Pagi, ix. 349, 351; AA. SS. May 27; Schröckh, xvi. 102, xviii. 214-215; Gibbon, iii. 473; Milman, Lat. Christ. i. 302). In 531 the dispute between Rome and Constantinople was revived by the appeal of Stephen, metropolitan of Larissa, to pope Boniface, against the sentence of Epiphanius. Stephen was eventually deposed, notwithstanding his appeal. On June 5, 535 Epiphanius died, after an episcopate of 14 years and 3 months (Theoph. a.d. 529 in Patr. Gk. cviii. 477). All that is known of him is to his advantage.
Besides his letters to Hormisdas, we have the sentence of his council against Severus and Peter (Patr. Gk. lxxxvi. 783-786). Forty-five canons are attributed to him (Assemani, Bibl. Orient. 619).
Epiphanius (39) Scholasticus, an ecclesiastic c.
a.d. 510, of whom we know scarcely
anything except that he was the friend of Cassiodorus,
the celebrated head of the Monasterium Vivariense. He apparently bore the
name Scholasticus, not so much because of any devotion to literature or theology,
but in the sense that word frequently had in the middle ages, meaning a chaplain,
amanuensis, or general assistant of any dignitary of the church (Du Cange, Glossarium,
s.v.). In this relationship, in all probability, Epiphanius stood to his distinguished
master, by whom he was summoned to take a part in urging his monks to classical
and sacred studies, and especially to the transcription of manuscripts. To Epiphanius
was assigned the translation into Latin of the histories of Socrates, Sozomen, and
Theodoret. Cassiodorus revised the work, corrected faults of style, abridged it,
and arranged it into one continuous history of the church. He then published it
for the use of the clergy. The book attained a high reputation. It was known as
the Tripartite History; and, along with the translation of Eusebius by Rufinus,
it became the manual of church history for the clergy of the West for
Epiphanius translated several additional works, such as the commentaries of Didymus upon the Proverbs of Solomon and the seven Catholic Epistles, those of Epiphanius bp. of Cyprus upon the Canticles, and perhaps others, of which one survives, and may be found in Labbe (Conc. t. v.), namely, his Codex Encyclicus, a work to which he was also urged by Cassiodorus. It is a collection of letters addressed by different synods to the emperor Leo in defence of the decrees of the council of Chalcedon against Timotheus Aelurus.
Eraclius (1) (Heraclius, in the older editions Eradius), deacon of the church of Hippo a.d. 425, had inherited considerable property, part of which he spent in raising a "memoria" of the martyr [Stephen]; the rest he offered as a gift to the church. St. Augustine, fearing that the absolute acceptance of such a gift from so young a man might be the subject of future reproval or regret, caused Eraclius first to invest the money in land, which might be given back to him should any unforeseen reason for restitution arise. On becoming one of Augustine's clergy, Eraclius made his poverty complete by setting free a few slaves whom he had retained (Aug. Serm. 356, vol. v. 1387). In 426 Augustine was summoned to Milevis, to obviate some threatened dissensions. Severus, the late bishop, had designated his successor in his lifetime, but had made his choice known to his clergy only. This caused discontent, and the interference of Augustine was judged necessary to secure the unanimous acceptance of the bishop so chosen. Augustine, then in his 72nd year, was thus reminded of the expedience of securing his own church from similar trouble at his death, and he made choice of Eraclius, then apparently the junior presbyter of the church, to be his coadjutor and designate successor (D. C. A. i. 228). Only, though he had himself been ordained bishop in the lifetime of his predecessor, Valerius, he now held that this had been an unconscious violation of the Nicene canon against having two bishops in the same church, and therefore resolved that Eraclius, while discharging all the secular duties of the see, should remain a presbyter until his own death. To obviate future dispute, he assembled his people (Sept. 26, 426) to obtain their consent to the arrangement, having the notaries of the church in attendance to draw up regular "gesta" of the proceedings, which those present were asked to subscribe (Ep. 213, vol. ii. p. 788).
The capture of Hippo by the Vandals prevented the arrangements from taking effect, and Augustine does not appear to have had any successor in his see. Eraclius, in 427, held a private discussion with Maximinus, the Arian bishop, which led to a public disputation between Maximinus and Augustine (Coll. cum Max. viii. 650). Two sermons by Eraclius are preserved, the first of which, preached in Augustine's presence, is almost all taken up with compliments and apologies (v. 1523 and 72, Append. p. 131).
Ethelbert (1) I. (properly Aethelberht or Aethelbriht; Bede,
Aedilberct), king of Kent, son of Irminric, and great-grandson of Oeric,
surnamed Oisc, the son of Hengist, succeeded to the kingdom of the Kentishmen as
the heir of the "Aescingas" in 560 (the date, 565, in the Chronicle is inconsistent
with Bede's reckoning given below). Some years after his accession he provoked a
conflict with Ceawlin, the West Saxon king, and Cutha, his brother, was defeated
at Wimbledon with the loss of two ealdormen and driven back into Kent (Sax. Chron.
A.658). Ethelbert had already married
Bertha or Berhte, daughter of Charibert, king of Paris, on the understanding that
she should be free to practise "the rites of her own Christian religion," under
a bishop named Liudhard, chosen by her parents (Bede, i. 25). Ethelbert faithfully
observed this compact, but shewed no curiosity about his wife's creed. She and her
episcopal chaplain worshipped undisturbed in the old Roman-British church of St.
Martin, on a hill E. of Ethelbert's city of Canterbury (Bede, i. 26). Ethelbert
succeeded, on the death of Ceawlin in 593, to that pre-eminence among the Saxon
and Anglican kings usually described as the Bretwaldadom (see Freeman, Norm.
Conq. i. 542). Four years later, in the spring of 597, he was brought face to
face with a band of Christian missionaries, headed by Augustine, whom pope Gregory
the Great had sent to "bring him the best of all messages, which would ensure to
all who received it eternal life and an endless kingdom with the true and living
God" (Bede, i. 29). Ethelbert had sent word to the foreigners to remain in the Isle
of Thanet, where they had landed, and "supplied them with all necessaries until
he should see what to do with them." He soon came into the isle, and sitting down
with his "gesiths" or, attendant thanes in the open air (for he feared the effect
of spells under a roof) listened attentively to the speech of Augustine.
[Augustinus.]
Then he spoke in some such words as Bede has rendered immortal. "Your words and
your promises are fair; but seeing they are new and uncertain, I cannot give in
to them, and leave the rites which I, with the whole race of the Angles, have so
long observed. But since you are strangers who have come from afar, and, as I think
I have observed, have desired to make us share in what you believe to be true and
thoroughly good, we do not mean to hurt you, but rather shall take care to receive
you with kindly hospitality, and to afford you what you need for your support; nor
do we forbid you to win over to your faith, by preaching, as many as you can." He
gave them a dwelling in Canterbury, N.W. of the present cathedral precinct. They
began to make converts, as Bede tells us, through the charm of their preaching,
and the still more powerful influence of consistent lives. Shortly afterwards Ethelbert
expressed his belief in the truth of those promises which he had described as unheard-of,
and was baptized; the time, according to Canterbury tradition, was June 1, the Whitsun-eve
of 597 the place, undoubtedly, was St. Martin's. The king proved one of the truest
and noblest of royal converts. He built a new palace at Regulbium or Reculver, abandoning
his old abode to Augustine, now consecrated as archbishop, and adding the gift of
various
Etheria. [Sylvia.]
Eucherius (1), St., bp. of Lyons, prob. born late in 4th cent.; except perhaps St. Irenaeus the most distinguished occupant of that see.
Authorities.—Sidonius Apollinaris, Ep. lib. iii. 8.; St. Isidorus, de Ecclesiasticis Scriptoribus, cap. xv.; Gennadius, de Illustribus Ecclesiae Scriptorabus, cap. lxiii.; Cassianus, some of whose Collationes (xi.–xvii.) are addressed to Eucherius and Honoratus. [Cassianus (11).]
Born in a high social position, he married Galla, a lady of his own station. Their two sons, Salonius and Veranius, received an ecclesiastical education in the monastery of Lerinum under St. Honoratus and Salvanius; and both, appear, from the title of the commentary on Kings, falsely ascribed to Eucherius, to have become bishops during the lifetime of their father.
The civic duties of Eucherius (whatever they were) appear to have been discharged conscientiously and vigorously. Sidonius Apollinaris is loud in the praise of his friend as a layman, and compares him (Ep. viii.) to the Bruti and Torquati of old. But the world, then in a very turbulent and unsettled condition, palled upon Eucherius, and while still in the vigour of life he sought a retreat from its cares and temptations on the island of Lerinum, the smaller of the two isles now known as the Lérins, off Antibes; and subsequently on the larger one of Lero, now called Sainte Marguerite. Here he pursued an ascetic life of study and worship, devoting himself also to the education of his children. During this period he composed the two undoubtedly genuine works which we possess.
Intercourse, both personal and by correspondence, with eminent ecclesiastics tended to make widely known his deserved reputation for sanctity and for a varied and considerable learning, and c. 434 the church of Lyons unanimously, unsought, elected him bishop. He brought to the discharge of this office the influence and experience acquired in lay government, as well as the spiritual training and erudition won in his retirement. He was bishop some 16 years, the remainder of his life, and Claudianus Mamertus speaks of him as "magnorum sui saeculi pontificum longe maximus." He was succeeded by his son Veranius, while Geneva became the see of his other son Salonius.
Works.—1. Epistola, seu Libellus, de laude Eremi. This short treatise, addressed to St. Hilary of Arles, is assigned, with probability, to a.d. 428. The Collationes of Cassian, composed at the request of Eucherius, had given so vivid a picture of the hermits of the Thebaid as to call forth this epistle. The author calls attention to the blessings recorded in Holy Scripture as connected with lonely spots (e.g. the law was given in the wilderness and the chosen race fed with bread from heaven) and to the sanction given to retirement by the examples of Moses, Elijah, St. John Baptist, and our Lord Himself. In reference to this last he exclaims, "O laus magna deserti, ut diabolus, qui vicerat in Paradiso, in Eremo vinceretur"; and notices the withdrawal of Christ to solitude for prayer, and the fact of the Transfiguration taking place on a mountain.
2. Epistola Paraenetica ad Valerianum cognatum. "De contemptu mundi et saecularis philosophiae." Its date is probably c. a.d. 432. Eucherius evidently desires his highly-placed and wealthy kinsman to follow him in retirement from the world. Valerian is reminded of the many saintly doctors of the church who had once occupied an exalted secular position; e.g. Clement of Rome, Gregory Thaumaturgus, Gregory Nazianzen, Basil, Paulinus of Nola, Ambrose, etc. The Latin of this epistle won the approbation of Erasmus, who published an edition, accompanied by scholia, at Basle, a.d. 1520.
3. Liber formularum spiritalis intelligentiae
4. Instructionum Libri Duo ad Salonium filium. Of this treatise, the former book discusses difficulties in the O. and N.T., such as the scriptural evidence for the doctrine of the Holy Trinity; the permission of polygamy to the patriarchs; the existence of evil, which (with many other divines) he makes simply the privation of good, etc. The second book deals with Hebrew names, but does not display a very profound acquaintance with Hebrew. Eucherius quotes with much respect the version of the O.T. by Aquila.
There are also Homilies by him, and some other works are ascribed to him of doubtful authenticity.
Editions.—There is no complete edition of the writings of Eucherius. For this art. the Bibliotheca Patrum Maxima (Lugduni), a.d. 1677 (t. vi. p. 822), has been used. Cf. A. Gouillond, St. Eucher. Lérins et l’Eglise de Lyon au V e Siècle (Lyons, 1881).
Euchites. Doctrines and Practices.—At the beginning of the last
quarter of the 4th cent. or a little earlier, fanatics made their appearance in
Syria, whose manner of life was said to have been introduced from Mesopotamia, and
who were known by the Syriac name of Messalians or Massalians
(מְצָלין),
praying people. צְלָא oravit is found
in the Chaldee (
In the time of Epiphanius the Messalians scarcely were a sect, having no settled system nor recognized leader; and Epiphanius imputes to them no error of doctrine, but only criticizes their manner of life.
Two accounts of Euchite doctrine are apparently of greater antiquity than the authors who preserve them. One is given by Timotheus (de Receptione Haer. in Cotelier's Mon. Ecc. Gr. iii. 400). This writer was a presbyter of Constantinople in the 6th cent. His coincidences with Theodoret are too numerous to be well explained except on the supposition of common sources. These sources probably were the Acts of the councils of Antioch and Side, which contained summaries of Messalian doctrine. Theodoret may possibly also have used a Messalian book called Asceticus, the doctrines of which, Photius tells us, had been exposed and anathematized at the council of Ephesus in 431. Probably that book furnished the "heads of the impious doctrine of the Messalians taken from their own book" given by Joannes Damascenus (de Haer. ap. Cotelier, Mon. Ecc. Gr. i. 302, and Opp. Le Quien, i. 95), but which would seem also (see Wolf, Hist. Bogomil. p. 11) to have been separately preserved in two MSS. at Leipzig (Acta Eruditorum, 1696, p. 299; 1699, p. 157; and in the Bodleian, Cod. Barocc. 185).
They held that in consequence of Adam's sin every one had from his birth a demon,
substantially united to his soul, which incited him to sin, and which baptism was
ineffectual to expel. Dealing only with past sin, baptism did but shear off the
surface growth, and did not touch the root of the evil. The true remedy was intense,
concentrated prayer, continued till it produced a state from which all affections
and volitions were banished (ἀπάθεια). In this
the soul felt as sensible a consciousness of union with its heavenly bridegroom
as an earthly bride in the embraces of her husband. Then the demon went out in the
spittle or in the mucus of the nose, or was seen to depart in smoke or in the form
of a serpent, and there was in like manner sensible evidence of the entrance of
the Holy Spirit. St. Augustine (Haer. 57), who had some source of information
independent of Epiphanius, ascribes to them a fancy that the Holy Spirit might be
seen to enter in the appearance of innocuous fire, and the demon to pass out of
the man's mouth in the form of a sow with her farrow. Possibly language intended
by them metaphorically was misunderstood; for they described the soul of him who
had not Christ in him as the abode of serpents and venomous beasts. They further
thought that he who had arrived at the passionless state could see the Holy Trinity
with his bodily eyes; that the three hypostases of the Trinity coalesced into one,
which united itself with worthy souls. This doctrine no doubt furnishes the key
to the account given by Epiphanius of the effacement of the sense of distinct personality
in members of this
History.—The first whom we read of as a leader of the sect is Adelphius; hence "Adelphians" was one of their many names. He was a layman of Mesopotamia. Epiphanius speaks of them in his time as having no recognized leader. Theodoret tells that Flavian bp. of Antioch sent monks to bring the Messalian teachers at Edessa to Antioch. They denied their doctrines, and charged their accusers with calumny. Flavian then used an artifice afterwards repeated by Alexius Comnenus in the case of the Bogomiles. He affected to take their part, treated the aged Adelphius with great respect, and led him to believe that he would find in an aged bishop one able to understand and sympathize with views which younger men rejected only from want of experience. Adelphius, having been thus enticed into a full disclosure of his sentiments, was rebuked in the words addressed by Daniel to the wicked elder (Susanna, 52) and punished as convicted out of his own mouth. He and his party were beaten, excommunicated, and banished, and were not allowed, as they wished, the alternative of recantation, no confidence being felt in their sincerity, especially as they were found communicating in friendly terms with Messalians whom they had anathematized. Probably it was on this occasion that Flavian held a synod against them (Photius, 52), attended by three other bishops (Bizus of Seleucia, a Mesopotamian bishop, Maruthas, described by Photius as bp. of the Supharenians, and Samus) and by about 30 clergy. With Adelphius there were condemned two persons named Sabas, one of them a monk and a eunuch, Eustathius of Edessa, Dadoes, Hermas, Symeon, and others. Flavian informed the bishops of Edessa and neighbourhood what had been done, and received an approving reply. The Messalians banished from Syria went to Pamphylia, and there met new antagonists. They were also condemned by a council of 25 bishops held at Side and presided over by Amphilochius of Iconium, which sent a synodical letter to Flavian, informing him of their proceedings. In their Acts Amphilochius gave a full statement of the Messalian tenets expressed in their own words. Photius represents the synod at Antioch just mentioned as having been called in consequence of the synodical letter from Side, but this is more than doubtful, though Theodoret also, in his Eccl. Hist., mentions the proceedings in Pamphylia before mentioning those which resulted in the banishment of the Messalians to Pamphylia. We cannot fix the year of these proceedings, but c. 390 will probably not be far wrong. Measures were taken against the Messalians in Armenia also. Letoius bp. of Melitene obtained information from Flavian as to the proceedings in Antioch. Finding some monasteries in his diocese infected by this heresy, he set fire to them, and hunted the wolves from his sheepfold. A less zealous Armenian bishop was rebuked by Flavian for favour shewn to these heretics. In Pamphylia the contest lasted for several years. The orthodox leaders were another Amphilochius, bp. of Side, and Verinianus bp. of Perga, who were stimulated by energetic letters from Atticus bp. of Constantinople, and later, in a.d. 426, from the synod held for the consecration of Sisinnius, the successor of Atticus, in which Theodotus of Antioch and a bishop named Neon are mentioned by Photius as taking active parts. Messalianism had probably at that time given some trouble in Constantinople itself. Nilus (de Vol. Paup. ad Magnam, 21) couples with Adelphius of Mesopotamia, Alexander, who polluted Constantinople with like teaching, and against whom he contends that their idleness, instead of aiding devotion, gave scope to evil thoughts and passions and was inimical to the true spirit of prayer. Tillemont has conjectured that this was the Alexander who about this time founded the order of the Acoimetae (see D. C. A. s.v.), but the identification is far from certain. There is no evidence that the latter was a heretic save that his name has not been honoured with the prefix of saint; and his institution would scarcely have met with the success it did if it could have been represented as devised by a notorious Messalian to carry out the notions of his sect as to the duty of incessant prayer.
Between the accession of Sisinnius and the council of Ephesus in 431, John of
Antioch wrote to Nestorius about the Messalians, and Theodosius legislated against
them (xvi. Cod. Theod. de Haer. vol. vi. p. 187). At Ephesus Valerian of
Iconium, and Amphilochius of Side, in the name of the bps. of Lycaonia and Pamphylia,
obtained from the council a confirmation of the decrees made against the Euchites
at Constantinople in 426 and the anathematization of the Messalian book, Asceticus,
passages from which Valerian laid before the synod (Mansi, iv. 1477). Fabricius
names Agapius, and Walch Adelphius, as the
The next Messalian leader of whom we read (in Timotheus) is Marcian, a money-changer, who lived in the middle of the 6th cent., and from whom these sectaries came to be called Marcianists. The correspondence of Gregory the Great, already referred to, arose out of the condemnation under this name, unknown in the West, in 595, of one John, a presbyter of Chalcedon. He appealed to the pope, who pronounced him orthodox, complaining that he had not even been able to make out from his accusers what the heresy of Marcianism was. In the 7th cent. Maximus, in his scholia on the Pseudo-Dionysius (II. 88), charges those whom he calls indifferently Lampetians, Messalians, Adelphians, or Marcianists, with giving but three years to ascetic life and the rest of their life to all manner of debauchery.
We hear no more of the Messalians till the Bogomile heresy arose in the 12th cent.
Of modern writers, the most useful are Tillemont, viii. 530; Walch, Hist. der Ketz. iii. 418; and Neander, Ch. Hist. iii. 323.
Eudoxius (2), 8th bp. of Constantinople (360-370), previously bp. of Germanicia and of Antioch, one of the most influential Arians. Between 324 and 331 St. Eustathius was bp. of Antioch. Eudoxius came to him seeking holy orders. Eustathius found his doctrine unsound and refused him. But when Eustathius was deposed, the Arians or Eusebians had everything their own way, and admitted Eudoxius to orders and made him bp. of Germanicia, on the confines of Syria, Cilicia, and Cappadocia. This bishopric he held at least 17 years, the dark period of the principal intrigues against Athanasius, and of the reigns of the sons of Constantine. In 341 was held, at Antioch, the council of the Dedication or Encaenia, under Placillus. Eudoxius of Germanicia attended. He was an Arian pure and simple, a disciple of Aetius, a friend of Eunomius. The council produced four creeds, in which the Eusebian party succeeded in making their doctrine as plausible as might be, and the second of these became known as the "Creed of the Dedication." Athanasius says that Eudoxius was sent with Martyrius and Macedonius to take the new creed of Antioch to Italy. This new creed may, however, have been the Macrostich, or Long Formula, drawn up at a later council of Antioch. In 343 or 347 the rival councils of Sardica and Philippopolis were held. At the latter was drawn up a creed more Arian than those of Antioch, and it was signed by Eudoxius. At the end of 347 Eudoxius was in attendance on the emperor in the West, when news came of the death of Leontius of Antioch. Excusing himself on the plea that the affairs of Germanicia required his presence, he hastened to Antioch, and, representing himself as nominated by the emperor, got himself made bishop, and sent Asphalus, a presbyter of Antioch, to make the best of the case at court. Constantius wrote to the church of Antioch: "Eudoxius went to seek you without my sending him. . . . To what restraint will men be amenable, who impudently pass from city to city, seeking with a most unlawful appetite every occasion to enrich themselves?" Meanwhile the new prelate was preaching open Arianism and persecuting the orthodox. In the first year of his episcopate at Antioch he held a council, which received the creed of Sirmium. An idea may be formed of his sermons from three different sources. Hilary of Poictiers, then in the East, heard Eudoxius in his cathedral, and wished his ears had been deaf, so horribly blasphemous was the language. Theodoret and Epiphanius report him as boasting that he had the same knowledge about God as God had about Himself.
A council was held at Seleucia in Sept. 359, the orthodox forming a very small
minority. The majority signed the "Creed of the Dedication";
Eudoxius consecrated his friend Eunomius to the see of Cyzicus; but such complaints were brought to the emperor that he ordered Eudoxius to depose him. Eudoxius, terrified by menaces, persuaded him quietly to retire.
In 365 an attack was made on Eudoxius by the semi-Arians, now called Macedonians. Holding a meeting at Lampsacus, they signed the "Creed of the Dedication," cited Eudoxius and his party before them, and, as they did not come, sentenced them to deprivation; but Valens refused to confirm the proceedings. In 367 Valens, as he was setting out for the Gothic war, was induced by his wife to receive baptism from Eudoxius. In the same year he issued, doubtless under the advice of Eudoxius, an order that such bishops as had been banished by Constantius and had returned under Julian should again be exiled.
The years during which Eudoxius and Valens acted together were troubled by portents, which many attributed to the anger of Heaven at the cruelty of Valens in banishing bishops who would not admit Eudoxius to their communion. Eudoxius died in 370. He well deserves the character given him by Baronius, "the worst of all the Arians." Soz. H. E. iv. 26; Socr. H. E. ii. 19, 37, 40, 43; Theoph. Chronogr. § 38; Niceph. Callist. H. E. xi. 4; Theod. H. E. ii. 25; Haer. Fab. iv. 3; Epiph. de Haeres. lxxiii. 2; Athan. ad Solit. in Patr. Gk. xxvi. 572, 219, 589, 274, 580, 713, 601; Hilarius, de Synod., Patr. Lat. x. 471, etc.; Liber contr. Const. Imp. §§ 665, 680, 573, etc.
Eulalius (1), an antipope, elected and ordained as bp. of Rome after the death of Zosimus at the close of 418, in opposition to Boniface I., who was finally established in the see, Eulalius being expelled from Rome by the emperor Honorius in April 419. The official letters which passed have been preserved in the Vatican, and are quoted at length by Baronius (A. E. ann. 418, lxxix. 419, ii.–xxxii.). They throw light on the conflicts attending the election of bishops, and on the powers exercised by the emperors in connexion therewith. First we have a letter (Dec. 29, 418) to Honorius at Ravenna from Symmachus the Praefectus Urbis, stating that, after he had warned the people to proceed to a new election without disturbance, Eulalius the archdeacon had been taken to the Lateran church by the clergy and people, duly elected, and ordained; while certain presbyters, accompanied by a crowd, had gone with Bonifacius, a presbyter, to the church of Theodora, and, though warned to do nothing rashly, had ordained him in the church of St. Marcellus, and thence took him to St. Peter's basilica. He requests the instructions of the emperor, with whom, he says, it rests to give judgment in such a case. Honorius replies (Jan. 3, 419) by ordering Boniface to be expelled from the city, and the authors of the sedition in his favour punished, Eulalius having been duly appointed according to the rule of Catholic discipline (competens numerus ordinantium, solemnitas temporis, locique qualitas) and the rival election being deficient in these respects. Symmachus replies (Jan. 8) that he has carried out the emperor's order, not without resistance on the part of Boniface, who had caused a messenger sent to forbid a procession to be beaten by the people; had held the procession; and had forcibly entered the city, but had been expelled by an opposing mob; while Eulalius had celebrated service in the basilica of St. Peter amid the acclamations of almost the whole city.
Meantime the presbyters who supported Boniface had sent a different account. They had been unable, they say, to assemble in the customary place, the Lateran church, because of its being occupied by Eulalius with a very small number of presbyters and an excited mob; they were the great majority of the clergy, supported by the better part of the laity; amid general acclamation they had elected Boniface, in whose ordination 70 priests and 9 bishops of divers provinces had concurred; whereas the bp. of Ostia, a sick old man almost at the point of death, had been brought against his will to assist in the ordination of Boniface's rival.
Having received this counter-statement, Honorius writes to Symmachus (Jan. 15), revoking his former edict; commanding the attendance at Ravenna (Feb. 8) of Boniface and Eulalius, with their respective supporters, before a synod.
The documents shew that the members of this synod were divided, and unable to
come to a decision before Easter (
Eulalius retired to Antium, near Rome, expecting the death of Boniface, who fell sick after his accession, but this hope failing, he made no further attempt to recover the see, though invited to do so by his partisans in Rome on the death of Boniface in 423. According to the Liber Pontificalis, he afterwards became bp. of Nepete.
From this account, extracted from contemporary documents, the following facts are evident. First, that with the ancient custom of election of a new bishop by the clergy, with the assent of the laity, and confirmation by provincial bishops, there was no desire on the part of the civil power to interfere. Secondly, that elections had come to be conducted in an irregular and tumultuous manner, giving rise [Damasus] to violent conflicts, with bloodshed even in the churches. Thirdly, that it was the necessity of restoring order, and adjudicating between rival claims, that led to the interposition of the emperor. Fourthly, that in this case the emperor did not insist on a right to decide on the validity of either election without first submitting the question to an episcopal synod. Fifthly, eventually, serious provocation being given, he settled the question on his own authority, without the sanction of a synod or regard to the canonicity of the original election. A statement in the Liber Pontificalis that Eulalius was deposed by a synod of 252 bishops is inconsistent with the contemporary evidence given above, and, as such, Baronius rejects it.
Eulogius (4), bp. of Edessa. When a presbyter there he suffered in the persecution by Valens. Barses the bishop having been deposed and exiled, the orthodox refused to communicate with an Arian prelate, intruded into the see. Modestus the prefect commanded the leading ecclesiastics to obey the emperor and communicate with the new prelate. The whole body, led by Eulogius, offered so firm a resistance that Modestus sentenced them, 80 in number, to transportation to Thrace. The confessors received so much honour there that Valens relegated them, two and two, to distant localities, Eulogius with a presbyter Protogenes being sent to Antinous in the Thebaid. Though there was a Catholic bishop here the population was almost entirely pagan, and the two presbyters commenced missionary work among them. On the cessation of the persecution Eulogius and Protogenes returned to Edessa, where, Barses being dead, Eulogius was consecrated bishop by Eusebius of Samosata (Theod. H. E. iv. 18, v. 4). He attended the councils held at Rome in 369 (Labbe, ii. 894), Antioch in 379, and Constantinople in 381 (ib. 955). See Soz. vi. 34; and Migne's note 61, Patr. Gk. lxvii. 1394.
Eunomius (3) of Cappadocia, bp. of Cyzicus (360-364) after the expulsion of Eleusius. As the pupil and secretary of Aetius, he formulated his master's system with a preciseness which stamped the name of Eunomians instead of that of Aetians on the Anomoean heretics. He was distinguished by "a faculty of subtle disputation and hard mechanical reasoning" (Newman, Arians, c. iv. § 4), which subjected the Christian verities to strict logical processes, and rejected every doctrine that could not be shewn to be consistent with human reason. Neander further describes him as the decided enemy of asceticism, and of the growing disposition to worship saints and relics—in fact, the "Rationalist" of the 4th cent. (Ch. Hist. iv. p. 78, Clark's trans.).
The name of his birthplace is given as Dacora by Sozomen and Philostorgius, and as Oltiseris by Gregory Nyssen, who correctly places it on the confines of Cappadocia and Galatia (Soz. H. E. vii. 17; Philost. H. E. x. 6, xi. 5). Eunomius came of an honest, industrious stock. His father, an unpretending, hard-working man, supported his family by the produce of his land and by teaching a few neighbours' children in the winter evenings (Greg. Nys. in Eunom. i. p. 291). Eunomius inherited his father's independent spirit. He learnt shorthand, and became amanuensis to a kinsman and tutor to his children. The country becoming distasteful to him, he went to Constantinople, hoping to study rhetoric. Gregory Nyssen, who endeavours to blacken his character as much as possible, hints that his life there was not very reputable, but specifies no charges. It was reported that he worked as a tailor, making clothes and girdles. Before very long he returned to Cappadocia.
The fame of Aetius, then teaching at Alexandria, reaching Eunomius, he proceeded thither c. 356, and placed himself under his instruction, acting also as his amanuensis (Socr. H. E. ii. 35, iv. 7; Soz. H. E. vi. 27; Philost. H. E. iii. 20; Greg. Nys. in Eunom. i. p. 290). He accompanied Aetius to Antioch at the beginning of 358, to attend the Arian council summoned by Eudoxius, who had through court favour succeeded to the see of Antioch.
The bold front displayed by the Arians at this council, and the favour shewn
to the flagrant blasphemies of Aetius and Eunomius, who did not scruple to assert
the absolute unlikeness (ἀνόμοιον) of the Son
to the Father, excited the strong opposition of the semi-Arian party, of which George
of Laodicea, Basil of Ancyra, and Macedonius of Constantinople, were the highly
respectable leaders. Under colour of the dedication of a church, a council was speedily
held by them at Ancyra at which the Anomoean doctrines and their authors were condemned.
A synodical letter was sent to the emperor denouncing the teaching of Eunomius and
his master and charging the latter with being privy to the conspiracy of Gallus
(Philost. H. E. iv. 8). These proceedings struck dismay into the Arian clique
at Antioch, and Eunomius, now a deacon, was sent to Constantinople as their advocate.
But, apprehended in Asia Minor by some imperial officers, he was banished by the
emperor's orders to Midaeus or Migde in Phrygia; Aetius to Pepuza. Eudoxius found
Eunomianism, a cold, logical system, lacked elements of vitality, and notwithstanding its popularity at first, did not long survive its authors. In the following century, when Theodoret wrote, the body had dwindled to a scanty remnant, compelled to conceal themselves and hold their meetings in such obscure corners that they had gained the name of "Troglodytes" (Theod. Haer. Fab. iv. 3). St. Augustine remarked that in his time the few Anomoeans existing were all in the East and that there were none in Africa (Aug. de Past. Cur. c. 8, p. 278).
Eunomius endeavoured to develop Arianism as a formal doctrinal system; starting
with the conception of God as the absolute simple Being, of Whom neither self-communication
nor generation can be predicated. His essence is in this, that He is what He is
of Himself alone, underived, unbegotten—and as being the only unbegotten One, the
Father, in the strict sense of Deity, is alone God; and as He is unbegotten, inasmuch
as begetting necessarily involves the division and impartation of being, so it is
impossible for Him to beget. If that which was begotten shared in the
Θεότης of the Deity, God would not be the absolute
unbegotten One, but would be divided into a begotten and an unbegotten God. A communication
of the essence of God, such as that involved in the idea of generation, would transfer
to the Absolute Deity the notions of time and sense. An eternal generation was to
Eunomius a thing absolutely inconceivable. A begetting, a bringing forth, could
not be imagined as without beginning and end. The generation of the Son of God must
therefore have had its beginning, as it must have had its termination, at a definite
point of time. It is, therefore, incompatible with the predicate of eternity. If
that can be rightly asserted of the Son, He must equally, with the Father, be unbegotten.
This denial of the eternal generation of the Son involved also the denial of the
likeness of His essence to that of the Father, from which the designation of the
party, "Anomoean," was derived. That which is begotten, he asserted, cannot possibly
resemble the essence of that which is unbegotten; hence, equality of essence, "Homoousian,"
or even similarity of essence, "Homoiousian," is untenable. Were the begotten to
resemble the unbegotten in its essence, it must cease to be unbegotten. Were the
Father and the Son equal, the Son must also be unbegotten, a consequence utterly
destructive of the fundamental doctrine of generation and subordination. Such generation,
moreover, Eunomius held to be essentially impossible. If then, according to the
teaching of the church, the
The entire want of spiritual depth and life in Eunomius is shewn by his maintaining that the Divine nature is perfectly comprehensible by the human intellect, and charging those who denied this with an utter ignorance of the first principles of Christianity. He accused them of preaching an unknown God, and even denied their right to be called Christians at all, since without knowledge of God there could be no Christianity; while he denied to those who did not hold his views as to the nature of God and the generation of the Son the possession of any true knowledge of the Divine Being. He held that Christ had been sent to lead other creatures up to God, the primal source of all existence, as a Being external to Himself, and that believers should not stop at the generation of the Son, but having followed Him as far as He was able to lead them, should soar above Him, as above all created beings, whether material or spiritual, to God Himself, the One Absolute Being, as their final aim, that in the knowledge of Him they might obtain eternal life. Eunomius's poor and low idea of the knowledge of God placed it merely in a formal illumination of the understanding and a theoretical knowledge of God and spiritual truth, instead of in that fellowship with God as made known to us in Christ and that knowledge which comes from love, which the church has ever held to be the true life of the soul. In harmony with this formal, intellectual idea of knowledge, as the source of Christian life, Eunomius assigned a lower place to the sacraments than to the teaching of the word, depreciating the liturgical, as compared with the doctrinal, element of Christianity. As quoted by Gregory Nyssen, he asserted that "the essence of Christianity did not depend for its ratification on sacred terms, on the special virtue of customs and mystic symbols, but on accuracy of doctrine" (Greg. Nys. in Eunom. p. 704). For fuller statements of the doctrinal system of Eunomius, see Dorner, Doctrine of the Person of Christ, div. i. vol. ii. pp. 264 ff., Clark's trans.; Neander, Ch. Hist. vol. iv. pp. 77 ff., Clark's trans.; Herzog, Real-Encycl. "Eunomius und Eunomianer" (from which works the foregoing account has been derived); Klose, Geschichte und Lehre des Eunomius (1833); Bauer, Dreieinigkeit, i. pp. 365-387; Meyer, Trinitätslehre, pp. 175 ff.; Lange, Arianismus in seiner weiteren Entwickelung.
Eunomius, as a writer, was more copious than elegant. Photius speaks very depreciatingly of his studied obscurity, the weakness of his arguments, and his logical power. Socrates estimates his style no less unfavourably (H. E. iv. 7). Notwithstanding these alleged defects, his writings, which Rufinus states were very numerous and directed against the Christian faith (H. E. i. 25), were much esteemed by his followers, who, according to Jerome, valued their authority more highly than that of the Gospels (Hieron. adv. Vigil. t. ii. p. 123). The bold blasphemies in these books caused their destruction. Successive imperial edicts, one of Arcadius, dated not more than four years after his death a.d. 398 (Cod. Theod. t. vi. p. 152; lib. xvi. 34), commanded that his books should be burnt, and made the possession of any of his writings a capital crime. Little of his writing remains, save some few fragments preserved in the works of his theological adversaries. His Exposition of Faith and his Apologeticus are the only pieces extant of any length.
(1) ἔκθεσις πίστεως, Fidei libellus. A confession of faith presented to Theodosius, a.d. 383 (Socr. H. E. vii. 12), first printed by Valesius in his notes to Socrates, afterwards by Baluze in Conciliorum Nov. Collect. i. 89, and in Fabricius, Biblioth. Graeca, v. 23.
(2) Apologeticus, in 28 sections. This is his most famous work, in which, with much subtlety, he seeks to refute the Nicene doctrine of the Trinity, especially the co-eternal and consubstantial divinity of Christ. Basil the Great thought the book worth an elaborate refutation, in five books, adversus Eunomium (Migne, Patr. Gk. xxx. 835). An English trans. was pub. by Whiston in his Eunomianismus Redivivus (Lond. 1711, 8vo).
Cave, Hist. Lit. i. p. 219; Fab. Bibl. Graeca,
Euphemitae, also known as Messalians, "praying people," and therefore reckoned by Epiphanius (Haer. 80) as predecessors of the Christian sect so called. Epiphanius, our sole informant, tells us that they were neither Christians, Jews, nor Samaritans, but heathen, believing in a plurality of gods, but offering worship only to one whom they called the Almighty. They built oratories, some of which exactly resembled Christian churches; in these they met at evening and early morn, with many lights, to join in hymns and prayer. We learn from Epiphanius with some surprise that some of the magistrates put several of these people to death for perversion of the truth and unwarranted imitation of church customs, and that in particular Lupicianus, having thus punished some of them, gave occasion to a new error, for they buried the bodies, held services at the spot, and called themselves martyriani. Epiphanius also charges a section of the Euphemites with calling themselves Sataniani and worshipping Satan, thinking that by such service they might disarm his hostility. It does not appear that Epiphanius means to assert that the Christian Euchites were historically derived from these heathen Euphemites, but merely that there was a general resemblance of practices between them. Tillemont conjectured (viii. 529) that the Euphemites of Epiphanius might be identical with the Hypsistarii of Greg. Naz., or less probably with the Coelicolae of Africa. [Euchites.]
Euphemius (4), 3rd patriarch of Constantinople, succeeding Fravitta and followed by Macedonius II. He ruled six years and three months, a.d. 489-496, and died in 515. Theophanes calls him Euthymius. He was a presbyter of Constantinople, administrator of a hospital for the poor at Neapolis, untinged with any suspicion of Eutychian leanings, and is described as learned and very virtuous. Finding that Peter Mongus, the patriarch of Alexandria, anathematized the council of Chalcedon, he was so indignant that before he took his seat on the patriarchal throne he solemnly separated from all communion with him, and with his own hands effaced his name from the diptychs, placing in its stead that of Felix III. of Rome. For a year the strife between Mongus and Euphemius was bitter. Each summoned councils against the other; Euphemius even thought of persuading a council to depose Mongus; but at the end of Oct. 490 Mongus died.
To pope Felix the patriarch sent letters, as was usual, to announce his election, but received the reply that he might be admitted as a private member of the church Catholic, but could not be received in communion as a bishop, because he had not removed from the diptychs the names of his predecessors, Acacius and Fravitta.
At the death (probably in 489) of Daniel the Stylite on the pillar where he had lived for 33 years, Euphemius came with others to the foot of the pillar to attend his last moments. Anastasius, the future emperor, then an aged officer of the emperor Zeno, held Eutychian views, and, according to Suidas, formed a sect which met in some church of Constantinople. The patriarch appeared before the conventicle with menacing gestures and drove them from the spot. "If you must frequent the church," he exclaimed, "agree with her! or else no more enter into her gates to pervert men more simple than yourself." Henceforth, says the annalist, Anastasius kept quiet, for the sake of the glory that he coveted. As the emperor Zeno died in 491, this must have occurred within two years after the consecration of Euphemius, and it witnesses alike to his intrepidity and his influence. After the death of Zeno, the empress Ariadne procured the election of Anastasius, on the understanding that he was to marry her. The patriarch openly called him a heretic, unworthy of reigning over Christians, and refused to crown him, despite the entreaties of the empress and the senate, until Anastasius would give a written profession of his creed, promise under his hand to keep the Catholic faith intact, make no innovation in the church, and follow as his rule of belief the decrees of Chalcedon. Anastasius gave the writing under most solemn oaths, and Euphemius put it in charge of the saintly Macedonius, chancellor and treasurer of the church of Constantinople, to be stored in the archives of the cathedral (Evagr. iii. 3z).
At the end of 491, or on Feb. 25, 492, pope Felix died. His successor Gelasius
immediately announced his elevation to the emperor Anastasius, but took no notice
of Euphemius, who had written at once to express his congratulations, and his desire
for peace and for the reunion of the churches. Not obtaining an answer, he wrote
a second time. Neither letter remains, but the reply of Gelasius shews that Euphemius,
in congratulating the Roman church on its pontiff, added that he himself was not
sufficiently his own master to do what he wished; that the people of Constantinople
would never agree to disgrace the memory of their late patriarch Acacius; that if
that were necessary, the pope had better write to the people about it himself, and
send someone to try and persuade them; that Acacius had never said anything against
the faith, and that if he was in communion with Mongus, it was when Mongus had given
a satisfactory account of his creed. Euphemius subjoined his own confession, rejecting
Eutyches and accepting Chalcedon. It seems also that Euphemius spoke of those who
had been baptized and ordained by Acacius since the sentence pronounced against
him at Rome, and pointed out how embarrassing it would be if the memory of Acacius
must be condemned (Ceillier, x. 486). Replying to these temperate counsels, Gelasius
allows that in other circumstances he would have written to announce his election,
but sourly observes that the custom existed only among those bishops who were united
in communion, and was not to be extended to those who, like Euphemius, preferred
a strange alliance to that of St. Peter. He allows the necessity of gentleness and
tenderness, but remarks that there is no need to throw yourself into the ditch when
you are helping others out. As a mark of condescension he willingly grants the canonical
remedy to all who had been baptized and ordained by Acacius. Can Euphemius possibly
Nothing cooled the zeal of Euphemius for the council of Chalcedon. Anastasius harboured designs against its supporters; the patriarch gathered together the bishops who were at Constantinople, and invited them to confirm its decrees. According to Theophanes and Victor of Tunis, this occurred in 492 (Vict. Tun. Chron. p. 5); but in Mansi (vii. 1180) the event is placed at the beginning of the patriarchate of Euphemius, and the decrees are said to have been sent by the bishops to pope Felix III. Various jars shewed the continued rupture with Rome. Theodoric had become master of Italy, and in 493 sent Faustus and Irenaeus to the emperor Anastasius to ask to peace. During their sojourn at Constantinople the envoys received complaints from the Greeks against the Roman church, which they reported to the pope. Euphemius urged that the condemnation of Acacius by one prelate only was invalid; to excommunicate a metropolitan of Constantinople a general council was necessary (ib. viii. 16). Now occurred that imprudence which unhappily cost Euphemius his throne. Anastasius, tired of war against the Isaurians, was seeking an honourable way of stopping it. He asked Euphemius in confidence to beg the bishops at Constantinople (there were always bishops coming and going to and from the metropolis) to pray for peace and thus furnish him with an opportunity of entering on negotiations. Euphemius betrayed the secret to John the patrician, father-in-law of Athenodorus, one of the chiefs of the Isaurians. John hurried to the emperor to inform him of the patriarch's indiscretion. Anastasius was deeply offended, and thenceforth never ceased to persecute his old opponent. He accused him of helping the Isaurians against him, and of corresponding with them (Theoph. Chronog. a.d. 488). An assassin, either by Anastasius's own order or to gain his favour, drew his sword on Euphemius at the door of the sacristy, but was struck down by an attendant.
Anastasius sought other means to get rid of Euphemius. Theodorus speaks of the violence with which he demanded back the profession of faith on which his coronation had depended (Theod. Lect. ii. 8, 572 seq. in Patr. Gk. lxxxvi.). He assembled the bishops who were in the capital and preferred charges against their metropolitan, whom they obsequiously declared excommunicated and deposed. The people loyally refused to surrender him, but had soon to yield to the emperor.
Meanwhile Euphemius, fearing for his life, retired to the baptistery, and refused to go out until Macedonius had promised on the word of the emperor that no violence should be done him when they conducted him to exile. With a proper feeling of respect for the fallen greatness and unconquerable dignity of his predecessor, Macedonius, on coming to find him in the baptistery, made the attendant deacon take off the newly-given pallium and clothed himself in the dress of a simple presbyter, "not daring to wear" his insignia before their canonical owner. After some conversation, Macedonius (himself to follow Euphemius to the very same place of exile under the same emperor) handed to him the proceeds of a loan he had raised for his expenses. Euphemius was taken to Eucaïtes in 495, the fifth year of Anastasius. His death occurred 20 years later at Ancyra, whither, it is thought, the Hunnish invasion had made him retire. Elias, metropolitan of Jerusalem, himself afterwards expelled from his see by Anastasius, stood stoutly by Euphemius at the time of his exile, declaring against the legality of his sentence (Cyrillus, Vita S. Sabae, c. 69, apud Sur. t. vi.). In the East Euphemius was always honoured as the defender of the Catholic faith and of Chalcedon, and as a man of the highest holiness and orthodoxy. Great efforts were made at the fifth general council to get his name put solemnly back in the diptychs (Mansi, viii. 1061 E). The authorities for his Life are, Marcel. Chron. a.d. 491-495 in Patr. Lat. li. p. 933; Theod. Lect. Eccl. Hist. ii. 6-15 in Patr. Gk. lxxxvi. pt. i. 185-189; Theoph. Chronog. a.d. 481-489 in Patr. Gk. cviii. 324-337; St. Niceph. Constant. Chronog. Brev. 45 in Patr. Gk. c. p. 1046; Baronius, a.d. 489-495; Gelas. Pap. Ep. et Decret. i. in Patr. Lat. lix. 13.
Euprepius (4), bp. of Bizya in Thrace; one of 68 bishops who demanded
that the opening of the council of Ephesus should be postponed until the arrival
of John of Antioch. He signed on this occasion also for Fritilas bp. of Heraclea
(Synod. adv. Tragoed. cap. 7, in Theod. Opp. t. v. in Patr. Gk.
lxxxiv. 591). He nevertheless attended the council when it opened, signed the sentence
against Nestorius and the "decretum de fide" (Mansi, iv. 1225
C, 1364
E). Euprepius is chiefly of interest
from the memorial termed "Supplex libellus," which he and Cyril, bp. of Coele in
the same province, jointly addressed to the fathers of the council (ib. 1478),
stating that by an ancient custom in the European provinces a bishop sometimes had
more bishoprics than one under his charge; that Euprepius was then administering
the see of Arcadiopolis
Euric (1) (Evarich, Evorich, Euthorik, Evarix), king of the Visigothic kingdom of Toulouse from 466 to 484, and from 477 onwards master of almost the whole of Spain. Under him the Visigoth power reached its highest point. In the reign of his successor it was curtailed by the Franks, while in that of his father, Theodoric or Theodored I. (d. 451) and his brothers, Thorismund and Theodoric II., the country occupied by the Goths had still been reckoned as an integral part of the empire ("auxiliamini reipublicae," says Aetius to the Goths before the battle of Chalons, "cujus membrum tenetis," Jord. c. 36), while the Gothic state had found it necessary to submit again and again to the foedus with Rome. "Euric, therefore, king of the Visigoths," says Jord. c. 45, "seeing the frequent changes of the Roman princes" (and the weakness of the Roman kingdom, "Romani regni vacillationem," as he says in c. 46), "attempted to occupy the Gauls in his own right, suo jure." And again, "Totas Hispanias Galliasque sibi jam proprio jure tenens." Thus the pretence of the foedus was finally set aside, and in the interval between the fall of the western empire and the rise of the Ostrogoths and Franks, Euric appears as the most powerful sovereign of the West (Dahn, v. 100). In 466, the year of his accession, Euric sent legates to the Eastern emperor Leo, perhaps with a last thought of renewing the foedus. The negotiations came to nothing, and in 467 the Goths and Vandals made a defensive league against Leo, Anthemius, and Rikimir, who were about to attack Genseric. Beside his Vandalic auxiliaries in Gaul, Euric also had the support of a certain party among the provincials themselves, as is shewn by the evidence given at the trial of Arvandus, prefect of the Gauls, for treasonable correspondence with the Goths (Sidon. Apoll. i. 7), and in 468 he attacked the newly made Western emperor Anthemius simultaneously in Gaul and Spain, with the result that by 474 the Gothic dominion in Gaul would have extended from the Atlantic to the Rhone and Mediterranean, and from the Pyrenees to the Loire, but for one obstacle—the vigorous defence of Auvergne by Ecdicius, son of the emperor Avitus, and the famous bp. of Clermont, Sidonius Apollinaris (Sid. Apoll. vii. 1). The history of this dramatic struggle, preserved in the letters of Sidonius, throws valuable light on the politics of the 5th cent. It is the last desperate effort of the provincial nobility to avoid barbarian masters, and it is a fight, too, of Catholicism against Arianism. But it was unsuccessful. After besieging Clermont in 474, Euric withdrew into winter quarters, while Sidonius and Ecdicius, in the midst of devastated country, organized fresh resistance. But with the spring diplomacy intervened. Glycerius, fearful for Italy, and hoping to purchase a renewal of the foedus, had in 473 formally ceded the country to Euric, a compact rejected by Ecdicius and Sidonius; and now Nepos, for the same reasons, sent legates to Euric, amongst them the famous Epiphanius of Pavia (Ennod. Vita S. Epiph. AA. SS. Jan. ii. p. 369), to treat for peace. Euric persisted in the demand for Auvergne, and accordingly, in return for a renewal of the foedus ("fidelibus animis foederabuntur," Sid. Apoll. ix. 5), Ecdicius and Sidonius were ordered to submit, and the district was given over to the revenge of the Goths. Ecdicius fled to the Burgundians, while Sidonius (see Ep. vii. 7, for his invectives against the peace—"Pudeat vos hujus foederis, nec utilis nec decori!"), having vainly attempted to make favourable terms for the Catholics with Euric, was banished to Livia, near Narbonne (Sid. Apoll. viii. 3). By the influence of Euric's minister, Leo, he was released after a year's imprisonment, and appeared at the Gothic court at Bordeaux, where, during a stay of two months, he succeeded in obtaining only one audience of the king, so great was the crowd of ambassadors, and the pressure of important business awaiting the decision of Euric and his minister. In Epp. viii. 9, Sidonius has left us a brilliant picture of the Gothic king, surrounded by barbarian envoys, Roman legates, and even Persian ambassadors. The Gothic territory in Gaul was now bounded by the Loire, the Rhone, and the two seas, while in Spain a great many towns were already held by Gothic garrisons. Euric's troops easily overran the whole country at their next great advance. In 475 came the fall of Nepos and Augustulus, and the suspension of the empire of the West. The news aroused all the barbarian races in Gaul and Spain. Euric, with an Ostrogothic reinforcement under Widimer, crossed the Pyrenees in 477, took Pampelona and Saragossa, and annihilated the resistance of the Roman nobility in Tarraconensis. By 478 the whole peninsula had fallen to the Goths, except a mountainous strip in the N.W., relinquished probably by treaty to the Suevi. By this complete conquest of the peninsula, "a place of refuge was provided for the Goths . . . destined in the following generation to fall back before the young and all-subduing power of the Franks, called to a greater work than they" (Dahn, Könige der Germanen, v. 98). Fresh successes in Gaul followed close upon the Spanish campaign. Arles was taken, 480, Marseilles, 481, and ultimately the whole of Provence up to the Maritime Alps (Proc. b. G. i. 1, quoted by Dahn, l.c.), and the exiled Nepos, indeed, seems to have formally surrendered almost the whole of southern Roman Gaul to Euric. Euric was now sovereign from the Loire to the Straits of Gibraltar, and appears as the protector of the neighbouring barbarian races against the encroaching Franks (Cass. Var. iii. 3), taking the same position towards them as Theodoric the Great took later in the reign of Euric's son Alaric, Theodoric's son-in-law. Euric survived the accession of Chlodwig (Clovis) three years, dying before Sept. 485.
Euric's Personal Character, and his Persecutions
Gregory of Tours in the next cent. echoed and exaggerated the account of Sidonius, and all succeeding Catholic writers have accused Euric of the same intolerant persecution of the church. The persecution must be looked upon, to a great extent, as political. The Catholic bishops and the provincial nobility were the natural leaders of the Romanized populations. The ecclesiastical organization made the bishops specially formidable (see Dahn's remarks on the Vandal king Huneric's persecutions, op. cit. i. 250). Their opposition threatened the work of Euric's life, and did, in fact, with the aid of the orthodox Franks, destroy it in the reign of his successor. But the persecution has a special interest as one of the earliest instances of that oppression in the name of religion, of which the later history of the Goths in conquered Spain is everywhere full (Dahn, v. 101). Euric, however, did not oppress the Romans as such. His minister Leo (Sid. Apoll. viii. 3), and count Victorius, to whom was entrusted the government of Auvergne after its surrender (ib. vii. 17; Greg. Tur. ii. 35), were of illustrious Roman families. It was probably by Leo's help that Euric drew up the code of laws of which Isidore and others speak (Hist. Goth. apud Esp. Sagr. vi. 486); Dahn, Könige der Germanen, Vte Abth. pp. 88-101, see list of sources and literature prefixed. For the ultra-Catholic view of the persecution, see Gams's Kirchengesch. von Spanien, ii. 1, 484.
Eusebius (1), succeeded Marcellus as bp. of Rome, a.d. 309 or 310. He was banished by Maxentius to Sicily, where he died after a pontificate of four months (Apr. 18 to Aug. 17). His body was brought back to Rome, and buried in the cemetery of Callistus on the Appian Way. Hardly anything was known with certainty about this bishop till the discoveries of de Rossi in the catacombs. That he was buried in the cemetery of Callistus rested on the authority of the Liberian Deposit. Episc. and the Felician catalogue. But ancient itineraries, written by persons who had visited these tombs, described his resting-place as not being the papal crypt in that cemetery, where all the popes (with two exceptions) since Pontianus had been laid, but in a separate one some distance from it. De Rossi found this crypt, and therein discovered, in 1852 and 1856, fragments of the inscription placed by pope Damasus over the grave, and known from copies taken before the closing of the catacombs. But it was previously uncertain whether it referred to Eusebius the pope or to some other Eusebius. All such doubt was now set at rest by the discovery, in the crypt referred to, of 46 fragments of a slab bearing a copy of the original inscription, and of the original slab, identified by the peculiar characters of Damasine inscriptions. The inscription is as follows:—
We thus have revealed a state of things at Rome of which no other record has
been preserved. It would seem that, on the cessation of Diocletian's persecution,
the church there was rent into two parties on the subject of the terms of readmission
of the lapsed to
Eusebius (5), of Alexandria, a writer of sermons, about whom Galland
says "all is uncertain; nothing can be affirmed on good grounds as to his age
or as to his bishopric" (Bibl. Patr. viii. p. xxiii.). It is uncertain
whether he belongs to the 5th or the 6th cent. A complete list of sermons is given
by Mai, as follows: 1. On Fasting. 2. On Love. 3. On the Incarnation
and its Causes. 4. On Thankfulness in Sickness. 5. On Imparting
Grace to him that Lacks it. 6. On Sudden Death, or, Those that Die
by Snares. 7. On New Moon, Sabbath, and on not Observing the Voices of
Birds. 8. On Commemoration of Saints. 9. On Meals, at such festivals.
10. On the Nativity. 11. On the Baptism of Christ. 12. On "Art
thou He that should come?" 13. On the Coming of John into Hades, and on
the Devil. 14. On the Treason of Judas. 15. On the Devil and Hades.
16. On the Lord's Day. 17. On the Passion, for the Preparation Day.
18. On the Resurrection. 19. On the Ascension. 20. On the Second
Advent. 21. On "Astronomers." 22. On Almsgiving, and on the Rich
Man and Lazarus. He adheres to the Catholic doctrines of the Trinity and the
Incarnation. He uses the ordinary Eastern phrase, "Christ our God," speaks of
Him as Maker of the world, as Master of the creation, as present from the beginning
with the prophets, and as the Lord of Isaiah's vision. He calls the Holy Spirit
consubstantial with the Father and the Son; in the sermon on Almsgiving
he calls the Virgin Mother "Ever-Virgin," "Theotokos," and "our undefiled Lady.",
He insists on free will and responsibility. "God . . . saith, 'If you do not choose
to hear Me, I do not compel you.' God could make thee good against thy will, but
what is involuntary is unrewarded. . . . If He wrote it down that I was to commit
sin, and I do commit it, why does He judge me?" If a man means to please God,
"God holds out a hand to him straightway," etc. Before a man renounces the world
(by a monastic vow), let him try himself, know his own soul. He who fasts must
fast with "tongue, eyes, hands, feet"; his whole "body, soul, and spirit" must
be restrained from all sinful indulgence. "Fast, as the Lord said, in cheerfulness,
with sincere love to all men. But when you have done all this, do not think you
are better than A. or B. Say you are unprofitable servants." People are not to
blame wine, but those who drink it to excess; nor riches, but the man who administers
them ill. Abraham had riches, but they harmed him not, etc. Some sentences shew
a true spiritual insight: "What sort of righteousness exceeds the rest? Love,
for without it no good comes of any other. What sin is worst? All sin is dreadful,
but none is worse than covetousness and remembrance of injuries" (Serm. On
Love). He has humour, too, which must have told: "on Sundays the herald calls
people to church; everybody says he is sleepy, or unwell. Hark! a sound of harp
or pipe, a noise of dancing: all hasten that way as if on wings" (Hom. on the
Lord's Day, Galland. viii. 253). He depicts vividly the extravagance of Alexandrian
wealth; the splendid houses glistening with marble, beds and carpets wrought with
gold and pearls, horses with golden bridles and saddles, the crowds of servants
of various classes—some to attend the great man when he rides out, some to manage
his lands or his house, building, or his kitchen, some to fan him at his meals,
to keep the house quiet during his slumber:—the varieties of white bread, the
pheasants, geese, peacocks, hares, etc., served up at his table. The Christian
should look forward to Sunday, not simply as a day of rest from labour, but as
a day of prayer and Communion. Let him come in early morning to church for the
Eucharistic service (the features of it are enumerated: the psalmody, the reading
of Prophets, of St. Paul, of the Gospels, the Angelic and Seraphic hymns, the
ceaseless Alleluia, the exhortations of bishops and presbyters, the presence of
Christ "on the sacred table," the "coming" of the Spirit). "If thy conscience
is clear, approach, and receive the Body and Blood of the Lord. If it condemns
thee in regard to wicked deeds, decline the Communion until thou hast corrected
it by repentance, but stay through the prayers [i.e. the communion service],
and do not go out of the church unless thou art dismissed"; or again, "before
the dismissal." He severely blames a layman who tastes food before the Liturgy
is over, whether he communicates or not; but denounces those who communicate after
eating (as many do on Easter Day itself) as if guilty of a heinous sin. (In this
case, as in regard to premature departure from church, he does not scruple to
refer to Judas.) He blames those who do not communicate when a priest, known to
be of bad life, is the celebrant; for "God turneth not away, and the bread becomes
the Body." He reproves those who are disorderly at the vigil services of a saint's
festival, and at daybreak rise and cause great disturbances. "Inside the church,
the priest is presenting the supplication . . . having set forth (προτεθεικώς)
the Body and the Blood . . . for the salvation
Mai calls him a writer delightful from his "ingenuitas," his "Christian ac pastoralis simplicitas," and his "nativum dicendi genus" (Patrum Nov. Biblioth. ii. 499).
Eusebius (23) of Caesarea, also known as Eusebius Pamphili. Of extant sources of our knowledge of Eusebius the most important are the scattered notices in writers of the same or immediately succeeding ages, e.g. Athanasius, Jerome, Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret. At a later date some valuable information is contained in the proceedings of the second council of Nicaea (Labbe, Conc. viii. 1144 seq. ed. Colet.), and in the Antirrhetica of the patriarch Nicephorus (Spicil. Solesm. i. pp. 371 seq.) likewise connected with the Iconoclastic controversy. The primary sources of information, however, for the career of one who was above all a literary man must be sought in his own works. The only edition of them which aims at completeness is in Migne's Patr. Gk. vols. xix.–xxiv. See also the standard works of Cave (Hist. Lit. i. pp. 175 seq.), Tillemont (Hist. Eccl. vii. pp. 39 seq., 659 seq., together with scattered notices in his account of the Arians and of the Nicene council in vol. vi.), and Fabricius (Bibl. Graec. vii. pp. 335 seq. ed. Harles). The most complete monograph is Stein's Eusebius Bischof Von Cäsarea (Würzburg, 1852). There is a useful English trans. of the History in the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, by Mr. Giffert; cf. A. C. Headlam, The Editions or MSS. of Eusebius, in Journal of Theol. Studies, 1902, iii. 93-102.
The references in his own works will hardly allow us to place his birth much later than a.d. 260, so that he would be nearly 80 at his death. All notices of his early life are connected with Caesarea; and as it was then usual to prefer a native as bishop, everything favours this as the city of his birth.
Of his parentage and relationships absolutely nothing is known, but here, as a child, he was catechized in that declaration of belief which years afterwards was laid by him before the great council of Nicaea, and adopted by the assembled Fathers as a basis for the creed of the universal church. Here he listened to the Biblical expositions of the learned Dorotheus, thoroughly versed in the Hebrew Scriptures and not unacquainted with Greek literature and philosophy, once the superintendent of the emperor's purple factory at Tyre, but now a presbyter in the church of Caesarea (H. E. vii. 32). Here, in due time, he was himself ordained a presbyter, probably by that bp. Agapius whose wise forethought and untiring assiduity and openhanded benevolence he himself has recorded (ib.). Here, above all, he contracted with the saintly student Pamphilus that friendship which was the crown and glory of his life, and which martyrdom itself could not sever. Eusebius owed far more to Pamphilus than the impulse and direction given to his studies. Pamphilus, no mere student recluse, was a man of large heart and bountiful hand, above all things helpful to his friends (Mart. Pal. 11), giving freely to all in want; he multiplied copies of the Scriptures, which he distributed gratuitously (Eus. in Hieron. c. Rufin. i. 9, Op. ii. 465); and to the sympathy of the friend he united the courage of the hero. He had also the power of impressing his own strong convictions on others. Hence, when the great trial of faith came, his house was found to be not only the home of students but the nursery of martyrs. To one like Eusebius, who owed his strength and his weakness alike to a ready susceptibility of impression from those about him, such a friendship was an inestimable blessing. He expressed the strength of his devotion to this friend by adopting his name, being known as "Eusebius of Pamphilus."
Eusebius was in middle life when the last and fiercest persecution broke out. For nearly half a century—a longer period than at any other time since its foundation—the church had enjoyed uninterrupted peace as regards attacks from without. Suddenly and unexpectedly all was changed. The city of Caesarea became a chief centre of persecution. Eusebius tells how he saw the houses of prayer razed to the ground, the holy Scriptures committed to the flames in the market-places, the pastors hiding themselves, and shamefully jeered at when caught by their persecutors (H. E. viii. 2). For seven years the attacks continued. At Tyre also Eusebius saw several Christians torn by wild beasts in the amphitheatre (ib. 7, 8). Leaving Palestine, he visited Egypt. In no country did the persecution rage more fiercely. Here, in the Thebaid, they perished, ten, twenty, even sixty or a hundred at a time. Eusebius tells how he in these parts witnessed numerous martyrdoms in a single day, some by beheading, others by fire; the executioners relieving each other by relays and the victims eagerly pressing forward to be tortured, clamouring for the honour of martyrdom, and receiving their sentence with joy and laughter (ib. 9). This visit to Egypt was apparently after the imprisonment and martyrdom of Pamphilus, in the latest and fiercest days of the persecution. It was probably now that Eusebius was imprisoned for his faith. If so, we have the less difficulty in explaining his release, without any stain left on his integrity or his courage.
Not long after the restoration of peace (a.d. 313) Eusebius was unanimously elected to the vacant see of Caesarea. Among the earliest results of the peace was the erection of a magnificent basilica at Tyre under the direction of his friend Paulinus, the bishop. Eusebius was invited to deliver the inaugural address. This address he has preserved and inserted in his History, where, though not mentioned, the orator's name is but thinly concealed (H. E. ix. 4). This oration is a paean of thanksgiving over the restitution of the Church, of which the splendid building at Tyre was at once the firstfruit and the type. The incident must have taken place not later than a.d. 315. For more than 25 years he presided over the church of Caesarea, winning the respect and affection of all. He died bp. of Caesarea.
When the Arian controversy broke out, the sympathies of Eusebius were early
enlisted on
At the council of Nicaea (a.d. 325) Eusebius took a leading part. This prominence he cannot have owed to his bishopric, which, though important, did not rank with the great sees, "the apostolic thrones" (ib. 17) of Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria. But that he was beyond question the most learned man and most famous living writer in the church at this time would suffice to secure him a hearing. Probably, however, his importance was due even more to his close relations with the great emperor, whose entire confidence he enjoyed. He occupied the first seat to the emperor's right (V. C. iii. 11), and delivered the opening address to Constantine when he took his seat in the council-chamber (ib. i. prooem., iii. 11; Soz. H. E. i. 19). The speech is unfortunately not preserved.
Eusebius himself has left us an account of his doings with regard to the main object of the council in a letter of explanation to his church at Caesarea. He laid before the council the creed in use in the Caesarean church, which had been handed down from the bishops who preceded him, which he himself had been taught at his baptism, and in which, both as a presbyter and bishop, he had instructed others. The emperor was satisfied with the orthodoxy of this creed, inserting however the single word ὁμοούσιον and giving explanations as to its meaning which set the scruples of Eusebius at rest. The assembled Fathers, taking this as their starting-point, made other important insertions and alterations. Moreover, an anathema was appended directly condemning Arian doctrines. Eusebius took time to consider before subscribing to this revised formula. The three expressions which caused difficulty were: (1) "of the substance of the Father" (ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ πατρός); (2) "begotten, not made" (γεννηθέντα, οὐ ποιηθέντα); (3) "of the same substance" (ὁμοούσιον); and of these he demanded explanations. The explanations were so far satisfactory that for the sake of peace he subscribed to the creed. He had the less scruple in assenting to the final anathema, because the Arian expressions which it condemned were not scriptural, and he considered that "almost all the confusion and disturbance of the churches" had arisen from the use of unscriptural phrases. This letter, he concludes, is written to the Caesareans to explain that he would resist to the last any vital change in the traditional creed of his church, but had subscribed to these alterations, when assured of their innocence, to avoid appearing contentious (ἀφιλονείκως). See Hort's Two Dissertations, pp. 55 seq.
The settlement of the dispute respecting the time of observing Easter was another important work undertaken by the council. In this also a leading part has been assigned to Eusebius by some modern writers (e.g. Stanley, Eastern Church, p. 182, following Tillemont, H. E. vi. p. 668).
The hopes which Eusebius with others had built upon the decisions of the Nicene council were soon dashed. The final peace of the church seemed as far distant as ever. In three controversies with three distinguished antagonists, Eusebius took a more or less prominent part; and his reputation, whether justly or not, has suffered greatly in consequence.
(i) Synod of Antioch.—Eustathius, bp. of Antioch, was a staunch advocate of the Nicene doctrine and a determined foe of the Arians. He had assailed the tenets of Origen (Socr. H. E. vi. 13), of whom Eusebius was an ardent champion, and had charged Eusebius himself with faithlessness to the doctrines of Nicaea. He was accused in turn of Sabellianism by Eusebius (ib. i. 23; Soz. H. E. ii. 19). To the historian Socrates the doctrines of the two antagonists seemed practically identical. Nevertheless they were regarded as the two principals in the quarrel (Soz. H. E. ii. 18). A synod, mainly composed of bishops with Arian or semi-Arian sympathies, was assembled at Antioch, a.d. 330 to consider the charge of Sabellianism brought against Eustathius, who was deposed. The see of Antioch thus became vacant. The assembled bishops proposed Eusebius of Caesarea as his successor, and wrote to the emperor on his behalf, but Eusebius declined the honour, alleging the rule of the Church, regarded as an "apostolic tradition," which forbade translations from one see to another; and Euphronius was elected.
(ii) Synods of Caesarea, Tyre, and Jerusalem.—The next stage of the
Arian controversy exhibits Eusebius in conflict with a greater than Eustathius.
The disgraceful intrigues of the Arians and Meletians against Athanasius, which
led to his first exile, are related in our art. Athanasius.
It is sufficient to say here that the emperor summoned Athanasius to appear before
a gathering of bishops at Caesarea, to meet the charges brought against
The next year (a.d. 335) Athanasius
received a peremptory and angry summons from Constantine to appear before a synod
of bishops at Tyre. Theodoret (l.c.) conjectures (ὡς
οἶμαι) that the place of meeting was changed by the emperor out of deference
to the fears of Athanasius, who "looked with suspicion on Caesarea on account
of its ruler." Athanasius, or his friends, may indeed have objected to Eusebius
as a partisan; for the Egyptian bishops who espoused the cause of Athanasius,
addressing the synod of Tyre, allege "the law of God" as forbidding "an enemy
to be witness or judge," and shortly afterwards add mysteriously, "ye know why
Eusebius of Caesarea has become an enemy since last year" (Athan.
While the bishops at Tyre were in the midst of their session, an urgent summons from the emperor called them to take part in the approaching festival at Jerusalem (Eus. V. C. iv. 41 seq.; Socr. H. E. i. 33 seq.; Soz. H. E. ii. 26; Theod. H. E. i. 29). It was the tricennalia of Constantine. No previous sovereign after Augustus, the founder of the empire, had reigned for thirty years. Constantine had a fondness for magnificent ceremonial, and here was a noble opportunity (V. C. iv. 40, καιρὸς εὔκαιρος). The occasion was marked by the dedication of Constantine's new and splendid basilica, built on the site of Calvary. The festival was graced by a series of orations from the principal persons present. In these Eusebius bore a conspicuous part, finding in this dedication festival a far more congenial atmosphere than in the intrigues of the synod at Tyre. He speaks of the assemblage at Tyre as a mere episode of the festival at Jerusalem (ὁδοῦ δὴ πάρεργον). The emperor, he says, preparing for the celebration of this festival, was anxious to end the quarrels which rent the church. In doing so he was obeying the Lord's injunction, "Be reconciled to thy brother, and then go and offer thy gift" (cf. Soz. i. 26). This view of the emperor's motive is entirely borne out by Constantine's own letter to the synod at Tyre. Eusebius was greatly impressed by the celebration; but Tillemont, who shews strong prejudice against Eusebius throughout, altogether misstates the case in saying that he "compares or even prefers this assembly to the council of Nicaea, striving to exalt it as much as he can, for the sake of effacing the glory of that great council," etc. (vi. p. 284). But Eusebius says distinctly that "after that first council" this was the greatest synod assembled by Constantine (V. C. iv. 47); and so far from shewing any desire to depreciate the council of Nicaea, he cannot find language magnificent enough to sing its glories (iii. 6 seq.).
Arius and Euzoius had presented a confession of faith to the emperor, seeking readmission to the church. The emperor was satisfied that this document was in harmony with the faith of Nicaea, and sent Arius and Euzoius to Jerusalem, requesting the synod to consider their confession of faith and restore them to communion. Arius and his followers were accordingly readmitted at Jerusalem. Of the bishops responsible for this act, some were hostile to Athanasius, others would regard it as an act of pacification. The stress which Eusebius lays on Constantine's desire to secure peace on this, as on all other occasions, suggests that that was a predominant idea in the writer's own mind, though perhaps not unmixed with other influences.
(iii) Synod of Constantinople.—Athanasius had not fled to Constantinople
in vain. Constantine desired pacification but was not insensible to justice; and
the personal pleadings of Athanasius convinced him that justice had been outraged
(
The great emperor breathed his last on May 22, a.d. 337; and Eusebius died not later than the close of 339 or the beginning of 340. In Wright's Ancient Syrian Martyrology, which cannot date later than half a century after the event, "the commemoration of Eusebius bp. of Palestine" is placed on May 30. If this represents the day of his death, as probably it does, he must have died in 339, for the notices will hardly allow so late a date in the following year. His literary activity was unabated to the end. Four years at most can have elapsed between his last visit to Constantinople and his death. He must have been nearly 80 years old when the end came. Yet at this advanced age, and within this short period, he composed the Panegyric, the Life of Constantine, the treatise Against Marcellus, and the companion treatise On the Theology of the Church; probably he had in hand at the same time other unfinished works, such as the Theophania. There are no signs of failing mental vigour in these works. The two doctrinal treatises are perhaps his most forcible and lucid writings. The Panegyric and the Life of Constantine are disfigured by a too luxuriant rhetoric, but in vigour equal any of his earlier works. Of his death itself no record is left. Acacius, his successor, had been his pupil. Though more decidedly Arian in bias, he was a devoted admirer of his master (Soz. H. E. iii. 2). He wrote a Life of Eusebius, and apparently edited some of his works.
Literary Works.—The literary remains of Eusebius are a rich and, excepting the Chronicle and the Ecclesiastical History, a comparatively unexplored mine of study. They may be classed as: A. Historical; B. Apologetic; C. Critical and Exegetical; D. Doctrinal; E. Orations; F. Letters.
A. Historical.—(1) Life of Pamphilus.—Eusebius (Mart. Pal. 11), speaking of his friend's martyrdom, refers to this work as follows: "The rest of the triumphs of his virtue, requiring a longer narration, we have already before this given to the world in a separate work in three books, of which his life is the subject." He also refers to it 3 times in his History (H. E. i. 32, vii. 32, viii. 13). The Life of Pamphilus was thus written before the History, and before the shorter ed. of—
(2) The Martyrs of Palestine.—This work is extant in two forms, a shorter and a longer. The shorter is attached to the History, commonly between the 8th and 9th books.
The longer form is not extant entire in the original Greek. In the Bollandist Acta Sanctorum (Jun. t. i. p. 64) Papebroch pub. for the first time in Greek, from a Paris MS. of the Metaphrast, an account of the martyrdom of Pamphilus and others, professedly "composed by Eusebius Pamphili." It had appeared in a Latin version before. The Greek was reprinted by Fabricius, Hippolytus, ii. p. 217. This is a fuller account of the incidents related in the Mart. Pal. 11 attached to the History. Their common matter is expressed in the same words, or nearly so. Hence one must have been an enlargement or an abridgment of the other.
Nor can it reasonably be doubted that the shorter form of the Palestinian Martyrs is Eusebius's own. It retains those notices of the longer form in which Eusebius speaks in his own person; and, moreover, in the passages peculiar to this shorter form, Eusebius is evidently the speaker. Thus (c. 11) he mentions having already written a special work in three books on the life of Pamphilus; and when recording the death of Silvanus, who had had his eyes put cut (c. 13), mentions his own astonishment when he once heard him reading the Scriptures, as he supposed, from a book in church, but was told that he was blind and was repeating them by heart. Moreover, other incidental notices, inserted from time to time and having no place in the longer form, shew the knowledge of a contemporary and eyewitness.
The longer edition seems to be the original
In the shorter form the case is different. The writer does not localize himself in the same way. It is always "the city," never "this city," of Caesarea. The appeal to the Caesareans in recounting the miracle is left out (c. 4). The hortatory beginning and ending are omitted, and the didactic portions abridged or excised. The shorter form thus appears to be part of a larger work, in which the sufferings of the martyrs were set off against the deaths of the persecutors. The object would thus be the vindication of God's righteousness. This idea appears several times elsewhere in Eusebius, and he may have desired to embody it in a separate treatise.
(3) Collection of Ancient Martyrdoms.—Of this work Eusebius was not the author, but merely, as the title suggests and as the notices require, the compiler and editor. The narratives of martyrdoms were, in the eyes of Eusebius, not only valuable as history but instructive as lessons (H. E. v. praef.). Hence he took pains to preserve authentic records of them, himself undertaking to record those of his own country, Palestine, at this time; while he left to others in different parts of the world to relate those "quae ipsi miserrima viderunt," declaring that only thus could strict accuracy be attained (H. E. viii. 13, with the whole context). But he was anxious also to preserve the records of past persecutions. Hence this collection of Maytyrologies. The epithet "ancient" (ἀρχαῖα) must be regarded as relative, applying to all prior to the "persecution of his own time" (ὁ καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς διωγμός, according to his favourite expression). He himself refers to this collection for the martyrdom of Polycarp and others at Smyrna under Antoninus Pius A.D. 155 or 156 (iv. 15), for the documents relating to the sufferers in Gaul under M. Aurelius A.D. 177 (v. 1, seq.), and for the defence of Apollonius under Commodus A.D. 180-185 (v. 21). But it would probably comprise any martyrdoms which occurred before the long peace that preceded the outbreak of the last persecution under Diocletian.
[(4.) Chronicle.—This work may be described in words suggested by the author's own account of it at the beginning of his Eclogae Propheticae, as "chronological tables, to which is prefixed an epitome of universal history drawn from various sources." The epitome occupies the first book, the tables the second. The tables exhibit in parallel columns the successions of the rulers of different nations, so that contemporary monarchs can be seen at a glance. Notes mark the years of the more remarkable historical events, these notes constituting an epitome of history. The interest which Christians felt in the study of comparative chronology arose from heathen opponents contrasting the antiquity of their rites with the novelty of the Christian religion. Christian apologists retorted by proving that the Grecian legislators and philosophers were very much later than the Hebrew legislator and later than the prophets who had testified of Christ and taught a religion of which Christianity was the legitimate continuation. In the Praeparatio Evangelica (x. 9) Eusebius urges this, quoting largely from preceding writers who had proved the antiquity of the Jews, e.g. Josephus, Tatian, Clement of Alexandria, and especially Africanus. This last writer had made the synchronisms between sacred and profane history his special study, and his chronological work, now lost, gave Eusebius the model and, to a great extent, the materials for his own Chronicle.
The Greek of Eusebius's own work has been lost, and until recent times it was only known through the use made of it by successors, particularly Jerome, who translated it into Latin, enlarging the notices of Roman history and continuing it to his own time. In 1606 Scaliger published an edition of the Chronicle, in which he attempted to restore the Greek of Eusebius, collecting from Syncellus, Cedrenus, and other Greek chronologers, notices which he believed himself able, mainly by the help of Jerome's translation, to identify as copied from Eusebius; but his restoration of the first book, where he had but little guidance from Jerome, did not inspire confidence, and has been proved untrustworthy. An Armenian trans. of the Chronicle, pub. in 1818, enables us now to state the contents of bk. i.
After pleading that early Greek and even Hebrew chronology present many difficulties,
Eusebius, in the first section, gives a sketch of Chaldee and Assyrian history,
subjoining a table of Assyrian, Median, Lydian, and Persian kings, ending with
the Darius conquered by Alexander. The authors he uses are Alexander Polyhistor,
and, as known through him, Berosus; Abydenus, Josephus, Castor, Diodorus, and
Cephalion. He notes the coincidences of these writers with Hebrew history and
suggests that the incredible lengths assigned to reigns in the early Chaldee history
may be reduced if the "sari," said to be periods of 3,600 years, were in reality
far shorter periods, and in like manner, following Africanus, that the Egyptian
years may be in reality but months. An alternative suggestion in this first book
is that some Egyptian dynasties may have been, not consecutive, but synchronous.
The second section treats of Hebrew chronology, the secular authorities used being
Josephus and Africanus. Eusebius notices the chronological difference between
the Heb., LXX., and Samaritan texts, and conjectures that the Hebrews, to justify
by patriarchal example their love of early marriages, systematically shortened
the intervals between the birth of each patriarch and that of his first son. He
gives other arguments which decide him in favour of the LXX, especially as it
was the version used by our Lord and the apostles. In the period from the Deluge
to the birth of Abraham, which Eusebius makes the initial point of his own tables,
he follows the LXX, except that he omits the second Cainan, making 942 years;
and thus placing the birth of Abraham in the year from the Creation 3184. He reckons
480
(5) Ecclesiastical History.—From many considerations it seems clear that the History was finished some time in a.d. 324 or 325—before midsummer in the latter year, and probably some months earlier; and the earlier books even some years before this.
The work contains no indications that it was due to any suggestion from without, as some have supposed. If the author had been prompted to it by Constantine, he would hardly have been silent about the fact, for he is only too ready elsewhere to parade the flatteries of his imperial patron. Moreover, it was probably written in great measure, or at least the materials for it collected, before his relations with Constantine began. His own language rather suggests that it grew out of a previous work, the Chronicle.
He begins by enumerating the topics with which it is intended to deal: (1)
the successions of the apostles with continuous chronological data from the Christian
era to his own time; (2) the events of ecclesiastical history; (3) the most distinguished
rulers, preachers, and writers in the church; (4) the teachers of heresy who,
like "grievous wolves," have ravaged the flock of Christ; (5) the retribution
which had befallen the Jewish race; (6) the persecutions of the church and the
victories of the martyrs and confessors, concluding with the great and final deliverance
wrought by the Saviour in the author's own day. He prays for guidance, since he
is entering upon an untrodden way, where he will find no footprints, though the
works of predecessors may serve as beacon-lights here and there through the waste.
He considers it absolutely necessary
(ἀναγκαιότατα)
to undertake the task, because no one else before him had done so. The work, he
concludes, must of necessity commence with the Incarnation and Divinity
(οἰκονομίας
τε καὶ θεολογίας) of Christ, because from Him we all derive our name. Accordingly
he proceeds to shew that Christianity is no new thing, but has its roots in the
eternal past. The Word was with God before the beginning of creation. He was recognized
and known by righteous men in all ages, especially among the Hebrews; His advent,
even His very names, were foretold and glorified; His society—the Christian church—was
the subject of prophecy, while the Christian type of life was never without examples
since the race began (i. 4, cf. ii. 1). "After this necessary preparation" (μετὰ
τὴν δέουσαν
προκατασκευήν, i. 5), he proceeds to speak of the Incarnation,
its chronology and synchronisms in external history, the Herodian kingdom, the
Roman empire, the Jewish priesthood, including a discussion of the Saviour's genealogy;
thus shewing that it came in the fulness of time as a realization of prophecy
(cc. 5-10). A chapter is devoted to the Baptist as the first herald (c. 11), another
to the appointment of the Twelve and the Seventy (c. 12); a third to the mission
sent by Christ Himself to Edessa, as recorded in the archives of that city (c.
13). We are thus brought to the time of the Ascension, and the first book ends.
The second comprises the preaching of the apostles to the destruction of Jerusalem,
the writer's aim being not to repeat the accounts in the N.T., but to supplement
them from external sources. The third book extends to the reign of Trajan, and
covers the sub-apostolic age, ending with notices of Ignatius, Clement, and Papias.
The fourth and fifth carry us to the close of the 2nd cent., including the Montanist,
Quartodeciman, and Monarchian disputes. The sixth contains the period from the
persecution of Severus (a.d. 203)
to that of Decius (a.d. 250), the
central figure being Origen, of whom a full account is given. The seventh continues
the narrative to the outbreak of the great persecution under Diocletian, and is
largely composed of quotations from Dionysius of Alexandria, as the preface states.
It is significant that the last forty years of this period, though contemporary
with the historian, are dismissed in a single long chapter. It was a period of
very rapid but silent progress, when the church for the first time was in the
happy condition of having no history. The eighth book gives the history of the
persecution of Diocletian till the "palinode," the edict of Galerius (a.d.
311). The ninth relates the sufferings of the Eastern Christians until the victory
over Maxentius at the Milvian bridge in the West, and the death of Maximin in
the East, left Constantine and
Eusebius thus had a truly noble conception of the work which he had undertaken. It was nothing less than the history of a society which stood in an intimate relation to the Divine Logos Himself, a society whose roots struck down into the remotest past and whose destinies soared into the eternal future. He felt, moreover, that he himself lived at the great crisis in its history. Now at length it seemed to have conquered the powers of this world. This was the very time, therefore, to place on record the incidents of its past career. Moreover, he had great opportunities, such as were not likely to fall to another. In his own episcopal city, perhaps in his own official residence, Pamphilus had got together the largest Christian library yet collected. Not far off, at Jerusalem, was another valuable library, collected a century earlier by the bp. Alexander, and especially rich in the correspondence of men of letters and rulers in the church, "from which library," writes Eusebius, "we too have been able to collect together the materials for this undertaking which we have in hand" (H. E. vi. 20). Moreover, he had been trained in a highly efficient school of literary industry under Pamphilus, while his passion for learning has rarely been equalled, perhaps never surpassed.
The execution of his work, however, falls far short of the conception. The faults indeed are so patent as to have unjustly obscured the merits, for it is withal a noble monument of literary labour. We must remember his plea for indulgence, as one setting foot upon new ground, "nullius ante trita solo"; and as he had no predecessor, so he had no successor. Rufinus, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, all commenced where he ended. The most bitter of his theological adversaries were forced to confess their obligations to him, and to speak of his work with respect. If we reflect what a blank would be left in our knowledge of this important chapter in history if the narrative of Eusebius were blotted out, we shall appreciate our enormous debt of gratitude to him.
Two points require consideration: (1) the range and adequacy of his materials, and (2) the use made of them.
(1) The range of materials is astonishing when we consider that Eusebius was a pioneer. Some hundred works, several of them very lengthy, are either directly cited or referred to as read. In many instances he would read an entire treatise for the sake of one or two historical notices, and must have searched many others without finding anything to serve his purpose, thus involving enormous labour. This then is his strongest point. Yet even here deficiencies may be noted. He very rarely quotes the works of heresiarchs themselves, being content to give their opinions through the medium of their opponents' refutations. A still greater defect is his considerable ignorance of Latin literature and of Latin Christendom generally. Thus he knows nothing of Tertullian's works, except the Apologeticum, which he quotes (ii. 2, 25, iii. 20, 33, v. 5) from a bad Greek translation (e.g. ii. 25, where the translator, being ignorant of the Latin idiom cum maxime, destroys the sense). Of Tertullian himself he gives no account, but calls him a "Roman." Pliny's letter he only knows through Tertullian (iii. 33) and he is unacquainted with the name of the province which Pliny governed. Of Hippolytus again he has very little information to communicate, and cannot even tell the name of his see (vi. 20, 22). His account of Cyprian, too, is extremely meagre (vi. 43, vii. 3), though Cyprian was for some years the most conspicuous figure in Western Christendom, and died (a.d. 258) not very long before his own birth. He betrays the same ignorance with regard to the bps. of Rome. His dates here, strangely enough, are widest of the mark when close upon his own time. Thus he assigns to Xystus II. (†a.d. 258) eleven years (vii. 27) instead of months; to Eutychianus (†a.d.283) ten months (vii. 32) instead of nearly nine years; to Gaius, whom he calls his own contemporary, and who died long after he had arrived at manhood (a.d. 296), "about fifteen years" (vii. 32) instead of twelve. He seems to have had a corrupt list and did not possess the knowledge necessary to correct it. With the Latin language he appears to have had no thorough acquaintance, though he sometimes ventured to translate Latin documents (iv. 8, 9; cf. viii. 27). But he must not be held responsible for the blunders in the versions of others, e.g. of Tertullian's Apologeticum. The translations of state documents in the later books may be the semi-official Greek versions such as Constantine was in the habit of employing persons to make (V. C. iv. 32). See on this subject Heinichen's note on H. E. iv. 8.
(2) Under the second head the most vital question is the sincerity of
Eusebius. Did he tamper with his materials or not? The sarcasm of Gibbon (Decline
and Fall, c. xvi.) is well known: "The gravest of the ecclesiastical historians,
Eusebius himself, indirectly confesses that he has related whatever might redound
to the glory, and that he has suppressed all that could tend to the disgrace,
of religion." The passages to which he refers (H. E. viii. 2; Mart.
Pal. 12) do not bear out this imputation. There is no indirectness about them,
but on the contrary they deplore, in the most emphatic terms, the evils which
disgraced the church, and they represent the persecution under Diocletian as a
just retribution for these wrongdoings. The ambitions, intriguing for office,
factious quarrels, cowardly denials and shipwrecks of the faith—"evil piled upon
evil" (κακὰ κακοῖς
ἐπιτειχίζοντες)—are denounced
in no measured language. Eusebius contents himself with condemning these sins
and shortcomings in general terms, without entering into details; declaring his
intention of confining himself to topics profitable (πρὸς
ὠφελείας) to his own and future generations. This treatment may be regarded
as too great a sacrifice to edification; but it leaves no imputation on his honesty.
Nor again can the special
Moreover, Eusebius is generally careful to collect the best evidence accessible,
and also to distinguish between different kinds of evidence. "Almost every page
witnesses to the zeal with which he collected testimonies from writers who lived
at the time of the events which he describes. For the sixth and seventh books
he evidently rejoices to be able to use for the foundation of his narrative the
contemporary letters of Dionysius; 'Dionysius, our great bp. of Alexandria,' he
writes, 'will again help me by his own words in the composition of my seventh
book of the history, since he relates in order the events of his own time in the
letters which he has left' (vii. praef.). . . . In accordance with this instinctive
desire for original testimony, Eusebius scrupulously distinguishes facts which
rest on documentary from those which rest on oral evidence. Some things he relates
on the authority of a 'general' (iii. 11, 36) or 'old report' (iii. 19, 20) or
from tradition (i. 7, ii. 9, vi. 2, etc.). In the lists of successions he is careful
to notice where written records failed him. 'I could not,' he says, 'by any means
find the chronology of the bps. of Jerusalem preserved in writing; thus much only
I received from written sources, that there were fifteen bishops in succession
up to the date of the siege under Hadrian, etc.' (iv. 5)." [W.]
"There is nothing like hearing the actual words" of the writer, he says again
and again (i. 23, iii. 32, vii. 23; cf. iv. 23), when introducing a quotation.
His general sincerity and good faith seem, therefore, clear. But his intellectual
qualifications were in many respects defective. His credulity, indeed, has frequently
been much exaggerated. "Undoubtedly he relates many incidents which may seem to
us incredible, but, when he does so, he gives the evidence on which they are recommended
to him. At one time it is the express testimony of some well-known writer, at
another a general belief, at another an old tradition, at another his own observation
(v. 7, vi. 9, vii. 17, 18)." [W.]
In the most remarkable passage bearing on the question he recounts his own experience
during the last persecution in Palestine (Mart. Pal. 9). "There can be
no doubt about the occurrence which Eusebius here describes, and it does not appear
that he can be reproached for adding the interpretation which his countrymen placed
upon it. What he vouches for we can accept as truth; what he records as a popular
comment leaves his historical veracity and judgment unimpaired." [W.]
Even Gibbon (c. xvi.) describes the character of Eusebius as "less tinctured with
credulity, and more practised in the arts of courts, than that of almost any of
his contemporaries." A far more serious drawback is the loose and uncritical spirit
in which he sometimes deals with his materials. This shews itself in diverse ways.
(a) He is not always to be trusted in his discrimination of genuine and
spurious documents. As regards the canon of Scripture indeed he takes special
pains; lays down certain principles which shall guide him in the production of
testimonies; and on the whole adheres to these principles with fidelity (see
Contemp. Rev. Jan. 1875, pp. 169 seq.). Yet elsewhere he adduces as genuine
the correspondence of Christ and Abgarus (i. 13), though never treating it as
canonical Scripture. The unworthy suspicion that Eusebius forged this correspondence
which he asserted to be a translation of a Syriac original found in the archives
of Edessa has been refuted by the discovery and publication of the original Syriac
(The Doctrine of Addai the Apostle with an English Translation and Notes
by G. Phillips, Lond. 1876; see Zahn, Götting. Gel. Anz. Feb. 6, 1877,
pp. 161 seq.; Contemp. Rev. May 1877, p. 1137; a portion of this work had
been published some time before in Cureton's Ancient Syriac Documents,
pp. 6 seq., Lond. 1864). Not his honesty, but his critical discernment was at
fault. Yet we cannot be severe upon him for maintaining a position which, however
untenable, has commended itself to Cave (H. L. i. p. 2), Grabe (Spic.
Patr. i. pp. 1 seq.), and other writers of this stamp, as defensible. This,
moreover, is the most flagrant instance of misappreciation. On the whole, considering
the great mass of spurious documents current in his age, we may well admire his
discrimination, as e.g. in the case of the numerous Clementine writings
(iii. 16, 38), alleging the presence or absence of external testimony for his
decisions. Pearson's eulogy (Vind. Ign. i. 8) on Eusebius, though exaggerated,
is not undeserved. He is generally a safe guide in discriminating between
the genuine and the spurious. (b) He is often careless in his manner of
quoting. His quotations from Irenaeus, for instance, lose much of their significance,
even for his own purpose, by abstraction from their context (v. 8). His quotations
from Papias (iii. 39) and from Hegesippus (iii. 32, iv. 22) are tantalizing by
their brevity, for the exact bearing of the words could only have been learnt
from their context. But, except in the passages from Josephus (where the blame,
as we have seen, belongs elsewhere), the quotations themselves are given with
fair accuracy. (c) He draws hasty and unwarranted inferences from his authorities,
and is loose in interpreting their bearing. This is his weakest point as a critical
historian. Thus he quotes Josephus respecting the census of Quirinus and the insurrections
of Theudas and of Judas the Galilean, as if he agreed in all respects with the
accounts in St. Luke, and does not notice
(6) Life of Constantine, in four books.—The date of this work is fixed within narrow limits. It was written after the death of the great emperor (May 337) and after his three sons had been declared Augusti (Sept. 337)—see iv. 68; and Eusebius himself died not later than A.D. 340. Though not professing to be such, it is to some extent a continuation of the Ecclesiastical History. As such it is mentioned by Socrates (H. E. i. 1), to whom, as to other historians, it furnishes important materials for the period. For the council of Nicaea especially, and for some portions of the Arian controversy, it is a primary source of information of the highest value. As regards the emperor himself, it is notoriously one-sided. The verdict of Socrates will not be disputed. The author, he says, "has devoted more thought to the praises of the emperor and to the grandiloquence of language befitting a panegyric, as if he were pronouncing an encomium, than to the accurate narrative of the events which took place." But there is no ground for suspecting him of misrepresenting the facts given, and with the qualification stated above, his biography has the highest value. It is a vivid picture of certain aspects of a great personality, painted by one familiarly acquainted with him, who had access to important documents. It may even be set down to the credit of Eusebius that his praises of Constantine are much louder after his death than during his lifetime. In this respect he contrasts favourably with Seneca. Nor shall we do justice to Eusebius unless we bear in mind the extravagant praises which even heathen panegyrists lavished on the great Christian emperor before his face, as an indication of the spirit of the age. But after all excuses made, this indiscriminate praise of Constantine is a reproach from which we should gladly have held Eusebius free.
B. Apologetic.—(7) Against Hierocles.—Hierocles was governor in Bithynia, and used his power ruthlessly to embitter the persecution which he is thought to have instigated (Lactant. Div. Inst. v. 2; Mort. Pers. 16; see Mason, Persecution of Diocletian, pp. 58, 108). Not satisfied with assailing the Christians from the tribunal, he attacked them also with his pen. The title of his work seems to have been ὁ Φιλαλήθης, The Lover of Truth. It was a ruthless assault on Christianity, written in a biting style. Its main object was to expose the contradictions of the Christian records. Eusebius, however, confines himself to one point—the comparison of Apollonius, as described in his Life by Philostratus, with our Saviour, to the disparagement of the latter. There is much difference of opinion whether Philostratus himself intended to set up Apollonius as a rival to the Christ of the Gospels [Apollonius of Tyana], but Hierocles at all events turned his romance to this use.
Eusebius refutes his opponent with great moderation, and generally with good effect. He allows that Apollonius was a wise and virtuous man, but refuses to concede the higher claims advanced on his behalf. He shews that the work of Philostratus was not based on satisfactory evidence; that the narrative is full of absurdities and contradictions; and that the moral character of Apollonius as therein portrayed is far from perfect. He maintains that the supernatural incidents, if they actually occurred, might have been the work of demons. In conclusion (§§ 46-48) he refutes and denounces the fatalism of Apollonius, as alone sufficient to discredit his wisdom.
(8) Against Porphyry, an elaborate work in 25 books: Hieron. Ep.
70 ad Magn. § 3 (i. p. 427, Vallarsi); Vir. Ill. 81.—No part of this elaborate
refutation has survived. Yet
(9) Praeparatio Evangelica.—So Eusebius himself calls a treatise, which more strictly ought to have been called Praeparatio Demonstrationis Evangelicae, for it is an introductory treatise leading up to—
(10) The Demonstratio Evangelica.—These two treatises, in fact, are parts of one great work. They are both dedicated to Theodotus, an adherent of the Arian party, who was bp. of Laodicea for some thirty years.
In the absence of more direct testimony, we may infer that these works were begun during the persecution, but not concluded till some time after. The Preparation is extant entire, and comprises 15 books. The Demonstration, on the other hand, is incomplete. It consisted of 20 books, of which only the first ten are extant in the MSS. The Preparation sketches briefly what the Gospel is, and then adverts to the common taunt that the Christians accept their religion by faith without investigation. The whole work is an answer to this taunt. The object of the Preparation is to justify the Christians in transferring their allegiance from the religion and philosophy of the Greeks to the sacred books of the Hebrews. The object of the Demonstration is to shew from those sacred books themselves that Christians did right in not stopping short at the religious practices and beliefs of the Jews, but in adopting a different mode of life. Thus the Preparation is an apology for Christianity as against the Gentiles, while the Demonstration defends it as against the Jews, and "yet not," he adds, "against the Jews, nay, far from it, but rather for the Jews, if they would learn wisdom."
In the first three books of the Preparation he attacks the mythology
of the heathen, exposing its absurdity, and refutes the physiological interpretations
put upon the myths; in the next three he discusses the oracles, and as connected
therewith the sacrifices to demons and the doctrine of fate; in the third three
explains the bearing of "the Hebrew Oracles," and adduces the testimony of heathen
writers in their favour; in bks. x. xi. xii, and xiii. he remarks on the plagiarisms
of the Greek philosophers from the Hebrews, dwelling on the priority of the Hebrew
Scriptures, and shews how all that is best in Greek teaching and speculation agrees
with them; in bk. xiv. he points to the contradictions among Greek philosophers,
shewing how the systems opposed to Christian belief have been condemned by the
wisest Gentile philosophers themselves; and lastly, in bk. xv., he exposes the
falsehoods and errors of the Greek systems of philosophy, more especially of the Peripatetics, Stoics, and materialists of all schools. He claims to have thus
given a complete answer to those who charge Christians with transferring their
allegiance from Hellenism to Hebraism blindly and without knowledge. In the
Demonstration, bks. i. and ii. are introductory (iii. 1. 1,
τῶν προλεγομένων). In bk. i. a sketch is
given of the Gospel teaching and reasons alleged why Christians, while adopting
the Hebrew Oracles, should depart from the Jewish mode of life; a distinction
being drawn between Hebraism, the religion of all godly men from the beginning,
and Judaism, the temporary and special system of the Jews, so that Christianity
is a continuation of the former, but a departure from the latter. In bk. ii. testimonies
from the prophets shew that the two great phenomena of the Christian Church had
been long foretold—the general ingathering of the Gentiles and the general falling
away of the Jews—so that the Christians "were only laying claim to their own"
(iii. 1. 1). Bk. iii. begins the main subject of the treatise. He promises to
speak of the humanity of Christ, as corresponding to the predictions of
the prophets; but the topics are introduced in a desultory way (e.g. that
Christ was not a sorcerer, that the Apostles were not deceivers, etc.) without
any very obvious connexion with the main theme. Bks. iv. and v. pass on to the
divinity of Christ, both as the Son and as the Logos (see v. prooem. 1.
2), this likewise having been announced by the prophets. From bk. vi. onward to
the end he treats of the Incarnation and life
(ἐπιδημία)
of our Lord as a fulfilment of prophecy, and of the manner of Christ's appearing,
the place of His birth, His parentage and genealogy, the time of His advent and
His works as in like manner foretold. In bk. x., the last which is extant, he
reaches the Passion, treating of the traitor Judas and the incidents of the Crucifixion.
What were the topics of the remaining ten books we have no data for determining,
but may conjecture with Stein (p. 102) that they dealt with the burial, resurrection,
and ascension, and perhaps also with the foundation of the Christian church and
the Second Advent. The extant fragment of bk. xv. relates to the four kingdoms
of
(11) The Praeparatio Ecclesiastica (Ἐκκλησιαστικὴ Προπαρασκευή) is not extant, nor is (12) the Demonstratio Ecclesiastica (Ἐκκλησιαστικὴ Ἀπόδειξις), but both are mentioned by Photius (Bibl. 11, 12.) The names suggest that these two works aimed at doing for the society what the Praeparatio and Demonstratio Evangelica do for the doctrines of which the society is the depositary.
(13) Two Books of Objection and Defence only known from Photius (Bibl. 13).
(14) The Divine Manifestation (Θεοφάνεια), in five books, was long supposed to be lost, but fragments of the Greek original were published by Mai from Vatican MSS. in his Script. Vet. Nov. Coll. i. (1831), viii. (1833), and in 1842 the work was printed entire in a Syriac version by Dr. S. Lee, who in 1843 pub. an Eng. trans. with intro and notes (Eusebius, bp. of Caesarea, on the Theophania, etc., Camb. 1843). By the aid of this version Mai (a.d. 1847) in his Bibl. Nov. Patr. iv. p. 310 (cf. p. 110) rearranged his Greek fragments.
The subject is, as the name Theophania suggests, the manifestation of God in the Incarnation of the Divine Word. The contents are: (i) An account of the subject and the recipients of the revelation. The doctrine of the Word of God is insisted upon, His person and working set forth. Polytheist and pantheist are alike at fault. The Word is essentially one. His relation to creation, and especially to man, and the pre-eminence, characteristics, destiny, and fall of man are dealt with. (ii) The necessity of the revelation. The human race was degraded by gross idolatry with its accompanying immoralities. The philosophers could not rescue it. Plato had the clearest sense of the truth, yet even he was greatly at fault. Meanwhile the demons of polytheism had maddened mankind, as shewn by human sacrifices and the prevalence of wars. The demons, too, had shewn their powerlessness; they could not defend their temples or foresee their overthrow. (iii) The proof of the revelation. Its excellency and power is seen in its effects. For this it was necessary that the Word should be incarnate, put to death, and rise again. The change which has come over mankind in consequence is set forth. (iv) The proof of the revelation, from the fulfilment of Christ's words—His prophecies respecting the extension of His kingdom, the trials of His church, the destinies of His servants, and the fate of the Jews. (v) The common heathen objection that Christ was a sorcerer and a deceiver, achieving His results by magic, is answered.
The place of writing of the Theophania is Caesarea (iv. 6), and it was plainly written after the triumph of Constantine and the restoration of peace to the church. The persecution is over, and the persecutors have met with their punishment (iii. 20, v. 52). Polytheism is fast waning, and Christianity is spreading everywhere (ii. 76, iii. 79).
(15) On the Numerous Progeny of the Ancients.—This lost treatise is mentioned in Praep. Ev. vii. 8. 29. It is doubtless the same work to which St. Basil refers (de Spir. Sanct. 29, Op. iii. p. 61) as Difficulties respecting the Polygamy of the Ancients. It would seem to have been an apologetic work, as it seems to have aimed at accounting for the polygamy of the patriarchs and the Jews generally, and reconciling it with the ascetic life, which in his own time was regarded as the true ideal of Christian teaching. This problem occurs again and again in his extant apologetic writings. In the reference in the Praeparatio Eusebius speaks of having discussed in this work the notices of the lives of the patriarchs and "their philosophic endurance and self-discipline," whether by way of direct narrative or of allegorical suggestion.
C. Critical and Exegetical—i.e. all works directed primarily to the criticism and elucidation of the Scriptures.
(16) Biblical Texts.—In his earlier years Eusebius was occupied in conjunction with Pamphilus in the production of correct Greek texts of the O.T. A notice of his later years shews him engaged in a similar work (V. C. iv. 36, 37). The emperor writes to Eusebius, asking him to provide 50 copies of the Scriptures for use in the churches of Constantinople, where the Christian population had largely multiplied. The manuscripts must be easily legible and handy for use, written on carefully prepared parchment, and transcribed by skilful caligraphers. He has already written, he adds, to the procurator-general (καθολικός) of the district (τῆς διοικήσεως), charging him to furnish Eusebius with the necessary appliances and has placed at his disposal two public waggons to convey the manuscripts, when complete, to the new metropolis. Eusebius executes the commission. The manuscripts were arranged, he tells us, in ternions and quaternions (τρισσὰ καὶ τετρασσά), and carefully prepared at great cost. The emperor wrote expressing his satisfaction with them.
(17) Sections and Canons, with the Letter to Carpianus Prefixed.—Eusebius
explains the origin and method of these sections and canons in the prefatory letter.
Ammonius of Alexandria (c. 220) had constructed a Harmony or Diatessaron of the
Gospels. He took St. Matthew as his standard, and placed side by side with it
the parallel passages from the other three. The work of Ammonius suggested to
Eusebius the plan which he adopted, but Eusebius desired to preserve the continuity
of all the narratives. He therefore divided each gospel separately into sections,
which he numbered continuously, and constructed a table of ten canons,
containing lists of passages: canon i, common to all the four evangelists; canon
ii, common to Matthew, Mark, Luke; canon iii, common to Matthew, Luke, John; canon
iv, common to Matthew, Mark, John; canon v, common to Matthew and Luke; canon
vi, common to Matthew and Mark; canon vii, common to
(18) Under the head of Biblical exegesis may be ranged several togographical works undertaken at the instance of Paulinus, bp. of Tyre.—(a) Interpretation of the Ethnological Terms in the Hebrew Scriptures; (b) Chorography of Ancient Judaea, with the Inheritances of the Ten Tribes; (c) A Plan of Jerusalem and of the Temple. This was accompanied with memoirs relating to the different localities. (d) On the Names of Places in Holy Scripture, entitled in the head of Jerome's version de Situ et Nominibus Locorum Hebraicorum, but elsewhere (Vir. Ill. 81) Topica. The first three, which perhaps should be regarded as parts of the same work, are mentioned in the preface to the fourth, which alone is extant. All were written at the instance of Paulinus, to whom (d) is dedicated. This last professes to give alphabetically "the designations of the cities and villages mentioned in Holy Scripture in their original language," with a description of the locality and the modern names. The names are transliterated with various success from the Hebrew. The value of this treatise arises from the close acquaintance which Eusebius had with the geography of Palestine in his own day. The work had already been translated into Latin by some unskilful hand before Jerome's time, but so unsatisfactorily that he undertook a new version. He omitted some important notices and made several changes, justified by his personal knowledge of Palestine.
(19) On the Nomenclature of the Book of the Prophets.—This work contains a brief account of the several prophets and the subjects of their prophecies, beginning with the minor prophets and following the order of the LXX.
(20) In Psalmos, a continuous commentary on the Psalms, which stands in antiquity and intrinsic merit in the first rank of patristic commentaries. The historical bearing of the several psalms is generally treated sensibly; the theological and mystical interpretations betray the extravagance common to patristic exegesis. The value of the work is largely increased by frequent extracts from the Hexaplaric versions and by notices respecting the text and history of the Psalter. The author possessed some acquaintance with Hebrew, though not always sufficient to prevent mistakes. This commentary had a great reputation, and was translated into Latin within a very few years of its publication by Eusebius of Vercellae.
(21) Commentary on Isaiah.—This work exhibits the same characteristics as the Commentary on the Psalms. Jerome is largely indebted to Eusebius, whom he sometimes translates almost word for word without acknowledgment. Eusebius occasionally inserts interesting traditions on the authority of a Hebrew teacher: e.g. that Shebna became high-priest and betrayed the people to Sennacherib; that Hezekiah was seized with sickness for not singing God's praises, like Moses and Deborah, after his victory. Sometimes he gives Christian traditions: e.g. that Judas Iscariot was of the tribe of Ephraim. This commentary is mentioned by Procopius in his preface, and is freely used by him and by later Greek commentators.
(22) Commentary on St. Luke's Gospel.—Not mentioned by Jerome or Photius. Some extracts remain.
(23) Commentary on I. Corinthians.—Such a work seems to be implied by Jerome's language, Ep. xlix., though he does not mention it in his Catalogue.
(24) Commentaries on other Books of Scripture.—Extracts are given from, or mention is made of, commentaries on Proverbs, Song of Songs, Daniel, Hebrews, and several other books (see Fabric. op. cit. p. 399). It is doubtful, however, whether such extracts (even when genuine) are from continuous commentaries or from exegetical or dogmatical works.
(25) On the Discrepancies of the Gospels.—This work consists of two
parts, really separate works, and quoted as such: (i) Questions and Solutions
on the Genealogy of the Saviour, addressed to Stephanus; (ii) Questions
and Solutions concerning the Passion and Resurrection of the Saviour, addressed
to Marinus. The difficulties do not always turn upon discrepancies—e.g.
he discusses the question why Thamar is mentioned, and difficulties with respect
to Bathsheba and Ruth. But the discrepancies occupy a sufficiently large space
to give the name to the whole. The work exhibits the characteristic hesitation
of Eusebius in a somewhat aggravated form. Alternative solutions are frequently
offered, and he does not decide between them. But it is suggestive and full of
interest. It is valuable also as preserving large fragments of Africanus, besides
some important notices, such as the absence of
D. Doctrinal.—(26) General Elementary Introduction.—Five fragments of this work have been published by Mai. All deal with analogous topics, having reference to general principles of ethics, etc. It seems to have been a general introduction to theology, and its contents were very miscellaneous, as the extant remains shew.
(27) Prophetical Extracts.—This work contains prophetical passages from
O.T. relating to our Lord's person and work, with explanatory comments, and comprises
four books, of which the first is devoted to the historical books, the second
to the Psalms, the third to the remaining poetical books and the other prophets,
the fourth to Isaiah. The author explains that his main object is to shew that
the prophets spoke of Jesus Christ as the pre-existent
(28) Defence of Origen.—This was the joint work of Pamphilus and Eusebius. The original has perished, but the first book survives in the translation of Rufinus (printed in Origen, Op. iv. App. pp. 17 seq. Delarue). Eusebius (H. E. vi. 3) says that the work was undertaken to refute "captious detractors"; probably referring especially to Methodius, who had written two works against Origen (Hieron. Vir. Ill. 93; Socr. H. E. vi. 13) and was attacked by name in the sixth book (Hieron. c. Rufin. i. 11). It was dedicated to the confessors of Palestine, especially Patermuthius (Phot. Bibl. 118), who was martyred the year after Pamphilus (Eus. Mart. Pal. 13). The first book contains an exposition of Origen's principles, especially of his doctrines respecting the Trinity and the Incarnation; then nine special charges against him are refuted, relating to the nature of Christ, the resurrection of the dead, metempsychosis, etc. In one of the later books the doctrine of fatalism was discussed (Rufin. Apol. i. ii, in Hieron. Op. ii. p. 582). Elsewhere also it was shewn that Origen in his mystical explanation of Adam and Eve, as referring to Christ and the church, only followed the traditional interpretation (Socr. H. E. iii. 7). In the same spirit precedents were quoted for his doctrines of the pre-existence of the soul and the restitution of all things (Anon. Synod. Ep. 198). The Apology also contained a full account of the life of Origen (Phot. Bibl. 118). Eusebius himself refers to bk. ii. for accounts of the controversy about Origen's ordination to the priesthood and his contributions to sacred letters (H. E. vi. 23), and to bk. vi. for the letters which Origen wrote to Fabianus and others in defence of his orthodoxy (ib. 36), and to the work generally for the part taken by Origen in theological controversy (ib. 33). Socrates (H. E. iv. 27) states that the panegyric of Gregory Thaumaturgus on Origen was given in this Apology.
(29) Against Marcellus, bp. of Ancyra, in two books.—The occasion of writing is explained by Eusebius himself (c. Marc. ii. 4, pp. 55 seq.). Marcellus had been condemned for Sabellianism, and deposed by a synod of Constantinople (a.d. 336), composed chiefly of the Arian friends of Eusebius. This work was undertaken at the wish of these friends to justify the decision. Certain persons considered that Marcellus had been unfairly treated, and Eusebius, being partly responsible for the decision, felt bound to uphold its justice. The work aims simply at exposing the views of Marcellus. [Marcellus (4).]
(30) On the Theology of the Church, a Refutation of Marcellus, in three books.—Eusebius had at first thought it sufficient merely to expose the opinions of Marcellus, leaving them to condemn themselves. But on reflection, fearing lest some might be drawn away "from the theology of the church" by their very length and pretentiousness, he undertook to refute them, and to shew that no single Scripture favours the view of Marcellus, but that, according to the approved interpretations, all Scripture is against him. Having done this, he will expound the true theology respecting our Saviour, as it has been handed down in the church from the beginning. Thus, as explained by its author, the aim of this second treatise is refutation, as that of the first was exposure. The first was mainly personal, the second is chiefly dogmatical.
The two treatises were first edited by bp. R. Montague (Montacutius) with trans. and notes (Paris, 1628) at the end of the Demonstratio, and this ed. was reprinted (Lips. 1688). The best ed. is that of Gaisford (Oxf. 1852), where they are in the same vol. with the work Against Hierocles. He revised the text and reprinted the trans. and notes of Montague. The fragments of Marcellus are collected by Rettberg (Marcelliana, Götting. 1794). The monographs on Marcellus, especially Zahn's M. von Ancyra (Gotha, 1867), are useful aids.
(31) On the Paschal Festival.—Eusebius (Vit. Const. iv. 35, 36) states that he addressed to Constantine "a mystical explanation of the significance of the festival," upon which the emperor wrote (c. 335) expressing himself greatly delighted, and saying that it was a difficult undertaking "to expound in a becoming way the reason and origin of the Paschal festival, as well as its profitable and painful consummation." A long fragment of this treatise was discovered and published by Mai. The recovered fragment contains: (1) A declaration of the figurative character of the Jewish Passover. (2) An account of its institution and of the ceremonial itself. (3) An explanation of the typical significance of the different parts of the ceremonial, with reference to their Christian counterparts. (4) A brief statement of the settlement of the question at Nicaea. (5) An argument that Christians are not bound to observe the time of the Jewish festival, mainly because it was not the Jewish Passover which our Lord Himself kept.
E. Orations and SERMONS.—(32) At the Dedication of the Church in Tyre.—This oration is inserted by Eusebius in his History (x. 4.) The new basilica at Tyre was a splendid building, and Eusebius addresses Paulinus, the bishop, as a Bezaleel, a Solomon, a Zerubbabel, a new Aaron or Melchizedek. He applies to the occasion the predictions of the Jewish prophets foretelling the rebuilding of the temple and the restoration of the polity. He gives thanks for the triumph of Christ, the Word of God, Who has proved mightier than the mightiest of kings. This magnificent temple, which has arisen from the ruins of its predecessor, is a token of His power. Then follows an elaborate description of the building, which, continues the orator, is a symbol of the spiritual church of Tyre, of the spiritual church throughout the world, in its history, its overthrow, its desolation, its re-erection on a more splendid scale, and in the arrangement of its several parts. But the spiritual church on earth is itself only a faint image of the heavenly Zion, where adoring hosts unceasingly sing the praises of their King.
(33) At the Vicennalia of Constantine, a.d. 325. This oration, which is not extant, is mentioned Vit. Const. prooem. iii. 11. It seems to have been the opening address at the council of Nicaea, see supra.
(34) On the Sepulchre of the Saviour, a.d. 335.—This is mentioned Vit. Const. iv. 33, 46 seq. The circumstances of its delivery have been already described. It has been lost.
(35) At the Tricennalia of Constantine, a.d. 335 or 336.—This oration is commonly called de Laudibus Constantini. The orator, taking occasion from the festival, speaks of the Almighty Sovereign, and the Divine Word through Whom He administers the universe (§ 1). The emperor is a sort of reflection of the Supreme Word. The monarchy on earth is the counterpart of that in heaven (§§ 2, 3). The Word is the interpreter of the Invisible God in all things (§ 4). An emperor who, like Constantine, is sensible of his dependence on God, is alone fit to rule (§ 5). Periods and divisions of time are from God, as is all order throughout the universe. The number thirty (3 x 10) has a special symbolic significance, reminding us of the kingdom of glory (§ 6). The powers of wickedness and the sufferings of the saints were ended by Constantine, the champion and representative of God (§ 7). He waged war against idolatry, profligacy, and superstition (§ 8). What a change has been suddenly wrought! The false gods did not foresee their fate. The emperor, armed with piety, overthrew them. Churches rise from the ground everywhere (§ 8). The truth is proclaimed far and wide (§ 9). "Come now, most mighty victor Constantine," says the orator, "let me lay before thee the mysteries of sacred doctrines in this royal discourse concerning the Supreme King of the Universe." Accordingly he speaks of the person and working of the Divine Word, as mediator in the creation and government of the universe. Polytheism is condemned. As God is one, so His Word is one (§§ 11, 12). Humanity, led astray by demons and steeped in ignorance and sin, needed the advent of the Word (§ 13). It was necessary too that He should come clothed in a body (§ 14). His death and resurrection also were indispensable for the redemption of men (§ 15). The power of the Divine Word was evinced by the establishment of the church and the spread of the gospel (§ 16). It was manifested in our own time by the faith of the martyrs, by the triumph of the church over oppression, and by the punishment of the persecutors (§ 17). We have evidence of the divine origin of our faith in the prophetic announcements of Christ's coming, and in the fulfilment of His own predictions; more especially in the coincidence in time between the establishment of the Roman empire and the publication of the Gospel (§ 18).
(36) In Praise of the Martyrs.—This discourse is short and of little value; but the orator mentions, among those whom he invites his hearers to commemorate, almost every bishop of Antioch from the end of the 2nd cent. to his own time, so that it would seem to have been delivered at Antioch.
(37) On the Failure of Rain, mentioned by Ebedjesu, but apparently not elsewhere.
F. Letters.—(38) To Alexander, bp. of Alexandria, on behalf of Arius and his friends, complaining that they have been misrepresented.
(39) To Euphration (sometimes written incorrectly Euphrasion), bp. of Balanea in Syria, a strong opponent of the Arians (Athan. de Fug. 3, Op. i. p. 254; Hist. Ar. ad Mon. 5, ib. p. 274), who was present at the council of Nicaea. Athanasius refers to this letter as declaring plainly that Christ is not true God (de Synod. 17, Op. i. p. 584). An extract (containing the passage to which doubtless Athanasius refers) is quoted at the second council of Nicaea (l.c.). It insists strongly on the subordination of the Son.
(40) To Constantia Augusta (Op. ii. 1545), the sister of Constantine and wife of Licinius, who was closely allied with the Arians. Constantia had asked Eusebius to send her a certain likeness of Christ, of which she had heard. He rebukes her for the request, saying that such representations are inadequate in themselves and tend to idolatry. He states that a foolish woman had brought him two likenesses, which might be philosophers, but were alleged by her to represent St. Paul and the Saviour. He had detained them lest they should prove a stumbling-block to her or to others. He reminds Constantia that St. Paul declares his intention of "knowing Christ no longer after the flesh." This letter was quoted by the Iconoclasts, and this led their opponents to rake up all the questionable expressions in his writings, that they might blacken his character for orthodoxy.
(41) To the Church of Caesarea, written from Nicaea (a.d. 325) during or immediately after the council to vindicate his conduct. This letter is preserved by Athanasius as an appendix to the de Decret. Syn. Nic. (Op. i. p. 187; cf. § 3, ib. p. 166); in Socr. H. E. i. 8; in Theod. H. E. i. 11; in Gelasius Cyz. Hist. Conc. Nic. ii. 34 seq. (Labbe, Conc. ii. 264 seq. ed. Colet.); in the Historia Tripartita, ii. 11; and in Niceph. H. E. viii. 22. A passage towards the end (§§ 9, 10) which savours strongly of Arianism is wanting in Socrates and in the Historia Tripartita, but appears in the other authorities, and seems certainly to be referred to by Athanasius in two places (de Decr. Syn. Nic. 3, l.c.; de Synod. 13, Op. i. p. 581). It is condemned, however, by Bull (Def. Fid. Nic. iii. 9. 3) and Cave (Diss. Tert. in Joh. Cleric. p. 58, printed at the end of his Hist. Lit. vol. ii.) as a spurious addition, probably inserted by some Arian. The letter is translated and annotated by Newman in Select Treatises of St. Athanasius, pp. 59 seq. (Oxf. 1853).
In reviewing the literary history of Eusebius, we are struck first of all with
the range and extent of his labours. His extant works, voluminous as they are,
must have formed somewhat less than half his actual writings. No field of theological
learning is untouched. He is historian, apologist, topographer, exegete, critic,
preacher, dogmatic writer, in turn, and, if permanent utility may be taken as
a test of literary excellence, Eusebius will hold a very high place indeed. The
Ecclesiastical History is absolutely unique and indispensable. The Chronicle
is a vast storehouse of information as to ancient monarchies. The Preparation
and Demonstration are the most important contributions to theology in their
own province. Even minor works, such as the Martyrs of Palestine, the
Life of Constantine,
This is his real title to greatness. As an expositor of facts, an abstract thinker, or a master of style, it would be absurd to compare him with the great names of classical antiquity. His merits and his faults have been already indicated. His gigantic learning was his master rather than his slave. He had great conceptions, which he was unable adequately to carry out. He had valuable detached thoughts, but fails in continuity of argument. He was most laborious, yet most desultory. He accumulated materials with great diligence; but was loose, perfunctory, and uncritical in their use. His style is especially vicious. When his theme seems to him to demand a lofty flight of rhetoric, as in his Life of Constantine, his language becomes turgid and unnatural.
He is before all things an apologist. His great services in this respect are emphasized by Evagrius (H. E. i. 1, πείθειν οἷός το εἶναι τοὺς ἐντυγχάνοντας θρησκεύειν τὰ ἡμέτερα); and doubtless his directly apologetic writings were much more effective than at this distance of time we can realize. Whatever subject he touches, his thoughts seem to pour instinctively into this same channel. If he treats of chronology, a main purpose is to shew the superior antiquity of the Hebrew oracles to the wisdom of the Greeks. If he writes a history of the church, it is because he sees in the course of events a vindication of the Divine Word. Even in an encomium of a sovereign, he soars aloft at once into the region of theology, for he sees in the subject of his panegyric the instrument of a higher power for the fulfilment of a divine economy. In so essentially technical a task as the division of the Gospels into sections, his underlying desire is to vindicate the essential unity of the evangelical narratives against gainsayers. This character as an apologist was due partly to the epoch in which he lived, and partly to his individual temper and circumstances. He stood, as it were, on the frontier line between two ages, with one foot in the Hellenism of the past and the other in the Christianity of the future, and by his very position was constrained to discuss their mutual relations. He was equally learned in the wisdom of the Greeks and in the Scriptures, while his breadth of sympathy and moderation of temper fitted him beyond most of his contemporaries for tracing their conflicts and coincidences. Like St. Paul on Mars' Hill, he sought the elements of truth in pre-existing philosophical systems or popular religious; and thus obtaining a foothold, worked onward in his assault upon paganism. The Greek apologists of the 2nd and 3rd cents. all, without exception, took up this position. Eusebius, through his illustrious spiritual ancestors, Origen and Pamphilus, had inherited this tradition from Alexandria. It was the only method which could achieve success in apologetics while Christianity stood face to face with still powerful forms of heathen worship. It is the only method which can hope for victory now, when once again the Gospel is confronted with the widespread religions of India and the farther East.
If we may judge from the silence of his contemporaries—and silence in this case is an important witness—Eusebius commanded general respect by his personal character. With the single exception of the taunt of Potammon, mentioned already, not a word of accusation is levelled against him in an age when theological controversy was peculiarly reckless and acrimonious. His relations to Pamphilus shew a strongly affectionate disposition; and it is more than probable that he was drawn into those public acts from which his reputation has suffered most by the loyalty of private friendship. His moderation is especially praised by the emperor Constantine; and his speculative opinions, as well as his personal acts, bear out this commendation. His was a life which was before all things laborious and self-denying. He was not only the most learned and prolific writer of his age; but he administered the affairs of an important diocese, and took an active part in all great questions which agitated the church.
His admiration for Constantine may be excessive, but is not difficult to understand. Constantine was unquestionably one of the very greatest emperors of Rome. His commanding personality must have been irresistible; and is enhanced by his deference towards the leading Christian bishops. He carried out a change in the relations between the church and the state incomparably greater than any before or after. Eusebius delighted to place Augustus and Constantine in juxtaposition. During the one reign the Word had appeared in the flesh; during the other He had triumphed over the world. The one reign was the counterpart and complement of the other.
A discussion of the theological opinions of Eusebius is impossible within our
limits. Readers are referred to Baronius (ad ann. 340, c. 38 seq.), Petavius
(Dogm. Theol. de Trin. lib. i. cap. xi. seq.), Montfaucon (Praelim.
in Comm. ad Psalm. c. vi.), and Tillemont (H. E. vii. pp. 67 seq.)
among those who have assailed, and Bull (Def. Fid. Nic. ii. 9. 20, iii.
9. 3, 11), Cave (Hist. Lit. ii. app. pp. 42 seq.), and Lee (Theophania,
pp. xxiv. seq.) among those who have defended his opinions, from the orthodox
point of view. A convenient summary of the controversy will be found in Stein,
pp. 117 seq. His orthodoxy cannot be hastily denied. Dr. Newman, who cannot be
accused of unduly
"The remark has been made," writes Dr. Newman (Arians, p. 263), "that
throughout his Ecclesiastical History, no instance occurs of his expressing
abhorrence of the superstitions of Paganism," and that his custom is either to
praise, or not to blame, such heretical writers as fall under his notice. Nothing could be more erroneous as a statement of facts than Dr. Newman's language
here. Even if it had been true, that there is no abhorrence of of paganism expressed
in the History, great parts of the Praeparatio and Theophania,
the Tricennial Oration and the Life of Constantine, are an elaborate
indictment of the superstitions and horrors of heathendom; so that the comparative
silence in the History must be explained by the fact that this was not,
except incidentally, his theme. On the attitude of Eusebius towards heresies,
Newman's statement is still wider of the mark. It is difficult to see how language
could surpass such expressions as, e.g. i. 1; ii. 1, 13; iii. 26, 27, 28,
29, 32; iv. 7, 29, 30; v. 13, 14, 16-20, etc., "grievous wolves," "most abominable heresy,"
"like a pestilent and scabby disease,"
"incurable and dangerous poison," "most foul heresy, overshooting anything that
could exist or be conceived, more abominable than all shame," "double-mouthed
and two-headed serpent," "like venomous reptiles," "loathsome evil-deeds": these
and similar expressions form the staple of his language when he comes athwart
a heresy.
While the Arian controversy was still fresh the part taken by Eusebius was remembered against him in the Greek church, and the orthodox Fathers are generally depreciatory. But as the direct interest of the dispute wore out, the tide turned and set in his favour. Hence from the 5th cent. onwards we find a disposition to clear him of any complicity in Arian doctrine. Thus Socrates (H. E. ii. 21) is at some pains to prove him orthodox; and Gelasius of Cyzicus (H. S. N. ii. 1) stoutly defends this "most noble tiller of ecclesiastical husbandry," this "strict lover of truth" (ὁ φιλαληθέστατος), and says that if there be any suggestion, however faint, of Arian heresy (μικρόν τι τὰ Ἀρείου ὑπονούμενα) in his sayings or writings, it was due to "the inadvertence of simplicity," and that Eusebius himself pleaded this excuse in self-defence. Accordingly he represents him as a champion of orthodoxy against Arian opponents. The tide turned again at the second council of Nicaea. As the Iconoclasts alleged his authority for their views, the opposite party sought to disparage him. "His own books," says Photius, "cry aloud that he is convicted of Arianism " (Ep. 73). A lasting injury was inflicted on his reputation by dragging him into the Iconoclastic dispute. In the Latin church he fared somewhat better. Jerome indeed stigmatizes the teacher to whom he was more largely indebted than perhaps to any other as "the chief of the Arians," "the standard-bearer of the Arian faction," "the most flagrant champion of the impiety of Arius." But the eminent services of Eusebius to Christian literature carried the day in the western church. Two popes successively vindicated his reputation. Gelasius declined to place his History and Chronicle on the list of proscribed works (Decret. de Libr. Apocr. 4). Pelagius II., when defending him, says: "Holy Church weigheth the hearts of her faithful ones with kindliness rather than their words with rigour" (Ep. 5. 921). Neither Gelasius nor Pelagius refers directly to the charge of Arianism. The offence which seemed to them to require apology was his defence of the heretic Origen.
A more remarkable fact still is the canonization of Eusebius, notwithstanding
his real or supposed Arian opinions. In an ancient Syrian Martyrology,
translated from the Greek, and already referred to, he takes his rank among the
honoured martyrs and confessors of the church. Nor was it only in the East that
this honour awaited him. In the Martyrologium Hieronymianum for xi. Kal.
Jul. we find the entry "In Caesarea Cappadociae depositio sancti Eusebii" (Hieron.
Op. xi. 578). The person intended was Eusebius, the predecessor of St.
Basil [Eusebius (24)],
as the addition "Cappadociae" shews, but the transcendent fame of the Eusebius
of the other Caesarea eclipsed this comparatively obscure person and finally obliterated
his name from the Latin calendars. The word "Cappadociae" disappeared. In Usuard
the notice becomes "In Caesarea Palestinae sancti Eusebii historiographi" (with
a v. l.); and in old Latin martyrologies, where he is not distinctly specified,
the historian Eusebius is doubtless understood. Accordingly, in several
Eusebius (24), bp. of Caesarea in Cappadocia, by whom Basil the Great was ordained to the presbyterate. Eusebius was a layman, and unbaptized at the time of his elevation to the episcopate, A.D. 362. On the death of Dianius, the church of Caesarea was divided into two nearly equal factions, and the choice of a layman universally known and respected was the readiest way out of the dilemma. Military force had to be employed to overcome his reluctance and to compel the prelates to consecrate. No sooner were they free than the bishops endeavoured to declare their consecration of Eusebius void. But the counsels of the elder Gregory of Nazianzus prevailed (Greg. Naz. Orat. xix. 36, pp. 308, 309). Eusebius proved a very respectable prelate, but quite unequal to the circumstances of severe trial in which he soon found himself. One of the earliest acts of his episcopate was to ordain Basil priest. A coldness grew up between Eusebius and Basil, leading to Basil's three years' retirement to Pontus. [Basilius of Caesarea.] (Greg Naz. Orat. xx. §§ 51-53; Ep. 19, 20, 169, 170.) In 366 Basil returned to Caesarea. Each had learnt wisdom from the past (Greg. Naz. Orat. xx. §§ 57-59), and harmonious relations existed unbroken to the death of Eusebius, a.d. 370.
Fleury states that Eusebius is reckoned by some as a martyr (Fleury, xv. 13, 14; xvi. 9, 14, 17), but Usuard probably confounds Eusebius of Cappadocia with Eusebius the historian. See Papebrochius in AA. SS. Boll. Jun. iv. 75; and on the other side, Tillem. Mém. vii. 39. [Eusebius of Caesarea.]
Eusebius (34), bp. of Dorylaeum in Phrygia Salutaris, the constant supporter of orthodoxy against Nestorius and Eutyches alike. About Christmas a.d. 428, when Nestorius was asserting his heresy in a sermon at Constantinople, there stood up in church a layman of excellent character, distinguished for erudition and orthodox zeal, who asserted in opposition to Nestorius that the "eternal Word begotten before the ages had submitted also to be born a second time" (i.e. according to the flesh of the Virgin). This bold assertion of the faith caused great excitement in the church. (Cyril. Alex. adv. Nestor. i. 20 in Migne, vol. ix. p. 41 D; Marius Mercator, pars ii. lib. i.; Patr. Lat. xlviii. p. 769 B.) This was certainly, as Theophanes (Chron. p. 76) expressly says, our Eusebius, who thus was the first to oppose the Nestorian heresy (Evagr. Hist. i. 9 in Patr. Gr. lxxxvi. 2445). He was also the first to protest against the heretical utterances of Anastasius, the syncellus of Nestorius (Theophan. Chron. p. 76). He was a "rhetor" (Evagr. l.c.) distinguished in legal practice (Leont. Byzant. cont. Nestor. et Eutych. lib. iii. in Patr. Gk. lxxxvi. 1389) and an "agens in rebus" to the court (Gesta de Nom. Acacii, cap. i. in Galland. Biblioth. x. 667; cf. Tillem. xiv. n. xi. on Cyril of Alex.). Theophanes (l.c.) calls him a σχολαστικὸς of the empress.
After the sermon of St. Proclus against Nestorius, and before the orthodox
had separated from the communion of Nestorius, in consequence of the council of
Ephesus, there appeared, fixed in a public place, a document exposing the identity
of Nestorius's doctrine with that of Paul of Samosata. This document common opinion
attributed to Eusebius (Leont. Byzant. u.s.). It begins by conjuring its
readers to make its contents known or give a copy of it to all bishops, clergy,
and laity in Constantinople. It draws out the parallel between the doctrines of
Nestorius and Paul of Samosata, who both deny that the child born of Mary was
the Eternal Word; and ends with an anathema on him who denies the identity of
the Only begotten of the Father and the child of Mary. Eusebius must have been
a priest at the time when St. Cyril wrote his five books against Nestorius (Cyril.
Alex. u.s.—so much is implied in the τελῦν
ἔτι ἐν λαικοῖς), i.e. c. 430. He was certainly bp. of Dorylaeum
in 448. He himself states that he was poor (Labbe, Conc. iv. 221
D.). Common hostility to Nestorius
had hitherto united Eusebius and Eutyches; but about this time Eusebius, perceiving
the heretical tendencies of his friend, frequently visited him, and exhorted him
to reconsider his ways (ib. 154 D).
Finding him immovable, Eusebius presented a "libellus" against Eutyches at a council
at Constantinople under Flavian, Nov. 8, 448 (ib. 151). He deplores the
persistency of Eutyches in error, and demands that he should be summoned before
the council to answer charges of heresy. His petition was granted, though with
unwillingness. At the second session of the council (Nov. 12), Eusebius requested
that the second letter of St. Cyril to Nestorius and his letter to John of Antioch
should be read as representing the standard of orthodoxy. This led to a profession
of the orthodox faith from Flavian, assented to by the other bishops. At the third
session (Nov. 15) Eusebius found that Eutyches had refused to come, alleging a
determination never to quit his monastery, and saying that Eusebius had been for
some time (πάλαι) his enemy.
[Eutyches (4).]
Only on the third summons was he induced to appear. Meanwhile
Eusebius pressed his point persistently and even harshly, behaving with such warmth
that, as Flavian said, "fire itself seemed cold to him, in his zeal for
We next hear of Eusebius in Apr. 449 at the examination of the Acts of the council of Constantinople, which Eutyches had declared to have been falsified. With him were 14 of the 34 bishops who had condemned Eutyches (Labbe, iv. 235). Eutyches was represented by three delegates; Eusebius and others remonstrated against his absence, but the emperor's orders overruled them. Eusebius insisted that all examination into the case of Eutyches, and into any question other than the authenticity of the Acts, should be referred to a general council (ib. 268). The examination of the Acts does not seem to have brought to light any inaccuracy of importance. When Eusebius arrived in Ephesus early in Aug. 449 to attend the council, he apparently lodged with Stephen of Ephesus (ib. 111 D, E), but was not permitted to attend the meetings of the council, on the ground that the emperor had forbidden it (ib. 145 A, B). Flavian urged that he should be admitted and heard, but Elpidius, one of the imperial commissioners, opposed it (Hefele, Concil. ii. 355) and the same wish or command of the emperor was urged by Dioscorus at the council of Chalcedon also. When the passage in the acts of Constantinople was read where Eusebius pressed Eutyches to acknowledge the two natures after the Incarnation, the council burst forth, "off with Eusebius! burn him!" (Labbe, iv. 224 A). Sentence of deposition was pronounced against Flavian and Eusebius, and they were imprisoned (Liberat. cap. xii.; Galland, xii. p. 140) and then sent into exile (Gest. de Nom. Acac. Galland, x. 668). Eusebius escaped to Rome, where Leo welcomed him and granted him communion. He was there till Apr. 481 (Leo Mag. Ep. lxxix. lxxx. 1037, 1041). Leo commends him to the care of Anatolius of Constantinople, the successor of Flavian, as one who had suffered much for the faith. Eusebius left Rome to attend the council of Chalcedon. He had addressed a formal petition to the emperor Marcian against Dioscorus, and appears in the council as his accuser. He complains more than once of the conduct of Dioscorus in excluding him from the council of Ephesus (Labbe, iv. 145, 156). His innocence, with that of St. Flavian, was fully recognized at the close of the 1st session of the council of Chalcedon (ib. 322, 323); but at the 3rd session, on Oct. 13, he presented a further petition against Dioscorus, on behalf of himself, of Flavian (τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις), and of the orthodox faith. He urges the iniquities of Dioscorus at Ephesus, and begs for complete exculpation for himself and condemnation for Dioscorus (ib.381). In the 4th session Eusebius took part in the case of certain Egyptian bishops who declined to condemn Eutyches, alleging that they were bound to follow their patriarch (i. e. Dioscorus), in accordance with the council of Nicaea. Eusebius has but one word to say, "ψεύδονται" (ib. 513 A). We find him later (5th session, Oct. 22) siding at first against the imperial officers, and the wishes of the Roman legates for making no addition to the council's definition of faith (ib. 558 D; cf. Bright, Hist. of the Church, p. 409). Afterwards, however, he assisted at the revision which made that definition a completer expression of the doctrine of Leo's tome. In the 11th session he (Labbe, iv. 699 A) voted for the deposition of both claimants to the see of Ephesus, Bassian and Stephen, as being both alike irregularly consecrated. In the 15th session (Oct. 23) he signed the much-contested 28th canon of the council on the position to be held by the see of Constantinople. [Leo I..] The last time his name appears is in the rescript of the emperor Marcian, June 452, which had for its special object to rehabilitate the memory of Flavian, but which secured also that the condemnation of the robber council should in no way injure the reputation of Eusebius and Theodoret (ib. 866). His name appears in the list of bishops signing the decrees of the council at Rome in 503, but this list certainly belongs to some earlier council (cf. Baron. ann. 503, ix.). Comparing him with Flavian, we cannot but feel his want of generosity in his treatment of Eutyches, whose superior in logical power and theological perception he undoubtedly was. But none can deny him the credit of having been a watchful guardian of the doctrine of the Incarnation all through his life, and a keen-sighted and persistent antagonist of error, whether on the one side or the other, who by his sufferings for the orthodox faith merits the title of confessor.
Eusebius (35) Emesenus, bp. of Emesa, now Hems, in Syria, c.
341-359. He was born at Edessa, of a noble family, of Christian parents, and from
his earliest years was taught the Holy Scriptures. His education was continued
in Palestine and subsequently at Alexandria. In Palestine he studied theology
under Eusebius of Caesarea and Patrophilus of Scythopolis, from whom he contracted
the Arian leanings which distinguished him to the end of his life. Jerome terms
him "signifer Arianae factionis" (Chron. sub. ann. x. Constantii), and
his Arian tenets are spoken of by Theodoret as too well known to admit question
(Theod. Eranist. Dial. iii. p. 257, ed. Schulze). About
a.d. 331 he visited Antioch. Eustathius
had been recently banished, and the see was occupied by one of the short-lived
Arian
He was a very copious writer. Jerome, who speaks somewhat contemptuously of his productions, particularizes treatises against the Jews, the Gentiles, and the Novatianists, an exposition of Galatians in ten books, and a large number of very brief homilies on the Gospels. The greater part of his works is lost. Theodoret quotes with high commendation in his Eranistes (Dial. iii. p. 258, ed. Schulze) two passages on the impassibility of the Son of God, a truth for which he says Eusebius endured many and severe struggles. Theodoret also speaks of works of his against Apelles (Haer. Fab. i. 25) and Manes (ib. 26). All the extant remains of Eusebius are printed by Migne, Patr. t. lxxxvi. i. pp. 461 ff. Socr. H. E. ii. 9; Soz. H. E. iii. 6; Niceph. H. E. ix. 5; Tillem. Mém. Eccl. t. vi. p. 313; Cave, Hist. Lit. vol. i. p. 207; Oudin, t. i. p. 389.)
Eusebius (48), bp. of Laodicea, in Syria Prima; a native and deacon of Alexandria. In the persecution under Valerian, a.d. 257, when the venerable bp. Dionysius had been banished from Alexandria, Eusebius remained, ministering to those in prison and burying the martyrs, a faithful service gratefully commemorated in a letter of Dionysius (apud Eus: H. E. vii. 11). During the civil strife at the death of Valerian, when Alexandria was in revolt, a.d. 262, Aemilianus, who had assumed the purple, was driven into the strong quarter of the city called Bruchium, and besieged. Eusebius without, and his friend Anatolius within, the besieged quarter secured escape for all useless hands, including a large number of Christians, whom Eusebius received kindly, supplying them with food and medicine, and carefully tending the sick. To the synod of Antioch, a.d. 264, summoned to deal with Paul of Samosata, Dionysius bp. of Alexandria, being unable to be present through age, sent Eusebius as his representative. The see of Laodicea was then vacant, and the Laodiceans demanded Eusebius for their bishop, taking no refusal. As bp. of Laodicea he sat at the synod when Paul of Samosata was deposed, a.d. 270. He was succeeded by his old friend Anatolius. Eus. H. E. vii. 11, 32; Tillem. Mém. Eccl. iv. 304; Le Quien, Or. Christ. ii. 792; Neale, Patriarchate of Alex. i.77.
Eusebius (60), bp. of Nicomedia. Our knowledge of his character is derived almost exclusively from the bitter language of his theological antagonists. He wielded an extraordinary influence over the fortunes of some of the great party leaders of the 4th cent. The fascination he exercised over the minds of Constantine and Constantius, his dexterity in utilizing both secular and ecclesiastical law to punish his theological enemies, his ingenuity in blinding the judgment of those not alive to the magnitude of the problem, and in persuading the unwary of the practical identity of his own views with those of the Catholic church, together with the political and personal ascendancy he achieved, reveal mental capacity and diplomatic skill worthy of a better cause. During 20 years his shadow haunts the pages of the ecclesiastical historians, though they seldom bring us face to face with the man or preserve his words. Even the chronology of his life is singularly uncertain.
It is difficult to understand the pertinacity and even ferocity with which Eusebius and his party pursued the Homoousian leaders, and to reconcile this with their well-accredited compromises, shiftings of front, and theological evasions. Dr. Newman (Arians of Fourth Cent. p. 272) admits their consistency in one thing, "their hatred of the sacred mystery." He thinks that this mystery, "like a spectre, was haunting the field and disturbing the complacency of their intellectual investigations." Their consciences did not scruple to "find evasions of a test." They undoubtedly compromised themselves by signature; yet they did not treat as unimportant that which they were wont to declare such but set all the machinery of church and empire in motion to enforce their latitudinarian view on the conscience of the church.
The Arian and the orthodox agreed as to the unique and exalted dignity of the
Son of God; both alike described the relation between the first and second hypostasis
in the Godhead as that which is imaged to us in the paternal and filial relation.
They even agreed that the Son was "begotten of His Father before all worlds"—before
the commencement of time, in an ineffable manner—that the Son was the originator
of the categories of time and place, that "by His own will and counsel He has
If we follow out the logical conclusions involved in the denial of the orthodox statement on this transcendental theme, it is more easy to understand the abhorrence with which the dogmatic negations of the Arians were regarded by the Catholic church. The position of Arius and Eusebius involved a virtual Ditheism, and opened the door to a novel Polytheism. After Christianity had triumphed over the gods of heathendom, Arius seemed to be reintroducing them under other names. The numerical unity of God was at stake; and a schism, or at least a divarication of interests in the Godhead, shewn to be possible. Moreover, the "Divinity" of the Incarnate Word was on this hypothesis less than God; and so behind the Deity which He claimed there loomed another Godhead, between Whom and Himself antagonism might easily be predicated. The Gnosticism of Marcion had already drawn such antagonism into sharp outline, and the entire view of the person of the Lord, thus suggested, rapidly degenerated into a cold and unchristian humanitarianism.
The exigencies of historic criticism and of the exegesis of the N.T. compelled the Arian party to discriminate between the Word, the power, the wisdom of God, and the Son. They could not deny, since God could never have been without His "Logos," that the Logos was in some sense eternal. So they took advantage of the distinction drawn in the Greek schools between λόγος ἐνδιάθετος, identifiable with the wisdom, reason, and self-consciousness of God, and λόγος προφορικός, the setting forth and going out at a particular epoch of the divine energy. The latter they regarded as the λόγος which was made flesh and might be equated with the Son. "The external (prophoric) word was a created Being made in the beginning of all things as the visible emblem of the internal (endiathetic) word, and (used as) the instrument of God's purposes towards His creation" (Newman, l.c. 199; cf. Athan. Hist. Conc. Arim. et Seleuc. cap. ii. § 18).
The orthodox party admitted the double use of the word λόγος, allowed that it answered to the eternal wisdom and also to the eternal manifestation of God, and discarding the trammels of the figurative expression by which the internal relations of the Godhead can alone be represented to us, declared that they could not carry the materialistic or temporal accompaniments of our idea of Father and Son into this "generation," and boldly accepted the sublime paradox with which Origen had refuted Sabellianism—viz. the "eternal generation of the Son." To suppose the relation between the Father and Son other than eternal was to be involved in the toils of a polytheistic emanation and Gnostic speculation. Compelled to formulate expressions about the infinite and eternal God, they concluded that any formula which divided the essence of God left infinity on the one side, and the finite on the other, i.e. that there would be, on this hypothesis, an infinite difference even in majesty and glory between the Father and the Son. This was blasphemy in the eyes of those who held the Divinity of the Son of God.
The controversy was embittered by the method in which Arius and Eusebius appealed to Holy Scripture. They urged that Godhead and participation in the divine nature were attributed to Christ in the same terms in which similar distinctions are yielded by God to other creatures, angelic, human, or physical (Theod. H. E. i. 6, 8). Thus Christ's rank in the universe might be indefinitely reduced, and all confidence in Him ultimately proved an illusion. The argument had a tone of gross irreverence, even if the leaders can be quite acquitted of blasphemous levity or intentional abuse.
One of the tactics of the Arian or Eusebian party was to accuse of Sabellianism those, like Athanasius, Eustathius, and Marcellus of Ancyra, who refused their interpretation of the relation between the Father and the Son. Doubtless many not versed in philosophical discussion were incapable of discriminating between the views of Sabellius and an orthodoxy which vehemently or unguardedly condemned the Arian position. Eusebius repudiated violently the Pantheistic tendency of the Sabellian doctrine. He is the most prominent and most distinguished man of the entire movement, and it has been plausibly argued that he was the teacher rather than the disciple of Arius. Athanasius himself made the suggestion. We learn on good authority, that of Arius himself, that they were fellow-disciples of Lucian of Antioch (ib. 5). Lucian afterwards modified his views and became a martyr for the faith, but his rationalizing spirit had had a great effect on the schools of Antioch. According to Ammianus Marcellinus, Eusebius was a distant relative of the emperor Julian, and therefore possibly of Constantine.
It may have been through the wife of Licinius and sister of Constantine that
he received his first ecclesiastical appointment. This was the bishopric of Berytus (Beirout) in
Notwithstanding their signature, for some reason Eusebius and Theognis were banished for nearly three years from their respective sees. Theodoret (H. E. i. 20) preserves a portion of a letter written by Constantine against Eusebius and Theognis, and addressed to the Nicomedians. The document displays bitter animosity, and, for so astute a prince, a curious simplicity. Constantine reveals a private grudge against Eusebius for his conduct when Licinius was contending with him, and professes to have seized the accomplices of Eusebius and to have possessed himself of damaging papers and trustworthy evidence against him. He reproaches Eusebius with having been the first defender of Arius and with having deceived him in hope of retaining his benefice. He refers angrily to the conduct of Eusebius in urging Alexandrians and others to communicate with the Arians. This pertinacity is suggested by Constantine as the actuating cause and occasion of his exile.
Epiphanius (Haer. lxviii.) details the circumstances of the union of the Meletian schismatics with the Arians, and the disingenuous part taken by Eusebius in promising his good offices with the emperor, if they in their turn would promote the return of Arius to Alexandria, and would promise inter-communion with him and his party.
The terms of hatred and disgust with which Constantine speaks of Eusebius render his early return to Nicomedia very puzzling. Sozomen (ii. 16) and Socrates (i. 14) both record a letter (a.d. 328) from Eusebius and Theognis to "the Bishops," explaining their views, in which they say, "We hold the same faith that you do, and after a diligent examination of the word ὁμοούσιος, are wholly intent upon preserving peace, and are seduced by no heresy. Having proposed for the safety of the church such suggestions as occurred to us, and having certified what we deemed requisite, we signed the confession of faith. We did not certainly sign the anathemas—not because we impugned the confession of faith, but because we did not believe the accused to be what he was represented to us. . . . So far from opposing any of the decrees enacted in your holy synod, we assent to all of them—not because we are wearied of exile, but because we wish to avert all suspicion of heresy. . . . The accused having justified himself and having been recalled from exile, . . . we beseech you to make our supplications known to our most godly emperor, and that you immediately direct us to act according to your will." If this letter is genuine, it demonstrates the fact of their partial and incomplete signature of the symbol of Nicaea, and that the incompleteness turned on personal and not on doctrinal grounds. Other statements of Sozomen (ii. 27) are in harmony with it, but there are reasons for hesitating to receive these statements, and the letter itself is in obvious contradiction with the evidence of Philostorgius (i. 9) and Epiphanius (lxviii. 5) that Eusebius and Theognis signed the symbol, anathemas and all. Are we to believe these writers against the testimony of Sozomen and Socrates, who expressly give a consistent representation undoubtedly more favourable to Eusebius?
The most powerful argument of De Broglie and others against the genuineness
of the letter, as being written from the exile of Eusebius, is the silence of
Athanasius, who never uses it to shew the identity of the position and sentiments
of Arius and Eusebius. Philostorgius recounts a rumour that after the council
Eusebius desired to have his name expunged from the list of signatures, and a
similar statement is repeated by Sozomen (ii. 21) as the possible cause of the
banishment of Eusebius. The fact may, notwithstanding the adverse judgment of
many historians, have been that Eusebius signed the formulary, expressing the
view he took of its meaning, and discriminating between an anathema of certain
positions and the persecution of an individual. A signature, thus qualified, may
have saved him from immediate banishment. In the course of three months his sympathy with Arius and his
Meanwhile, considerable controversy had occurred between Eusebius of Caesarea
and Eustathius of Antioch on the true meaning of the term Homoousios. Eustathius
[Eustathius (3)], in
his zeal for the Nicene faith, had strenuously refused to admit Arians into communion,
and laid himself open, in the opinion of Eusebius of Caesarea, to the charge of
Sabellianism (Soz. ii. 18). This provided the opportunity for Eusebius of Nicomedia
to strike a blow at Eustathius, and nothing can exceed the treachery shewn by
Eusebius on this occasion. His apparently friendly visit to Eustathius on his
way to Jerusalem (Soz. ii. 19; Theod. i. 21), the gathering of his Arian supporters
on his return to Antioch, shew the scheme to have been deeply laid. Here,
a.d. 330 or beginning of 331, the
council of his friends was held, at which the charge of Sabellianism was, according
to Theodoret (i. 21) and Philostorgius (ii. 7), aggravated by the accusation brought
by a woman, that Eustathius was the father of her child—a not uncommon device
of the enemies of ecclesiastics. The upshot was that through this, and other vamped-up
charges of disrespect to the emperor's mother, Eustathius was deposed and exiled
by the Eusebians. The letter of Constantine upon the affair, and against heretics
generally, brought the controversy to a lull, until the first attack upon Athanasius.
The career of Eusebius of Nicomedia during the remaining ten years of his life
is so closely intertwined with the romantic sufferings of Athanasius that it is
difficult to indicate the part he took in the persecution of Athanasius without
reproducing the story of this great hero of the Catholic faith. The first charge
which Eusebius encouraged the Meletians to bring against Athanasius concerned
his taxing the people of Egypt for linen vestments, and turned upon the supposed
violence of Macarius, the representative of Athanasius, in overthrowing the altar
and the chalice, when reproving (for uncanonical proceedings) Ischyras, a priest
of the Colluthian sect. These charges were all absolutely disproved by Athanasius
before Constantine at Nicomedia. On his return to Alexandria, Athanasius had to
encounter fresh opposition. The preposterous story of the murder of Arsenius,
with its grotesque accompaniments, was gravely laid at his door.
[Athanasius.]
To this, at first, he disdained to reply. Eusebius declared even this to be a
serious charge, and made much capital out of the refusal of Athanasius to attend
the council at Caesarea, which was summoned, among other causes, to investigate
it (Theod. i. 28). In 335, the partisan council of Tyre passed a sentence of deposition
upon Athanasius, who had fled to Constantinople to appeal to the emperor, who
summoned the whole synod of Tyre before him. Eusebius and a few of his party,
Theognis, Patrophilus, Valens, and Ursacius, obeyed the summons, and confronted
Athanasius; but abandoning the disproved charges upon which the sentence of deposition
rested, they met him with new accusations likely to damage him in the view of
the emperor. Constantine yielded to the malicious inventions of Eusebius, and
banished Athanasius to Trèves, in Feb. 336. The cause of banishment is obscure,
but twice over (Ap. § 87, Hist. Ar. § 50) Athanasius declares that
Constantine sent him to Gaul to deliver him from the fury of his enemies. While
Athanasius was in exile Eusebius and his party impeached Marcellus of Ancyra for
refusing to appear at the council of Dedication at Jerusalem,
a.d. 335, and for Sabellianism, an implication of heresy
to which he exposed himself while zealously vindicating his refusal to hold communion with Arians.
[Asterius (1);
Marcellus.]
Marcellus was deposed by the Eusebians, and not restored till the council of Sardica.
At the council of Dedication at Jerusalem, Arius propounded a view of his faith
which was satisfactory to the council, was received into communion there, and
sent by Eusebius to Alexandria, whence, as his presence created great disturbance,
he was summoned to Constantinople. There Arius died tragically on the eve of the
public reception which Eusebius had planned. The death of Alexander of Constantinople
followed very shortly, and the effort to elect Paul (Paulus
(18)] in his place (without the consent of the bp. of Nicomedia) roused
the ire of Eusebius, who intrigued to secure his first deposition. Eusebius must
still have retained the favour of Constantine, as he appears to have administered
baptism to the dying emperor, May 337. Jerome says that by this act Constantine
avowed himself an Arian. "But all history protests against the severity of this
sentence" (de Broglie). Hefele supposes that Constantine regarded Eusebius as
the great advocate of Christian unity. Moreover, in the eyes of Constantine, Eusebius was one who had
signed the Nicene
In 340 the Eusebians held a synod at Antioch, at which Athanasius was once more condemned. In 341 (May) the council developed into the celebrated council in Encaeniis, held also at Antioch, at which, under the presidency of Eusebius or Placetus of Antioch, and with the assent and presence of Constantius, divers canons were passed, which are esteemed of authority by later oecumenical councils. These two councils are confounded and identified by Socrates (ii. 2) and Sozomen.
The cruel injustice to which Athanasius was subjected by long exile is freely attributed to Eusebius, as its mainspring and constant instigator. Nevertheless the last thing we are told about Eusebius by Socrates (ii. 13) is that he appealed from the council of Antioch to Julius, bp. of Rome, to give definite sentence as to Athanasius, but that before the sentence of Julius reached him, "immediately after the council broke up, breath went out of his body, and so he died," a.d. 342.
In addition to authors already cited, the following may be consulted: The Orations of St. Athanasius against the Arians, according to the Benedictine Text, with an Account of his Life, by William Bright, D.D.; Hefele, History of the Christian Councils, translated by Prebendary Clark and Mr. Oxenham, vols. i. and ii.; Möhler, Athanasius der Grosse und die Kirche seiner Zeit (1844); William Bright, D.D., History of the Church from 313 to 451 (1869); Albert de Broglie, L’Eglise et l’Empire (1856), t. ii.; The Arians of the Fourth Century, by J. H. Newman (4th ed. 1876).
Eusebius (71), bp. of Pelusium, between Ammonius and Georgius. He was present at the council of Ephesus in 431 (Mansi, iv. 1127 A, 1219 B, 1366 D; v. 615 C). His contemporary Isidore, abbat of Pelusiurn, depicts him in the darkest colours, as a man of some taste and some ability, an "agreeable" preacher (Ep. i. 112; cf. v. 301), but hot-tempered (v. 196; cf. iii. 44) and easily swayed by men worse than himself (ii. 127; v. 451); his hands were not clear of simoniacal gain, which he employed in building a splendid church (i. 37; ii. 246); he "entrusted the flock to dogs, wolves, foxes" (v. 147), "the monasteries to herdsmen and runaway slaves" (i. 262); he was forgetful of the poor, and inaccessible to remonstrance (iii. 260). His confidants were Lucius the archdeacon, who was said to take money for ordinations (i. 29); Zosimus a priest, who disgraced his grey hairs by vices (i. 140; ii. 75, 205, etc.) and retained contributions meant for the poor (v. 210); and three deacons, Eustathius, Anatolius, and Maron (i. 223; ii. 28, 29, etc.), with whom Gotthius (ii. 10), Simon, and Chaeremon (v. 48, 373) are associated. The greediness of those who administered the church property was insatiable (v. 79). The offences of these men, or of some of them, were so gross that men cried out against them as effective advocates of Epicureanism (ii, 153, 230), and Isidore had to tell his correspondents that he had done his best (as, indeed, many of his letters shew, e.g. i. 140, 436; ii. 28, 39, etc.) to reclaim the offenders, but that the physician could not compel the patient to follow his advice, that "God the Word Himself" could not save Judas (iv. 205.) that a good man should not soil his lips by denouncing their conduct (iii. 229; v. 116), and that nothing remained but to pray for their conversion (v. 2, 105, etc.), and in the meantime to distinguish between the man and the office (ii. 52), and to remember that the unworthiness of the minister hindered not the effect of the sacraments (ii. 32). But the fullest account of the misgovernment of the church of Pelusium is given in the story of Martinianus (ii. 127), whom Eusebius had ordained, and made "oeconomus" or church steward. He played the knave and tyrant, treated the bishops as his tool, was more than once in peril of his life from the indignation of the citizens, went to Alexandria, was menaced by archbp. Cyril with excommunication, but returned and imputed to Cyril himself a participation in simony. Such things induced many to leave Pelusium in disgust; "the altar lacked ministers" (i. 38); a pious deacon, such as Eutonius, was oppressed by Zosimus (ii. 131) and attacked by the whole clergy, to some extent out of subserviency to the bishop (v. 564). Eusebius is not mentioned among the Fathers of the council of Chalcedon in 451. In 457 he and Peter, bp. of Majuma, assisted at the ordination of Timotheus Aelurus to the see of Alexandria (Evagr. H. E. ii. 8), and those who were parties to that proceeding are stated by Theodorus Lector (H. E. i. 9) to have been deposed bishops. The epistle of the Egyptian bishops to Anatolius (Cod. Encyc. in Mansi, vii. 533 A) represents the two bishops (here unnamed) who ordained Timotheus as having no communion with the Catholic church. Le Quien, Or. Chr. ii. 533; Tillem. Mém. xv. 747, 748, 782-788.
Eusebius (77), bp. of Samosata (360-373), the friend alike of Basil
the Great, Meletius, and Gregory Nazianzen. All that is definitely known of Eusebius
is gathered from the epistles of Basil and of Gregory, and from some incidents
in the Ecclesiastical History of Theodoret. The fervent and laudatory phrases
applied to him might suggest hyperbole if they were not so constant (Epp.
xxviii. xxix. Greg. Naz. Opp. ed. Prunaeus, Colon. vol. i. 792; Ep.
xxxiv.
Tillemont hesitates to claim for Eusebius, as many writers have done, the honour of being the Christian confessor in the persecutions under Julian. According to Greg. Naz. (Orat. c. Julianum, i. p. 133 b.c.), when suffering on the rack and finding one part of his body not as yet tortured, Eusebius complained to the executioners for not conferring equal honour on his entire frame. The death of Julian and the accession of Jovian gave liberty to the church.
During and after this temporary lull in the imperial patronage of the Arian party, the great exertions of Eusebius probably took place. He is represented as travelling in the guise of a soldier (Theod. iv. 13) through Phoenicia and Palestine, ordaining presbyters and deacons, and must thus have become known to Basil, who on the death of Eusebius of Caesarea wrote to Gregory (Bas. Ep. xlvii. Paris ed.), the father of Gregory of Nazianzus, advising the selection of Eusebius of Samosata for the vacant bishopric. The Paris editors of Basil plausibly suggest that the letter thus numbered was written by Gregory to Eusebius concerning Basil, rather than by Basil concerning Eusebius. The part which Eusebius did take in the election of Basil is well known. Basil's appointment gave Gregory extreme satisfaction (Greg. Naz. Ep. xxix.). He dilates on the delight which the visit of Eusebius to Caesarea had given the community. The bedridden had sprung from their couches, and all kinds of moral miracles had been wrought by his presence. Thereafter the correspondence between Basil and Eusebius reveals the progress of their joint lives, and throws some light upon the history of the church. The two ecclesiastics were passionately eager for one another's society, and appear to have formed numerous designs, all falling through, for an interchange of visits.
In 372 Eusebius signed, with Meletius, Basil, and 29 others, a letter to the
Western bishops, in view of their common troubles from Arian opponents. The letter
(Basil, Ep. xcii. Paris ed.), a melancholy Jeremiad, recounts disaster
and disorder, uncanonical proceedings and Arian heresy. The Eastern bishops look
to their brethren in Italy and Gaul for sympathy and advice, paying a tribute
to the pristine purity which the Western churches had preserved intact while the
Eastern churches had been lacerated, undermined, and divided by heretics and unconstitutional
acts. Later in 372 Basil entreats Eusebius to meet him at Phargamon in Armenia,
at an assembly of bishops (Ep. xcv.). If Eusebius will not or cannot attend
the conference, neither will Basil; and (xcviii.) he passionately urges him to
visit him at Caesarea. Letters from Eusebius appear to have been received by Basil,
who once more (c.) begs a visit at the time of the festival of the martyr Eupsychius,
since many things demanded mutual consideration. At the end of 372 Basil (cv.)
managed the laborious journey to Samosata, and secured from his friend the promise
of a return visit. This promise, said he, had ravished the church with joy. In
373 Basil urged Eusebius to fulfil his promise, and (cxxvii.) assured him that
Jovinus had answered his expectations as bp. of Nicopolis. Jovinus was a worthy
pupil of Eusebius, and gratified Basil by his canonical proprieties. Everywhere
the θρέμματα of Eusebius exhibit the image
of his sanctity. Other authorities (Tillem. Art. iii.) record that Jovinus
relapsed afterwards into Arianism. The good offices of Eusebius were solicited
by Eustathius of Sebaste, who had quarrelled with Basil. Basil's principle of
"purity before reconciliation" convinced Eusebius of his wisdom and moderation.
At the council of Gangra, probably in 372 or 373, Eustathius of Sebaste was condemned
for Arian tendencies and hyperascetic practices. There is a difficulty in deciding
who was the Eusebius mentioned primo loco without a see in the synodal
letter. It may have been the bp. of Samosata, and as Basil entreated his advice
as to Eustathius, he may have joined him, Hypatius, Gregory, and other friends
whose names occur in this pronunciamiento. His age and moral eminence would
give him this prominent position. The 20 canons of Gangra are detailed with interesting
comment by Hefele, who thinks the chronology entirely uncertain. We venture the
above suggestion, which would throw considerable light on the practical character
of the bp. of Samosata. In 373 a letter of Basil (Ep. cxxxvi.) shews that
Eusebius had successfully secured the election of a Catholic bishop at Tarsus.
In consequence, he was eagerly entreated to visit Basil at Caesarea. He may have
done so, and presided at the council of Gangra. An encyclical which Eusebius proposed
to send to Italy was not prepared, but Dorotheus and Gregory of Nyssa were induced
to visit Rome in 374. The Paris editors assign to 368 or 369 Basil's letters (xxvii.
xxxi.) descriptive of his illness, and the famine that arrested his movements,
but whensoever written, they reveal the extraordinary confidence put by Basil
in his brother bishop. He had been healed by the intercessions of Eusebius, and
now, all medical aid having failed Hypatius his brother, he sends him to Samosata
to be under the care and prayers of
When taking part in the ordination of Maris at the little town of Dolica (Theod. H. E. v. 4), a woman charged with Arian passion hurled at Eusebius a brick, which fell upon his head, and wounded him fatally. Theodoret records that the aged bishop, in the spirit of the protomartyr and his Divine Lord, extorted promises from his attendants that they would make no search for his murderess. On June 22 the Eastern churches commemorate his so-called martyrdom. His nephew Antiochus probably succeeded to the bishopric of Samosata. Tillem. viii. 326; Ceillier, v. 5.
Eusebius (93), St., bp. of Vercellae (Vercelli), known for his zeal
and sufferings in the cause of orthodoxy. He was born in Sardinia, ordained a
"reader" at Rome, and in 340 consecrated bp. of Vercelli. St. Ambrose, in a letter
to the church there (Ep. 63), especially commends him as the first Western
bishop who joined monastic discipline with the discharge of episcopal duties.
He took several of his clergy to live with him, and adopted a kind of monastic
rule for their daily life. In 354 (Jaffé, Reg. Pontif. p. 15) he was asked
by Liberius, bp. of Rome, to go with Lucifer of Cagliari and others to Constantius,
to suggest the summoning of a council on the disputes between the Arians and the
orthodox. The council was held in the next year at Milan. At first Eusebius absented
himself, but ultimately yielded to the united solicitations of the Arian party,
of Lucifer and Pancratius, the orthodox delegates of Liberius, and of the emperor.
The proceedings were somewhat disorderly, and the action of the bp. of Milan was
undecided. The practical question was whether the bishops present should sign
a condemnation of Athanasius. Eusebius was so peremptory in refusing as to excite
the anger of the Arianizing emperor, who banished him, together with some priests
and deacons, to Scythopolis in Syria. Patrophilus, a leading Arian, was bp. there,
and Eusebius calls him his "jailer." During his confinement here, two messengers
arrived with money and assurances of goodwill from the churches of Vercelli and
neighbourhood. In his reply Eusebius gave full particulars of his annoying treatment
at Scythopolis. He was a troublesome prisoner, having twice all but starved himself
to death because he would not accept provisions from Arian hands. After a while
he
His extant writings are three letters: one a brief reply to Constantius, that he would attend the council at Milan, but would do there whatever should seem to him right and according to the will of God; and the two to the church at Vercelli and to Gregory of Elvira. They are in Galland, Bibl. Patrum, and Migne, Patr. Lat. t. xii. Jerome says that Eusebius translated, omitting what was heterodox, the commentaries on the Psalms by his namesake of Caesarea; and also names him, with Hilary of Poictiers, as a translator of Origen and the same Eusebius; but nothing further is known of these translations. A famous Codex Vercellensis is thus described by Tregelles: "A MS. of the 4th cent., said to have been written by the hand of Eusebius bp. of Vercelli, where the codex is now preserved. The text is defective in several places, as might be supposed from its very great age. It was transcribed and pub. by Irici, at Milan, in 1748. . . . This MS. is probably the most valuable exemplar of the old Latin in its unaltered state." The chief authority for his Life is St. Jerome, who places him amongst his Viri Illustres, and alludes to him in his letters and elsewhere. There are several letters addressed to him by Liberius, and allusions to him in Athanasius. He is mentioned also by Rufinus, Theodoret, Sozomen, and Socrates. The Sermones relating to him among the works of Ambrose are admittedly spurious. In the Journ. of Theol. Studies, vol. i. p. 126, Mr. C. H. Turner raised the two questions whether Eusebius of Vercelli was the author of the Seven Books on the Trinity by the Pseudo-Vigilius of Thapsus, and whether he could have been the author of Quicunque Vult; and subsequently in the same vol. the Rev. A. E. Burn offered proof that Eusebius was the author of the work of Pseudo-Vigilius, but that there are strong reasons against supposing that he could have written Quicunque, although he says the latter theory throws new light on the history of the theological terms used in the creed.
Eusebius (96), Aug. 14, presbyter, confessor at Rome a.d. 358, and by some styled martyr. >From the earliest times his fame has been everywhere celebrated. A church dedicated to him is mentioned in the first council held at Rome under pope Symmachus, a.d. 498 (Mansi, viii. 236, 237). It was rebuilt by pope Zacharias, c. 742 (Anastas. Lib. Pontif. art. "Zacharias," No. 216). The facts of his history are very obscure. His Acts (Baluz. Miscell. t. ii. p. 141) relate that upon the recall of pope Liberius by Constantius, Eusebius preached against them both as Arians; and since the orthodox party, who now supported Felix, were excluded from all the churches, he continued to hold divine service in his own house. For this he was brought before Constantius and Liberius, when he boldly reproved the pope for falling away from Catholic truth. Constantius thereupon consigned him to a dungeon four feet wide, where he continued to languish for seven months and then died. He was buried by his friends and co-presbyters Orosius and Gregory, in the cemetery of Callistus, with the simple inscription "Eusebio Homini Dei." Constantius arrested Gregory for this, and consigned him to the same dungeon, where he also died, and was in turn buried by Orosius, by whom the Acts of Eusebius profess to have been written. The Bollandist and Tillemont point out grave historical difficulties in this narration, especially that Constantius, Liberius, and Eusebius never could have been in the city together. The whole matter is a source of trouble to Roman Catholic writers, because the saintly character of St. Eusebius, guaranteed by the Roman martyrology as revised by pope Gregory XIII., seems necessarily to involve the condemnation of Liberius. The Bollandists at great length vindicate the catholicity of Felix II., and are equally zealous champions of St. Eusebius. Tillemont and Hefele (Hist. of Councils, ii. § 81, "Pope Liberius and the Third Sirmian Formula") are equally decided opponents of Felix.
Eusebius (99), of Cremona, presbyter, a friend of St. Jerome, through whose writings he is known. He was with Jerome at Bethlehem in 393, and became the unconscious means of extending into Italy the strife concerning Origenism which had begun at Jerusalem. Epiphanius had written to John, bp. of Jerusalem, in vindication of his conduct on his recent visit to Palestine, a.d. 394. Eusebius, not knowing Greek, begged Jerome to translate it. This Jerome did in a cursory manner (ad Pammachium, Ep. 57, § 2, ed. Vall.), and the document was stolen from the cell of Eusebius by one whom Jerome believed to be in the service of Rufinus (cont. Ruf. iii. 4). Rufinus apparently sent the translated letter to Rome, accusing Jerome of having falsified the original. Eusebius remained at Bethlehem till Easter, 398, when he was obliged to return hastily to Italy.
On arriving in Rome, he became an agent of Jerome's party in the Origenistic
controversy.
Eusebius (126), eunuch, and grand chamberlain under Constantius II. Socrates (ii. 2, 16) relates that, after the death of Constantine in 337, Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nicaea, bestirring themselves on behalf of the Arians, made use of a certain presbyter in high favour with Constantius, who had before been instrumental in recalling Arius from exile. He persuaded Eusebius the head chamberlain to adopt Arian opinions, and the rest of the chamberlains followed, and prevailed on the empress also. In 359 Eusebius was the mainspring of the plan of Eudoxius and others for dividing the council to be held on the subject of Arianism, making the Western bishops sit at Rimini, the Eastern at Seleucia; part of those in the secret were to sit at each council, and try to gain over their opponents to Arian views. Laymen of influence favoured the plan in order to please the chamberlain (Soz. H. E. iv. 16). On the death of Constantius in 361 Eusebius tried to curry favour with Julian by assuring him of the loyalty of the East (Amm. xxi. 15, § 4); but was unable to avert what Ammianus and Philostorgius represent as the just reward of his deeds. One of the first acts of Julian was to condemn him to death (ib. xxii. 3, § 12). Ammianus describes him as the prime mover of all the court intrigues of his day, and sarcastically calls the emperor one of his favourites (ib. xviii. 4, § 33).
Eustathius (3), bp. of Berrhoea in Syria, then of Antioch, c.
a.d. 324-331, designated by Theodoret
(H. E. i. 7) "the Great," one of the earliest and most vigorous opponents
of Arianism, venerated for his learning, virtues, and eloquence (Soz. H. E.
i. 2, ii. 19; Theod. H. E. i. 20), recognized by Athanasius as a worthy
fellow-labourer for the orthodox faith (Athan. Hist. Arian. § 5). He was
a native of Side in Pamphylia (Hieron. de Vir. Illus. c. 85). The title
of "confessor" given him by Athanasius more than once (t. i. pp. 702, 812) indicates
that he suffered in the persecution of Diocletian. As bp. of Berrhoea he was one
of the orthodox prelates to whom Alexander of Alexandria sent a copy of his letter
to Alexander of Constantinople, concerning Arius and his errors (Theod. H.
E. i. 4). His translation from Berrhoea is placed by Sozomen after the council
of Nicaea (Soz. H. E. i. 2). Theodoret states more correctly that he sat
at that council as bp. of Antioch, and that his election to that see was the unanimous
act of the bishops, presbyters, and faithful laity of the city and province (Theod.
H.E. i. 7). According to Theodoret he was the immediate successor of Philogonius;
but, according to the Chronicle of Jerome, Theophanes, and others, a certain
Paulinus, not the Paulinus of Tyre, intervened for a short time (Tillem. vol.
vii. p. 22, n. i. p. 646). At the council of Nicaea Eustathius occupied one of
the first, if not the very first place among the assembled prelates (Facund. viii.
4). That he occupied the seat of honour at the emperor's right hand and pronounced
the panegyrical address to Constantine is asserted by Theodoret (H. E.
i. 7), but contradicted by Sozomen (H. E. i. 19), who assigns the dignity
to Eusebius of Caesarea. Eusebius himself maintains a discreet silence, but he
evidently wishes it to be inferred that the place of honour was his own (Eus.
de Vit. Const. iii. 11). On his return to Antioch Eustathius banished those
of his clergy suspected of Arian tenets and resolutely rejected all ambiguous
submissions. Among those whom he refused to receive were Stephen, Leontius,
ὁ ἀπὸκοπος, and Eudoxius (who successively
occupied his episcopal seat after his deposition), George of Laodicea, Theodosius
of Tripolis, and Eustathius of Sebaste (Athan. Hist. Arian. § 5). In his
writings and sermons he lost no opportunity of declaring the Nicene faith, and
shewing its agreement with Holy Scripture. Theodoret (H. E. i. 8) specially
mentions one of his sermons on
Eustathius was a copious writer, and is much praised by early authorities (Soz. H. E. ii. 19; Hieron. Ep. 70 [84], ad Magnum). We possess only scattered fragments and one entire work, named by Jerome de Engastrimytho adv. Origenem. In this he attacks Origen with great vehemence, ridicules him as a πολυΐστωρ, and controverts his idea that the prophet Samuel was actually called up by the witch of Endor (Gall. Vet. Patr. Bibl. vol. iv., and Migne, Patr. vol. xviii. pp. 614 ff.). In Texte und Untersuchungen (1886), ii. 4, a new ed. of this treatise was edited by A. Zahn. Fabr. Bibl. Graec. vol. ix. pp. 131 ff. ed. Harles; Cave, Hist. Lit. i. 187; Migne, Patr. t. ix. pp. 131 ff.; Tillem. u.s. pp. 21 ff.; De Broglie, op. cit. t. ii. pp. 294 ff.
Eustathius (4), bp. of Sebaste (the modern Siwas) in Pontus, on the N. bank of the Halys, the capital of Armenia Minor (c. a.d. 357-380). Eustathius occupies a place more conspicuous than honourable in the unhappy dissensions between the adherents of the orthodox faith and the various shades of Arian, semi-Arian, and Anomoean heresy during the middle of the 4th cent. Originally a disciple of Arius, after repeated approaches to the Nicene faith, with occasional professions of accepting it, he probaby ended his days as a Eunomian heretic (Basil. Ep. 244 [82], § 9). Few in that epoch of conflicting creeds and formularies ever signed more various documents. Basil enumerates his signature of the formularies of Ancyra, Seleucia, Constantinople, Lampsacus, Nice in Thrace, and Cyzicus, which are sufficiently diverse to indicate the vagueness of his theology (Basil. l.c.). Eustathius thus naturally forfeited the confidence of all schools of theology. His personal character appears to have been high. There must have been something more than common in a man who could secure the affection and respect for many years of Basil the Great, as, in Basil's own strong language, "exhibiting something more than man" (Ep. 212 [370], § 2). As bishop he manifested his care for the sick and needy, and was unwearied in the fulfilment of duty. The system of coenobitic monasticism introduced by him into Asia Basil took as his model (Soz. H. E. iii. 14; Basil. Ep. 223 [79], § 3).
Eustathius was born in the Cappodocian Caesarea towards the beginning of the
4th cent. He studied at Alexandria under the heresiarch Arius (c.
a.d. 320) (Basil. Ep. 223
[79], § 3; 244 [82], § 9; 263 [74], § 3). On leaving Alexandria he repaired to
Antioch, where he was refused ordination on account of his Arian tenets by his
orthodox namesake (Athan. Solit. p. 812). He was afterwards ordained by
Eulalius (c. 331), but very speedily degraded by him for refusing to wear
the clerical dress (Socr. H. E. ii. 43; Soz. H. E. iv. 24). From
Antioch Eustathius returned to Caesarea, where he obtained ordination from the
orthodox bp. Hermogenes, on declaring his unqualified adhesion to the Nicene faith
(Basil. Ep. 244 [82], § 9; 263 [74], § 3). On the death of Hermogenes,
Eustathius repaired to Constantinople and attached himself to Eusebius, the bishop
there, "the Coryphaeus of the Arian party" (Basil. ll.cc.). By him he was
a second time deposed (c. a.d.
342) on the ground of some unspecified act of unfaithfulness to duty (Soz.
H. E. iv. 24). He retired again to Caesarea, where, carefully concealing his
Arian proclivities, he sought to commend himself to the bishop, Dianius. His subsequent
history till he became bp. of Sebaste is almost a blank. We must, however, assign
to it the theological argument held by him and Basil of Ancyra with the audacious
Anomoean, Aetius, who is regarded by Basil as in some sense Eustathius's pupil
(Basil. Ep. 123, § 5). It was certainly during this period that Eustathius
and his early friend the presbyter Aerius
founded coenobitic monachism in Armenia and the adjacent provinces (Epiphan.
Haer. 75, § 2). The rule laid down by him for the government of his religious
communities of both sexes contained extravagances alluded to by Socrates and Sozomen,
which are not unlikely to have been the cause, otherwise unknown, of his excommunication
by the council of Neo-Caesarea (Socr. H. E. ii. 43; Soz. H. E. iv.
24). While Eustathius was regulating his coenobitic foundations (c. 358)
he was visited by Basil, who records the delight with which he saw the coarse
garments, the girdle, the sandals of undressed hide, and witnessed the self-denying
and laborious lives of Eustathius and his followers. His admiration for such a
victory
Eustathius's episcopate must have begun before 357, when Athanasius speaks
of him as a bishop (Athan. Orat. in Arian. i. p. 290; Solit. p. 812). He
was made bp. of Sebaste, according to the same authority, by the Arian party,
who hoped to find him an able and facile instrument. His early companion Aerius
was a candidate for the bishopric, and felt very mortified by his failure. Eustathius
shewed him the utmost consideration, ordained him presbyter, and appointed him
manager of a refuge for the poor, the foundation of which was one of the first
acts of his episcopate. The final rupture between them is detailed under
Aerius. Somewhere about
this time we may place Eustathius's conviction of perjury in the council of Antioch
(see Socr. H. E. iv. 24), and his deposition by the obscure council of
Melitene in Armenia c. a.d.
357 (Basil. Ep. 263 [74]). Neither of these events appears to have entailed
any lasting consequences. Eustathius was one of the prelates at the semi-Arian
synod summoned at Ancyra by George of Laodicea, before Easter
a.d. 358, to check the alarming spread
of Anomoean doctrines, and he, with Basil of Ancyra and Eleusius of Cyzicus, conveyed
the synodal letter, equally repudiating the Anomoean and Homoousian doctrines,
and declaring for the Homoiousion, to Constantius at Sirmium (Soz. H. E.
iv. 13, 14; Basil. Ep. 263 [74], § 3). When the council met at Seleucia
on Sept. 27, 359, Eustathius occupied a prominent place in its tumultuous and
indecisive proceedings, and was the head of the ten episcopal deputies, Basil
of Ancyra, Silvanus of Tarsus, and Eleusius of Cyzicus being other chief members,
sent to Constantinople to lay their report before Constantius. Stormy discussions
followed, in which Eustathius led the semi-Arians as against the pure Arians.
He vehemently denounced the blasphemies of the bold Anomoean, Eudoxius, bp. of
Antioch, and produced a formulary of faith declaring the dissimilarity of the
Father and the Son, which he asserted to be by Eudoxius. All seemed to augur the
triumph of orthodoxy when the arrival of Valens and Ursacius from Ariminum announcing
the subjugation of the Western bishops and the general proscription of the Homoousion
suddenly changed the scene. Constantius was overjoyed at the unexpected success,
and after a protracted discussion, compelled Eustathius and the other Seleucian
deputies to sign the fatal formulary. It was then, in Jerome's words, "ingemuit
totus orbis et se esse Arianum miratus est" (Hieron. in Lucif. 19). This
base concession profited the recreants little. The emperor summoned a synod, of
which Acacius was the ruling spirit, at Constantinople in Jan. 360. Eustathius
was deposed in a tyrannical manner, with Cyril of Jerusalem, Basil of Ancyra,
Eleusius of Cyzicus, and other important prelates. Eustathius was not even allowed
to defend himself. His former deposition by Eulalius was held sufficient (Socr.
H. E. ii. 41-43; Soz. H. E. iv. 24). Constantius confirmed the sentence,
exiled the bishops, and gave their sees to others. The death of Constantius in
361 and the accession of Julian witnessed the recall of Eustathius with the other
banished bishops. He immediately repudiated his signature to the creed of Ariminum,
and did all he could to shew his horror of pure Arianism. Sozomen tells us that,
with Eleusius, Sophronius, and others of like mind, he held several synods, condemning
the partisans of Acacius, denouncing the creed of Ariminum, and asserting the
Homoiousion as the true mean between the Homoousion of the West and the Anomoeon
of Aetius and his followers (H. E. v. 14). With the accession of Valens
in 364, Arianism once more assumed ascendancy in the East. The semi-Arian party,
or Macedonians as they now began to be called, met by imperial permission in council
at Lampsacus a.d. 365, under the
presidency of Eleusius, and repudiated the Acacian council of Constantinople (360)
and the creed of Ariminum, renewed the confession of Antioch (In Encaeniis),
and pronounced sentence of deposition on Eudoxius and Acacius (Socr. H. E.
iv. 2-4; Soz. H. E. vi. 7). These proceedings irritated Valens, who required
them to hold communion with Eudoxius, and, on their refusal, sentenced them to
fine and banishment, giving their sees to others. To escape annihilation, the
Macedonians sent deputies, Eustathius being one, to the Western emperor Valentinian
and Liberius, bp. of Rome, who had repented his lapse in
a.d. 357, offering to unite with
them in faith. Before they arrived, Valentinian had left for Gaul, and Liberius,
at first looking coldly on them as Arians, refused to receive them. On their giving
a written adhesion to the Nicene Creed and the Homoousion, he received them into
communion, and gave them letters in his name and that of the Western church to
the prelates of the East, expressing his satisfaction at the proof he had received
of the identity of doctrine between East and West (Socr. H. E. iv. 12;
Soz. H. E. vi. 11). No mention was made of the new Macedonian heresy concerning
the Holy Spirit, now infecting the Eastern church, of which Eustathius and the
other deputies were among the chief promulgators. Eustathius and his companions
at once repaired to Sicily, where a synod of bishops, on their profession of orthodoxy,
gave them letters of communion. They then returned to their own country. A synod
of orthodox bishops was assembled in 367 at Tyana, to receive the letters of communion
from the West and other documents (Soz. l.c.; Basil. Ep. 244 [82],
§ 5). Eustathius and his fellow-delegates, now recognized as true Catholics, were
acknowledged as the rightful bishops of their sees. A council summoned at Tarsus
to consolidate this happy reunion was prohibited by Valens, who, having committed
himself to the Arian party, issued an edict expelling all bishops restored by
Julian. Eustathius, to save himself, signed a formula at Cyzicus of Homoiousian
character, which also denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit. Basil says tersely
of Eustathius and his party, "they saw Cyzicus and returned
On Basil's elevation to the episcopate in 370 Eustathius exhibited great joy, and professed an earnest desire to be of service to his friend. He recommended persons as fellow-helpers who, as Basil bitterly complains, turned out to be spies of his actions and words, interpreting all in a malevolent sense and reporting to their chief (ib. 223 [79], § 3). For their subsequent bitter relations, see Basilius of Caesarea. Eustathius heaped calumnies on the head of his former associate, openly charging him with Apollinarian and other heretical views, and encouraged the clergy of his diocese and province to form a rival communion. Demosthenes, the Vicar of the Prefect, an old enemy of Basil, strenuously forwarded this object. In 376 he visited Sebaste and other chief places in the province, oppressing Basil's adherents, whom he compelled to undertake onerous and costly public duties, and loading the followers of Eustathius with the highest honours (ib. 237 [264], § 2). Eustathius, seeing Arianism in the ascendant, openly sought communion with those whom he had repeatedly denounced. His deposition at Constantinople was not forgotten by the Arians, who had not hitherto recognized him as a canonical bishop. He now sought their goodwill by humiliating concessions. He had overthrown the altars of Basilides, bp. of Gangra, as an Arian, but now begged admission to his communion. He had treated the people of Amasea as heretics, excommunicating Elpidius for holding intercourse with them, and now earnestly sought their recognition. At Ancyra, the Arians refusing him public recognition, he submitted to communicate with them in private houses. When the Arian bishops met in synod at Nyssa he sent a deputation of his clergy to invite them to Sebaste, conducted them through the province with every mark of honour, allowed them to preach and celebrate the Eucharist in his churches, and withheld no mark of the most intimate communion (ib. 257 [72], § 3). These humiliations had but tardy and partial success in obtaining his public acknowledgment by the dominant ecclesiastics. His efforts to secure Arian favour and his effrontery in trading upon his former recognition by Liberius extorted from Basil a vehement letter of remonstrance, addressed to the bp. of Rome and the other Western bishops, depicting the evils inflicted on the Eastern church by the wolves in sheep's clothing, and requesting Liberius to declare publicly the terms on which Eustathius had been admitted to communion (ib. 263 [74], § 3). All Basil's efforts to obtain this mark of sympathy and brotherly recognition from the West were fruitless. He continued to be harassed by the unscrupulous attacks of Eustathius till his death in 379. If the see was vacated by his death, and not, as Hefele holds, with much probability, by his deposition at Gangra, Eustathius died soon after. In 380 Peter became bp. of Sebaste, and thus Basil's brother replaced Basil's most dangerous enemy.
The synod of Gangra, of uncertain date [D. C. A., s.v.], is intimately connected with the name of Eustathius. The identity of the Eustathius there condemned with the bp. of Sebaste, though affirmed by every ancient authority, has been denied by Blondel (De la primauté, p. 138), Baronius (Annal. iii. ann. 361, n. 53), Du Pin (Nouvelle bibliothèque, ii. 339) and called in question by Tillemont (Mém. eccl. ix. note 28, S. Basile); but on careful investigation Hefele (Hist. of the Church Councils, ii. 325 ff. Engl. trans.) scouts the idea that another Eustathius is intended. C. F. Loots Eust. of Seb., Halle, 1898.
Eustathius (22), bp. of Berytus (Beyrout), a time-serving prelate attached
to the court, who kept steadily in view the aggrandizement and independence of
his see of Berytus, then suffragan to Tyre. As a bishop of some consideration
for theological knowledge, he was appointed commissioner, with Photius of Tyre
and Uranius of Himera, by Theodosius II.,
a.d. 448, to examine the tenets of
Ibas of Edessa, charged by the monastic party with favouring the Nestorian heresy.
This commission, dated Oct. 26, 448, and addressed to Damasus, the secretary of
state (Labbe, Conc. iv. 638), was opened at Berytus, Feb. 1,
a.d. 449. In the residence of Eustathius,
recently erected by him near his magnificent new church. Ibas indignantly disclaimed
the blasphemies attributed to him, and produced a protest, signed by a large number
of his clergy, that they had never heard him utter words contrary to the faith
(ib. p. 637). The accusation broke down. But the investigation was revived
a week or two afterwards at Tyre (ib. 635). Eustathius and his brother
commissioners drew up a concordat, which was signed, Feb. 25, by Ibas and his
accusers, and countersigned by Eustathius and Photius (ib. 632). At the
second council of Ephesus, the disgraceful "Robbers' Synod," Aug. 8, 449, Eustathius,
Eusebius of Ancyra, and Basil of Seleucia were the imperial commissioners (ib.
1079). Eustathius lent all his influence to Dioscorus and the dominant party against
the venerable Flavian, voting for the rehabilitation of Eutyches and declaring
that he had stated the true faith in perfect conformity to the doctrine of godliness
(ib. 262). In 450, through the influence of pope Leo and his legates at
Constantinople, Eustathius's name was erased from the diptychs of the church as
an accomplice in Flavian's violent death. He and his associates, however, were
allowed to retain their sees, in the hope that this leniency might lead them to
repent (Leo Magn. Ep. 60). The feeble Theodosius II. being now replaced
by the orthodox and vigorous Marcian, Eustathius found it politic to change his
camp, and at the council of Chalcedon promptly abandoned Dioscorus, declaring
his agreement in faith with Flavian, and with exaggerated expressions of penitence
asking pardon for his share in the acts of the recent synod (Labbe iv. 141, 176,
177). The abject humiliation of Eustathius and his party prevailed with the orthodox
bishops, who acquitted them as mere tools of Dioscorus and received them as brothers
(ib. 508-509). At a later session of the council, Oct. 20, the issue between
Eustathius and Photius of Tyre was discussed (ib. 539). As a reward for
his support of the court party at the "Latrocinium," Eustathius had obtained from
Theodosius a decree giving metropolitical rank to Berytus (Lupus, in Canon.
950). Flavian's successor Anatolius, together with Maximus of Antioch
When in 457 the emperor Leo, anxious to give peace to the church of Alexandria, dealt with the intrusion of Timothy Aelurus, Eustathius was consulted, and joined in the condemnation of that intruding patriarch (ib. 890). The church built by Eustathius at Berytus is described by Zacharias Scholasticus as de mundi opificio. Tillem. Mém. eccl. xv.; Le Quien, Oriens Christ. ii. 818; Cave, Hist. Lit. i. 440.
Eustochium, 3rd daughter of PAULA, the friend of Jerome, from whose writings all that is known of her is gathered. Born probably c. 370, she had shared from her earliest days the ascetic views of her mother, and was confirmed in them by frequenting the house of Marcella (Hieron. i. 952, ed. Vallarsi). Her uncle Hymettius, with his wife Praetextata (see Thierry's St. Jérôme, i. 161), endeavoured to wean her from these by inviting her to their house, changing her attire, and placing her among the mirrors and the flattery of a patrician reception-room (Hieron. i. 394, 683); but she resisted their seductions and took the vow of perpetual virginity, being the first Roman lady of noble birth to do so (i. 394). Jerome addressed to her his celebrated treatise de Virginitate Servandâ (i. 88), in which vivid pictures of Roman society enforce the superior sanctity of the state of virginity. This treatise excited great animosity against Jerome, and was one cause of his leaving Rome and returning to Palestine. Paula and Eustochium resolving to go there also, embarked in 385 at Portus. At Bethlehem they built and managed the hospice and convent, and from her mother's death in 404 Eustochium was its head till her own death in 418, two years before that of Jerome. Many passages in Jerome's writings give a picture of her character and manner of life. Small in stature (i. 290), she had great courage and decision of character (i. 394), and followed the ascetic teaching of Jerome and her mother with unwavering confidence and enthusiasm (i. 402, 403). She spoke Greek and Latin with equal facility, and learnt Hebrew to sing the Psalms in the original (i. 720). Jerome praises her skill in the training of virgins, whom she led in all acts of devotion (i. 290) and to whom she set an example by undertaking all menial offices (i. 403). She was eager to increase her knowledge of the Scriptures, and to her importunity Jerome ascribes the writing of many of his commentaries, which were dedicated to her and her mother, and afterwards to her and her niece the younger Paula, who, with the younger Melania, was her coadjutor in her convent work and her study of Scripture. She is reckoned a saint in the Roman church, her festival being Sept. 28.
Eustochius (6), patriarch of Jerusalem, in succession to Peter, and, according to Papebroch, from a.d. 544 to 556. On the death of Peter, Eustochius, oeconomus of the church of Alexandria but residing at Constantinople, was favoured by the emperor Justinian in preference to Macarius, an Origenist, who had been first elected. At the synod of Constantinople, 553 Eustochius was represented by three legates, Stephanus bp. of Raphia, Georgius bp. of Tiberias, Damasus bp. of Sozusa or Sozytana (Mansi, ix. 173 c.); and when the acts m condemnation of Origenism were sent by the emperor to Jerusalem, all the bishops of Palestine except Alexander of Abila confirmed them. But in the monasteries of that province, and especially in that named the New Laura, the partisans of the proscribed opinions grew daily more powerful, notwithstanding the resolute efforts of the patriarch against them. In 555, after eight months of persistent admonition, Eustochius went in person, with the dux Anastasius, to the New Laura, and forcibly expelled the whole body, replacing them by 60 monks from the principal laura and 60 from other orthodox monasteries of the desert, under the prior Joannes. Origenism was thus rooted out of Palestine. According to Victor Tununensis, Eustochius was removed from the patriarchate, and Macarius restored. Cyrillus Scythopol. in Coteler. Monum. Eccles. Graec. iii. 373; Evagr. H. E. iv. 37, 38; Victor Tunun. in Patr. Lat. lxviii. 962 A; Theoph. Chronog. A.M. 6060; Papebroch, Patriarch. Hierosol. in Boll. Acta SS. Intro. to vol. iii. of May, p. xxvii.; Le Quien, Or. Chr. iii. 210. Pagi (ann. 561 iii.) discusses the chronology. See also Clinton, F. R. 537, 557.
Euthalius (5), a deacon of Alexandria, afterwards bp. of Sulca; fl. a.d. 459. This date is confirmed by the fact that his works are dedicated to Athanasius the Younger, who was bp. of Alexandria about that time. Euthalius appears to have been then a deacon, devoted to the study of the N.T. text. He is now best known as the author of the Euthalian Sections.
The books of N.T. were written without any division into chapters, verses,
or words. The first steps towards such a convenient division seem to have proceeded
from the wish for easy reference to parallel passages. This was done by what are
known as the Ammonian Sections, together with the Eusebian Canons.
[Eusebius of
Caesarea.] Ammonius
of Alexandria, in the 3rd cent., is generally credited with dividing the gospels
into sections, but the principle had not been applied to other books of N.T. Euthalius
introduced a system of division into all those not yet divided, except the Apocalypse,
which spread rapidly over the whole Greek church and has become, by its presence
or absence, a valuable test of the antiquity of a MS. In the Epp. of St. Paul,
Euthalius tells us, he adopted the scheme of a certain "father," whose name is
nowhere given. But by his other labours, and the further critical apparatus which
he supplied, Euthalius procured for it the acceptance it soon obtained. In
Romans there were 19 capitula; in Galatians, 12; in Ephesians,
10; in I. Thessalonians, 7;
Three points in connexion with the text especially occupied Euthalius.
(1) The Larger Sections or Lessons. Fixed lessons for public worship no doubt passed from the synagogue into the Christian church, at least as soon as the canon was settled. But there seems to have been little or no uniformity in them. Individual churches had divisions of their own. The scheme proposed by Euthalius, however, speedily became general in all Greek-speaking churches. The whole N.T., except the Gospels and Apocalypse, was divided into 57 portions of very varying length (in Acts there were 16; in the Pauline Epp. 31; 5 in Rom.; 5 in I. Cor.; 4 in II. Cor.; in the Catholic Epp. 10; 2 in James; 2 in I. Pe.; 1 in II. Pe., etc.) Of these, 53 were for Sundays, which seem alone to have been provided for in the Alexandrian Synaxes, and Mill supposes that the other 4 were for Christmas, Good Friday, Easter, and Epiphany (Proleg. in N.T. p. 90).
(2) The smaller divisions were the well known
στίχοι—i.e. "lines" (Lat. versus), each containing either
a few words complete in themselves, or as much as it was possible to read without
effort at one breath. Like that of the capitula formerly spoken of, the plan of
these "verses" was not introduced by Euthalius. It had already been adopted in
some of the poetical books, and in poetical parts of the prose books of the O.T.
The LXX had occasionally employed it. It had been sanctioned by Origen. The Vulgate
had used it, and it is found in the psalms of the Vatican and Sinaitic MSS. It
had been partially applied to N.T., for Origen speaks of the 100
στίχοι of II. and III. John.,
of a few in St. Paul's Epistles, and very few in I. John; while Eustathius
of Antioch, in the 4th cent., is said to reckon 135 from
(3) The third part of his labour was an enumeration of all the quotations from O.T., and even from profane writers, found in those books of N.T. of which he treated. These he numbered in one catalogue; assigned to the various books whence they were taken in a second; and quoted at length in a third. If we may look upon the Argumenta as really the work of Euthalius, and not, as Zacagnius argues (Praef. p. 60), as the production of a later hand, he went also into the substance and meaning of the books edited by him, as the Argumenta contain short and excellent summaries of them. Euthalius also wrote a short Life of St. Paul, prefixed to his work on the 14 epistles of that apostle, but it is bald and meagre. It has been said that he also wrote comments on Acts and Luke; and that in an ancient catena on Romans there were fragments of his writings; but these statements seem to be incorrect (ib. p. 71).
In later life he became a bishop, and was known as Episcopus Sulcensis. Scrivener suggests Sulci in Sardinia as the only see of that name (Intr. p. 53, n. 1), but so distant a place is unlikely. Zacagnius thinks that Sulca may represent Psilca, a city of the Thebaid near Syene; but Galland throws doubt on this, and the point must be left unsolved.
His works remained long unknown, but in 1698 they were ed. and pub. at Rome by Laurentius Alexander Zacagnius, praefect of the Vatican Library, in vol. i. of his Collectanea Monumentorum Veterum Ecclesiae Graecae ac Latinae, in the long preface of which different questions relating to Euthalius are discussed with much care. This ed. has been printed in Galland (Biblioth. Pat. x. 197) and in Migne (Patr. Gk. lxxxv. 621). Notices of Euthalius may be found in the Prolegomena of N. T. of Wetstein and Mill, and in Scrivener's Intro. to the Criticism of N.T. But much light has recently been thrown on Euthalius by Dean Armitage Robinson in his "Euthaliana" (Texts and Stud. iii. 3), and in an article "Recent Work on Euthalius" in the Journ. of Theol. Stud. vol. vi. p. 87, Oct. 1904. In the latter art. the recent work on the subject by Von Soden and Zahn is noticed.
Eutherius (2), bp. of Tyana, a leader of the Nestorians at the council of Ephesus, a.d. 431, and for some time afterwards. Before the council he was in active correspondence with John of Antioch, about the alleged Apollinarianism of Cyril of Alexandria and his adherents (Theod. Ep. 112; Migne, Patr. Gk. lxxxiii. 1310). His name occurs in the various documents addressed to, and issued by, the members of his party collectively at this council. On July 18 John and his adherents were deposed and excommunicated, and Eutherius among them (Act. Co. Eph. acta v. 654); his sentence being confirmed at Constantinople before the end of the year. After his return home we find him in friendly correspondence with Firmus of Caesarea, notwithstanding the part Firmus had taken in his excommunication (Firm. Ep. 23; Patr. Gk. lxxvii. 1498). Firmus was sent to Tyana to ordain a successor to Eutherius, and met with great opposition from the citizens, who were much attached to their bishop. Longras also, the imperial officer in command of the Isaurian troops there, interfered; and both Firmus and the person whom he had ordained were compelled to flee. The newly ordained bishop renounced his orders, and seems to have returned to lay life (Theod. Ep. Hypomnesticon Alex. Hierapolis Synodicon, c. 45). After the reconciliation of Cyril and John of Antioch, Eutherius wrote to John to remonstrate with him on his inconsistency and want of loyalty to what he once contended for (ib. c. 73, u.s. 681); to Alexander of Hierapolis, who was opposed to the reconciliation, a long letter ably defending the position which they and others were still determined to maintain (ib. c. 201, u.s. 815); and to Helladius bp. of Tarsus, who had also written to Alexander, to encourage him in his opposition, expressing great joy at what he had done (ib. c. 74, u.s. 684). Eutherius was ultimately banished to Scythopolis, and from thence to Tyre, where he died (ib. c. 190, u.s.).
He is the author of a treatise in 17 chapters, with a prefatory letter addressed to Eustathius bp. of Parnassus, which Photius ascribed to Theodoret (Phot. Biblioth. c. xlvi. Migne, Patr. Gk. ciii. 79), and which has since been attributed by some to Maximus the Martyr, and by others to Athanasius (Garner's notes on Marius Mercator in Patr. Lat. xlviii. 759, 1086, 1087; Fabricius, Biblioth. Graec. ed. Harles, viii. 304), in which he subjects the "Scholia" of Cyril of Alexandria, "de Incarnatione Unigeniti" (Mar. Merc. u.s. 1066) to elaborate and searching criticism.
Euthymius (4), abbat in Palestine, born in 377, at Melitene in Armenia, and placed at an early age under the direction of its bishop, Otreius. After his ordination as priest he was placed in charge of all the monasteries in and near the place. Finding this too great an interruption to his meditations, in his 29th year he escaped to Jerusalem to visit the holy places, and found a home with a community of separate monks at Pharan, 6 miles from Jerusalem. With another hermit, Theoctistus, he used to take long walks into the desert of Cutila at sacred seasons. On one of these occasions, in the 9th year of his stay at Pharan, they came to a tremendous torrent with a cavern on one of its banks. Here they determined to live, lost to the world. They were, however, discovered by some shepherds, who sent them gifts. The fathers of Pharan also found them out, and came at times to see them. About 411 Euthymius began to receive disciples. They turned the cavern into a church, and built a monastery on the side of the ravine. Theoctistus had charge of it. In 420 Euthymius erected a laura, like that of Pharan, on the road from Jerusalem to Jericho, where he would see inquirers on Saturdays and Sundays, and his advice was always given with captivating sweetness and humility. In 428 the church of his laura was consecrated by Juvenal, the first patriarch of Jerusalem, accompanied by the presbyter Hesychius and the celebrated Passarion, governor of a monastery in Jerusalem.
A new turn was given to the life of Euthymius by a cure which he effected for Terebon, son of Aspebetus, prince of the Saracens, who, hearing of his fame, brought the afflicted boy to his gloomy retreat with a large train of followers. The prayers of Euthymius are said to have restored health to the patient, and the whole company believed on the Lord Jesus. Euthymius ordered a little recess for water to be hollowed out in the side of the cave, and baptized them on the spot, the father taking the name of Peter. His brother-in-law Maris joined the community of anchorets, bestowing all his wealth for the enlargement of the buildings. The story spread over Palestine and the neighbouring countries, and Euthymius was besieged with applications for medical assistance and prayer.
Peter, bp. of the Saracens, on his way to the council at Ephesus, a.d. 431, visited Euthymius, who exhorted him to unite with Cyril of Alexandria and Acacius of Melitene, and to do in regard to the creed whatever seemed right to those prelates. When the council of Chalcedon issued its decrees (451), two of his disciples, Stephen and John, who had been present, brought them to their master. The report of his approval spread through the desert, and all the recluses would have shared it but for the influence of the monk Theodosius, whose life and doctrine appear to have been equally unsatisfactory, who even tried hard to persuade Euthymius to reject Chalcedon, but without success.
The empress Eudoxia, an energetic Eutychian, after the death of her husband in 450, went to Jerusalem, and being urged by her brother Valerius to become reconciled to the Catholic church, determined to consult Euthymius. She built a tower about 4 miles S. of his laura, and sent to him Cosmas, guardian of the so-called True Cross at Constantinople, and Anastasius, a bishop. Euthymius came; and after giving his blessing to the empress, advised her that the violent death of her son-in-law, Valentinian, the irruption of the Vandals, the captivity of her daughter Eudoxia and of her grandchildren, might all be attributed to her Eutychian opinions. She should abjure her schism, and embrace the communion of Juvenal, patriarch of Jerusalem. The empress obeyed, and her example was followed by a multitude of monks and laymen. A celebrated anchoret also, Gerasimus, owed his separation from Eutychianism to Euthymius. Euthymius died in 473; his obsequies were celebrated by the patriarch Anastatius and a large number of clergy, among whom are mentioned Chrysippus, guardian of the Cross, and a deacon named Fidus. See Cotelier's ed. of the Vita Euthymii by Cyrillus Scythopolitanus (Cot. Eccl. Graec. Monum. iv. 1, Paris, 1692).
Eutyches (4) and Eutychianism. Eutyches was archimandrite of a monastery near Constantinople. For 70 years (as he told pope Leo) he had lived a monastic life, and during 30 out of them had presided over his 300 monks. He was a staunch upholder of the views and conduct of Cyril of Alexandria, who had even sent him, as a special mark of favour, a copy of the Acts of the council of Ephesus, a.d. 431. By whom he was first accused, whether by Theodoret in his Eranistes, or by his former friend, Eusebius of Dorylaeum, or by Domnus of Antioch, it seems difficult to decide (cf. Hefele, ii. 319; Martin, 75-78); but it is clear that to Eusebius are due the definite charges first brought against him at Constantinople in 448.
Flavian, who succeeded Proclus in 447 as archbishop, convened a synod in Constantinople
on Nov. 8, 448, to consider some questions between the metropolitan of Sardis
and two of his suffragan bishops. Eusebius of Dorylaeum was present, and at its
conclusion complained that Eutyches defamed "the holy Fathers and himself, a man
who had never been suspected of heresy," alleging himself prepared to convict
Eutyches of being untrue to the orthodox faith. Flavian listened in astonishment,
and suggested that Eusebius should first privately discuss with Eutyches the points
in dispute. Eusebius retorted that he had already done this unsuccessfully; he,
therefore, implored the synod to summon Eutyches before them, not only to induce
him to give up his views, but to prevent infection spreading further. Two deputies,
a priest
The fifth session opened on Wed. Nov. 17, and as the result of its deliberations,
Eutyches was informed that he would be expected on Nov. 22, and, if he failed
to appear, would be deprived of his clerical functions and monastic dignity. A
sixth session met on Sat. Nov. 20, and agreed that Eutyches might be accompanied
on the Monday following by four friends. Eusebius said that when Mamas and Theophilus
had visited Eutyches, the archimandrite used expressions not reported
The seventh, last, and weightiest session met on Mon. Nov. 22. Eutyches at
last presented himself, accompanied by a multitude of soldiers, monks, and others,
who refused to allow him to enter till assured that he should depart as free as
he entered. A letter from the emperor (Theodosius II.) was presented. "I wish,"
it said, "for the peace of the church, and steadfast adherence to the orthodox
doctrines of the Fathers at Nicaea and Ephesus. And because I know that Florentius
the patrician is a man approved in the faith, I desire that he should be present
at the sessions of a synod which has to deal with matters of faith." The synod
received the letter with shouts, "Long live the emperor! His faith is great! Long
live our pious, orthodox, high-priest and emperor (τῷ
ἀρχιερεῖ βασιλεῖ)." Florentius was conducted to his seat, the accuser (Eusebius)
and the accused (Eutyches) took their places, and the session began by the recital
of all the papers bearing on the point at issue. Cyril's letter to John of Antioch
was again read, in which occurred the following: "We confess our Lord Jesus Christ
. . . consubstantial with the Father, according to the Godhead, and consubstantial
with us according to the manhood; for a union of the two natures was made; wherefore
we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord. And in accordance with the perception
of the unconfused union (τὴν τῆς
ἀσυγχύτου ἑνώσεως
ἔννοιαν), we confess the Holy Virgin θεοτόκος,
because God the Word was made flesh, and became man and united to Himself by conception
the temple taken from her." Eusebius exclaimed, "Certainly Eutyches does not acknowledge
this; he has never believed it, but taught the very opposite to every one who
came to him." Florentius desired that Eutyches should be asked if he assented
to these documents or not. Eutyches was interrogated; and when the archbishop
put the plain question: "Do you confess that Christ is of two natures?" Eutyches
answered, "I have never yet presumed to dispute about the nature of my God; that
He is consubstantial with us have I never said. I readily admit that the Holy
Virgin is consubstantial with us, and that our God was born of her flesh." Flavian,
Florentius, Basil of Seleucia, and others, pressed upon him "If you admit that
Mary is consubstantial with us, and that Christ took His manhood from her, it
naturally follows that He, according to His manhood, is consubstantial with us."
Eutyches answered: "I do not say that the body of man has become the body of God;
but in speaking of a human body of God I say that the Lord became flesh of the
Virgin. If you wish me to add that His body is consubstantial with ours, I will
do so; but I cannot use the word consubstantial in such a manner as to deny that
He is the Son of God." Flavian's retort was just: "You will then admit this from
compulsion, and not because it is your belief." Finally, the synod desired Eutyches
to make a full explanation, and to pronounce an anathema on opinions opposed to
the documents which had been recited. Eutyches replied that he would, if the synod
desired it, make use of language (viz. consubstantial with us, and of two natures)
which, in his opinion, was very much open to question; "but," he added, "inasmuch
as I do not find such language either in Holy Scripture or in the writings of
the Fathers, I must decline to pronounce an anathema on those who do not accept
it, lest—in so doing—I should be anathematizing the Fathers." Florentius asked:
"Do you acknowledge two natures in Christ, and His consubstantiality with us?"
"Cyril and Athanasius," answered Eutyches, "speak of two natures before the union,
but of one nature after the union." "If you do not acknowledge two natures after
the union," said Florentius, "you will be condemned. Whosoever refuses the formula
'of two natures' and the expression 'two natures' is unorthodox; "to which the
synod responded with the cry, "And to receive this under compulsion (as would
Eutyches) is not to believe in it. Long live the emperor!" The sentence was pronounced:
"Eutyches, formerly priest and archimandrite, hath proved himself affected by
the heresy of Valentinus and Apollinaris, and hath refused—in spite of our admonition—to
accept the true faith. Therefore we, lamenting his perverseness, have decreed,
through our Lord Jesus Christ, blasphemed by him, that he be excluded from all
priestly functions, from our communion, and from his primacy in his monastery."
Excommunication was pronounced upon all who
The monks rallied round Eutyches, and the influence of the minister Chrysaphius, his godson, was exerted in his behalf. Eutyches himself wrote to the emperor and to many of the bishops, and placarded notices about Constantinople, protesting against his sentence and justifying his teaching. Of his letters the most important is to pope Leo. In it he accuses Eusebius of acting at Satan's bidding, not in the interests of orthodoxy, but with the intention of destroying him. He repeats that he could not accede to the demands of the synod, acknowledge two natures in Christ, and anathematize all who opposed this doctrine, because Athanasius, Gregory, Julius, and Felix had rejected the expression "two natures," he himself having no wish to add to the creed of Nicaea and Ephesus, nor to define too particularly the nature of God the Word. He adds that he had desired the synod to lay the matter before the pope, promising to abide by his decision; but this not having been granted, he, being in great danger, now implored the pope to give an unprejudiced judgment, and to protect him.
Flavian, on his part, circulated the decree of excommunication. He charged the monks to obey it, and communicated it to the emperor, the pope, and provincial bishops. His interviews with the emperor were marked by great suspicion on the part of the latter; and his letter to Leo was forestalled by that of Eutyches and a second was required before the pope was satisfied. Leo eventually gave Eutyches his answer in the celebrated Epistola Dogmatica ad Flavianum.
Court favour inclined to Eutyches; and early in 449 the emperor appointed a commission to examine a charge of falsification of the acts of the late synod of Constantinople, proffered by Eutyches against Flavian. No such falsification was proved, and the commission had no choice but to confirm the sentence pronounced by the synod; but an agitation was thereby advanced, which was productive of the greatest misery.
A council had already been summoned by the emperor to meet at Ephesus. Eutyches and Dioscorus, patriarch of Alexandria, had demanded it, and their position had been supported by Chrysaphius. The imperial summons was in the names of Theodosius II. and Valentinian III., and was dated May 30, 449. It stated the cause of the summons to be the doubts and disputes which had arisen concerning the faith; it invited Dioscorus to present himself with ten metropolitans and ten bishops at Ephesus on Aug. 1; and it extended the invitation to other bishops, Theodoret of Cyrus (Kars) being exempted unless specially summoned by the council.
The synod—the "Latrocinium," or "Robber Synod," as posterity was taught to
call it by Leo—first met on Aug. 8, 449. "Flavian was presented as an oppressor
and Eutyches as a victim, and terrible was the day on which it opened. The true
faith received in the East a shock from which it has never completely recovered
since. The church witnessed the separation from herself of nations which have
never returned to her, and perhaps never will" (Martin). Leo was not present except
by his legates, who brought the famous tome, or doctrinal letter, to Flavian,
and letters to the emperor, the archimandrites, the council, and others. In his
letter to Theodosius (June 13, 449) Leo expresses his regret that "the foolish
old man" (Eutyches) had not given up opinions condemned by the synod of Constantinople,
and intimates his wish that the archimandrite should be received again if he would
keep his promise to the pope, and amend what was erroneous in his views. In the
letter to Pulcheria (same date), the pope considers Eutyches to have fallen into
his error "through want of knowledge rather than through wickedness"; to the archimandrites
of Constantinople he states his conviction that they do not share the views of
Eutyches, and exhorts them to deal tenderly with him should he renounce his error;
and to the synod he quotes the confession of St. Peter, "Thou art the Christ,
the Son of the living God" (
A synod stigmatized as "a gang of robbers" was not likely to permit the recital of a document condemnatory of Eutyches, the man they were pledged to acquit. It was presented, but shelved.
For the history of the synod, in its relation to Eutyches, see Dioscorus. The Christian world was rent in pieces by its proceedings. Egypt, Thrace, and Palestine ranged themselves with Dioscorus and the emperor; Syria, Pontus, Asia, Rome, protested against the treatment of Flavian and the acquittal of Eutyches. Dioscorus excommunicated Leo, Leo Dioscorus. Theodosius applauded and confirmed the decisions of the synod in a decree which denounced Flavian, Eusebius, and others as Nestorians, forbad the elevation of their followers to episcopal rank, deposed them if already bishops, and expelled them from the country. Leo wrote to the emperor Theodosius, to the church at Constantinople, and to the anti-Eutychian archimandrites. He asked for a general council.
The wrangle was suddenly silenced by the death of Theodosius (July 450). Under
Marcian orthodoxy triumphed again: "Eutychianism, as well as Nestorianism, was
conquered" (Leo). Marcian assented at once and cordially to the pope's request
for a council. Anatolius convened a synod of such bishops, archimandrites, priests,
and deacons as were at Constantinople, and in the presence of the Roman legates
subscribed the tome, and, together with the whole assembly, anathematized Eutyches,
Nestorius, and their followers. Leo's wish for a council was not now so urgent.
The danger had passed away. Eutychianism and Nestorianism had been anathematized;
his own tome had been everywhere accepted; of more immediate importance, in his
opinion, was the practical question, how best and most speedily to reconcile the
penitent and to punish the
The fourth great council of the church met at Chalcedon on Oct. 8, 451. For its general history see Dioscorus. During the first session the secretaries read the documents descriptive of the introduction of Eutyches at the synod of Ephesus (the Latrocinium) and the reading of his paper. At words attributing to Eutyches the statement, "The third general council (that of Ephesus, 431) hath directly forbidden any addition to the Nicene Creed," Eusebius of Dorylaeum exclaimed, "That is untrue." "You will find it in four copies," retorted Dioscorus. Diogenes of Cyzicus urged that Eutyches had not repeated the Nicene Creed as it then stood; for the second general council (Constantinople, 381) had certainly appended (against Apollinaris and Macedonius) to the words "He was incarnate," the words "by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary," though he considered this an explanation rather than an addition; but the Egyptian bishops present disclaimed (as Cyril had previously done) any such revised version of the Nicene confession and greeted the words of Diogenes with loud disapproval. Angry words were again interchanged when the reader continued: "I (Eutyches) anathematize all who say that the flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ came down from heaven." "True," interrupted Eusebius, "but Eutyches has never told us whence Christ did take His manhood; "and Diogenes and Basil of Seleucia affirmed that Eutyches, though pressed upon this point at Constantinople, had refused to speak out. Dioscorus now, and to his honour, protested: "Let Eutyches be not only punished, but burnt, if he holds heterodox opinions. I only care to preserve the Catholic faith, not that of any individual man"; and then he turned upon Basil for having said one thing at Constantinople and another at Ephesus. "I did so," pleaded Basil, "out of fear of the majority. Before a tribunal of magistrates I would have remained firm even to martyrdom; but I did not dare oppose (a tribunal of) the Fathers (or bishops)." This plea for pardon was adopted by the others. "Yes, we all sinned (at Ephesus); we all implore forgiveness."
At the 4th session (Oct. 17) 18 anti-Eutychian priests and archimandrites,
headed by Faustus, were admitted. They were questioned about a petition addressed
to Marcian previous to the opening of the council, by Carosus and other Eutychians,
who styled themselves archimandrites. Faustus replied that only two of the petitioners
(Carosus and Dorotheus) were archimandrites, the rest were men who lived in martyries
or were unknown to them. The imperial commissioners commanded that Carosus and
the others should be summoned. Twenty came, and then the petition was read. It
was an impassioned appeal to the emperor to prevent an outbreak of schism, to
summon a council, and meanwhile forbid the expulsion of any man from his church,
monastery, or martyry. In a second document the Eutychians excused themselves
for not having previously attended, on the ground that the emperor had forbidden
it. "The emperor," it proceeded, "had assured them that at the council the creed
of Nicaea only should be established, and that nothing should be undertaken previous
to this." It urged that the condemnation of Dioscorus was inconsistent with the
imperial promise; he and his bishops should therefore be again called to the council,
and the present schism would be removed. If not, they declared that they would
hold no communion with men who opposed the creed of the 318 Fathers at Nicaea.
To prove their own orthodoxy they appended their signatures to that creed and
to the Ephesian canon which confirmed it. Aetius, archdeacon of Constantinople,
reminded these petitioners that church discipline required monks to accept from
the bishops instructions in matters of faith. In the name of the council he demanded,
"Do you assent to their decision or not?" "I abide by the creed of Nicaea," answered
Carosus; "condemn me and send me into exile. . . . If Eutyches doth not believe
what the Catholic church believes, let him be anathema." The appeal of Faustus
and other anti-Eutychian archimandrites to the emperor was now ordered to be read.
The Eutychian archimandrite Dorotheus immediately asserted the orthodoxy of Eutyches.
The commissioners retorted, "Eutyches teaches that the body of the Redeemer is
not "of like substance to ours. What say you to that?" Dorotheus avoided a direct
answer by quoting the language of the Constantinopolitan creed in this form, "Incarnate
of the Virgin and made man," and interpreting it in an anti-Nestorian sense; but
he declined to attest the language used on this point by Leo of in his tome. The
commissioners were now on the point of passing judgment, when the Eutychians asserted
that the emperor had promised them an opportunity of fair debate with their opponents
in his presence. It was necessary to ascertain the truth of this, and the sitting
of Oct. 17 ended. On Oct. 20 the council met again. Alexander, the priest and periodeutes ("visitor," see Suicer, Theosaur. i. n.), who had been deputed
to see the emperor informed the council that he and the decurion John had been
sent by the emperor to the monks, with a message to the effect that had he (the
emperor) considered himself able
On Oct. 25 Marcian, accompanied by Pulcheria and the court, opened and closed the sixth session. In his address he explained that he appeared in person, as Constantine had done before him, not to overawe and coerce any, but to strengthen and confirm the faith: his efforts and prayers were alike directed to one end, that all might be one in true doctrine, hold the same religion, and honour the true Catholic faith. The archdeacon Aetius recited in his presence the confession of faith approved at the previous session, and when the emperor asked if it expressed the opinion of all, shouts arose from all sides, "This is the belief of us all! We are unanimous, and have signed it unanimously! We are all orthodox! This is the belief of the Fathers; this is the belief of the Apostles; this is the belief of the orthodox; this belief hath saved the world! Long live Marcian, the new Constantine, the new Paul, the new David! Long live Pulcheria, the new Helena!"
Imperial edicts speedily followed the close of the council (Nov. 1). One, dated
"With none of those who have been the authors of heresies among Christians
was blasphemy the first intention; nor did they fall from the truth in a desire
to dishonour the Deity, but rather from an idea which each entertained, that he
should improve upon his predecessors by upholding such and such doctrines." These
words of the church historian Evagrius (i. 11) follow his account of the second
(i.e. the Robber) synod of Ephesus, which restored Eutyches. They express
the
Consult Mansi, Sacr. Conc. Collectio, vi. vii.; Tillem. Mémoires, etc. xv.; Bright, History of the Church (313-451); and other works mentioned above.
Eutychianus (3), bp. of Rome from Jan. 275 to Dec. 283, during a period of 8 years, 11 months and 3 days, and buried in the cemetery of Callistus. The truth of the record in the Liberian Catalogue has been confirmed by the discovery by De Rossi (Rom. Sot. ii. 70), in the papal crypt of the cemetery, of fragments of a slab inscribed ΕΥΤΥΧΙΑΝΟC ΕΠΙC (Eutychianus episcopus). Ten decreta appear as his in the collections of Gratian, Ivo, and others.
Eutychius (18), St., patriarch of Constantinople. His biography, composed by his chaplain Eustathius, has been preserved entire. Eutychius was born at Theium in Phrygia c. 512. His father Alexander was a general under Belisarius. Eutychius took the monastic habit at Amasea at the age of 30, c. 542.
As an archimandrite at Constantinople he stood high in favour with the patriarch Mennas, at whose death in 552 he was nominated by Justinian to the vacant chair.
At the beginning of 553 Eutychius wrote to pope Vigilius, making his profession of the Catholic faith, declaring his acceptance of the four councils and the letters of St. Leo, and requesting Vigilius to preside over the council that was to be held on the question of the Three Chapters. Vigilius refused, and Eutychius shared the first place in the assembly with the patriarchs Apollinarius of Alexandria and Domninus of Antioch. At the second session the pope excused himself again, on the ground of ill-health. The subscription of Eutychius to the Acts of this synod, which sat from May 5 to June 2, 553, is a summary of the decrees against the Three Chapters.
Eutychius came into violent collision with Justinian in 564, when the emperor adopted the tenets of the Aphthartodocetae. Eutychius, in a long address, demonstrated the incompatibility of that theory with Scripture; but Justinian insisted on his subscribing to it, and finding him uncompromising, ordered his arrest. On Jan. 22, 565, Eutychius was at the holy table celebrating the feast-day of St. Timotheus in the church adjoining the Hormisdas palace (cf. du Cange, Cpolis. Chr. lib. ii. p. 96, lib. iv. p. 93, ed. 1729), when soldiers broke into the patriarchal residence, entered the church, and carried the patriarch away, first to a monastery called Choracudis, and the next day to that of St. Osias near Chalcedon. The 8th day after this outrage Justinian called an assembly of princes and prelates, to which he summoned Eutychius. The charges against him were trifling and absurd: that he used ointments, ate delicate meats, and prayed long. Cited thrice, Eutychius replied that he would only come if he were to be judged canonically, in his own dignity, and in command of his clergy. Condemned by default, he was sent to an island in the Propontis named Principus, and afterwards to his old monastery at Amasea, where he spent 12 years and 5 months. On the death of Joannes Scholasticus, whom Justinian had put in the patriarchal chair, the people of Constantinople loudly demanded the return of Eutychius. Justin II. had succeeded Justinian, and had associated with himself the young Tiberius. The emperors immediately sent an honourable deputation to Amasea to bring back Eutychius, who returned with great joy to Constantinople in Oct. 577. An immense concourse met him, shouting aloud, "Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord," and "Glory to God in the highest, on earth peace." In questionable imitation of our Lord he entered on an ass's colt, over garments spread on the ground, the crowd carrying palms, dancing, and singing. The whole city was illuminated, public banquets were held, new buildings inaugurated. Next day he was met by the two emperors with conspicuous honour at the church of the Virgin in Blachernae. He then proceeded to the great church, which was filled from end to end, mounted the pulpit, and blessed the multitude. He was six hours distributing the communion, as all wished to receive from his own hands.
Towards the end of his life Eutychius maintained that after the resurrection
the body will be more subtle than air, and no longer palpable. Gregory the Great,
then residing at Constantinople as delegate of the Roman church, felt himself
bound to oppose this opinion. The emperor Tiberius talked to the disputants separately,
and tried to reconcile them; but the breach was persistent. Eutychius breathed
his last quietly on Sunday after Easter Day, Apr. 5, 582, aged 70 years. Some
of his friends told Gregory that, a few minutes before his end, he touched the
skin of his hand, saying, "I confess that in this flesh we shall rise again" (Paul.
Diac. Vit. Greg. Mag. lib. i. capp. 9, 27-30; Vit. Greg.
The chronology of his life here followed is that fixed by Henschen in his introductory
argument to the Life by Eustathius (Boll. Acta SS. 6
Euzoïus (1), Arian bp. of Antioch, the companion and intimate friend of Arius from an early age. He was one of 11 presbyters and deacons of that church, deposed together with Arius by Alexander bp. of Alexandria, c. 320 (Socr. H. E. i. 6; Soz. H. E. i. 15; Theod. H. E. i. 4, ii. 311; Athan. de Syn. p. 907). He was again condemned and banished, with Arius, by the council of Nicaea, a.d. 325. When Arius was recalled from banishment, and summoned to the emperor's side in 330, he was accompanied by Euzoïus, by this time a priest. Both regained the emperor's confidence by an evasive declaration of their faith and a professed acceptance of the creed of Nicaea (Socr. H. E. i. 25, 26; Soz. H. E. ii. 27). He accompanied Arius to Jerusalem at the great gathering of Eusebian bishops for the dedication of the church of the Anastasis, Sept. 13, 335, and with him was received into communion by the council then held (Soz. l.c.; Athan. de Synod. p. 891). In 361 Constantius, having banished Meletius, bp. of Antioch, summoned Euzoïus from Alexandria, and commanded the bishops of the province to consecrate him. A few months later Constantius, being seized with a fatal fever, summoned the newly appointed bishop, Euzoïus, to his bedside on Nov. 3, 361, and received from him the sacrament of baptism. Whether this was at Antioch or Mopsucrene in Cilicia is uncertain (Athan. ib. 907; Philost. H. E. vi. 5). On the accession of Valens, Euzoïus was urged by Eudoxius to convene a synod of bishops at Antioch to take off Aetius's sentence, and this he ultimately did, c. 364 (ib. vii. 5). On the death of Athanasius in 373, Euzoïus was, at his own petition, dispatched by Valens, with Magnus the imperial treasurer and troops, to instal the imperial nominee, the Arian Lucius of Samosata, instead of Peter the duly elected and enthroned bishop. This commission was carried out with shameless brutality and persecution of the orthodox (Socr. H. E. iv. 21; Theod. iv. 21, 22). Euzoïus's death is placed by Socrates in 376 at Constantinople (H. E. iv. 35). Le Quien, Or. Chr. ii. 713; Baron. Ann. ad ann. 325, lxxix.; 335, xlix.
Evagrius (5), known as Evagrius of Antioch, was consecrated bishop over one of the parties in Antioch in 388 or 389, and must have lived until at least 392. Socr. H. E. v. 15; Soz. H. E. vii. 15; Theod. H. E. v. 23; Hieron. de Vir. Ill. cap. 25; Ambrose, Ep. lvi.
Evagrius belonged to the Eustathian division of the orthodox church at Antioch,
of which he became a presbyter. After the schism at Antioch caused by Lucifer's
consecration of Paulinus, Evagrius left Antioch, and accompanied Eusebius of Vercelli
to Italy in 363 or 364. Here he zealously co-operated with Eusebius in restoring
peace to the churches distracted by the results of the council of Ariminum,
and re-establishing orthodoxy on the terms laid down by the synod of Alexandria
in 362. He also afforded pope Damasus important aid against Ursicius and his faction,
a.d. 367. At Milan he resolutely
withstood the Arian bp. Auxentius. After nine or ten years he returned to the
East, with Jerome, with the view of healing the schism that still divided the
church of Antioch. He called at Caesarea to visit Basil in the autumn of 373,
and found him suffering from ague. He was commissioned by the Western bishops
to return to Basil the letters he had sent them, probably relating to the Meletian
schism, as unsatisfactory, and to convey terms dictated by them, which he was
to embody in a fresh letter to be sent into the West by some duly authorized commissioners.
Only thus would the Western prelates feel warranted in interfering in the Eastern
church, and making a personal visit (Basil, Ep. 138 [8]). On his return
to Antioch, Evagrius wrote in harsh terms to Basil, accusing him of a love of
controversy and of being unduly swayed by personal partialities. If he really
desired peace, let him come himself to Antioch and endeavour to re-unite the Catholics,
or at least write to them and use his influence with Meletius to put an end to
the dissensions. Basil's reply is a model of courteous sarcasm. If Evagrius was
so great a lover of peace, why had he not fulfilled his promise of communicating
with Dorotheus, the head of the Meletian party? It would be far better for Evagrius
to depute some one from Antioch, who would know the parties to be approached and
the form the letters should take (ib. 156 [342]). On the death of Paulinus,
a.d. 388, Evagrius manifested the
hollowness of his professed desire for peace by becoming himself the instrument
of prolonging the schism. He was ordained by the dying bp. Paulinus, in his sick-chamber,
without the presence or consent of any assisting bishops, in direct violation
of the canons. Flavian had been consecrated by the other party on the death of
Meletius, a.d. 381. Thus the hope
of healing the schism was again frustrated (Socr. H. E. v. 15; Theod.
H. E. v. 23). A council was summoned at Capua,
a.d. 390, to determine whether Flavian
or Evagrius was lawful bp. of Antioch, but found the question too knotty, and
relegated the decision to Theophilus of Alexandria and the Egyptian bishops.
Evagrius (12) Ponticus, anchoret and writer, born at Ibora in Pontus Galaticus, according to Tillemont, in 345. He was ordained reader by Basil, and deacon by Gregory Nyssen, who took him to the council of Constantinople, a.d. 381, teste his pupil Palladius (Hist. Lausiac. c. 86, p. 1010). Gregory Nyssen thought so highly of Evagrius as a theologian and dialectician that he left him behind in Constantinople to aid the newly appointed bishop, Nectarius (who, before his consecration, was a layman destitute of theological training) in dealing with heretics. The imperial city proved a dangerous home for the young deacon. The wife of an ex-prefect conceived a guilty passion for him, which he returned. The husband's jealousy was awakened, and Evagrius only escaped assassination by a timely flight, being warned of his peril by a dream (Soz. H. E. vi. 30). Jerusalem was the place of his retreat. Here he was hospitably received by Melania the elder, by whom he was nursed during a severe attack of fever, and who, perceiving the weakness of his disposition, led him to embrace an ascetic life as the only safeguard against the temptations of the flesh. Evagrius went to Egypt, where, after two years spent in great austerities in the Nitrian desert, he plunged still deeper into the solitude, and practised severer mortifications in the cells of Scetis. Here the two Macarii were his instructors and models in the ascetic life. After enduring many terrible temptations, recorded by Palladius, and having obtained mastery over his bodily passions, he became qualified to instruct others in asceticism. Palladius became his companion and disciple in 391. Among his other disciples were Rufinus, and Heraclides of Cyprus, afterwards bp. of Ephesus (ib. viii. 6). Palladius gives several anecdotes illustrative of the height of ascetic virtue attained by Evagrius and his fellow-hermits. On one occasion he threw into the fire a packet of letters from his parents and other near friends lest their perusal should re-entangle him in worldly thoughts (Cassian, v. 32; Tillem. x. 376). Theophilus, the metropolitan of Alexandria, desired to make him a bishop, and Evagrius fled to resist his importunities (Socr. H. E. iv. 23). Evagrius remained in the cells of Scetis until he died, worn out with austerities, in the 17th year of his recluse life, a.d. 398, at the age of 54, "signis et prodigiis pollens" (Gennad. Illust. Vir. c. xi.). He was a zealous champion of the doctrines of Origen, for which he fell under the lash of Jerome, whose enmity had also been aroused by his having been the instructor of Rufinus during his sojourn in Egypt and having enjoyed the patronage of Melania. Jerome speaks in contemptuous terms of his writings (ad Ctesiph.), especially of his book περὶ ἀπαθείας, when combating the tenet ascribed to the Origenists that a man could raise himself to a superiority to temptation (i.e. as Jerome says, "becoming either a stone or god") and live without sin. He also charges him with being a precursor of Pelagius (in Pelag. p. 260), and including in his book de Monachis many who never were monks at all, and also Origenists who had been condemned by their bishops. The existing remains of his writings are printed by Galland, Bibl. Patr. vii. 551-581, and Migne, Patr. vol. 86. Socrates, Gennadius, Palladius, and Suidas, sub voc. "Macarius," mention as by him: (1) Monachus, on "active virtue," in 100 chapters. (2) Gnosticus. (3) Antirrheticus, a collection of passages of Scripture against the eight divisions of evil thoughts. (4) A Century of Prayers. (5) 600 Gnostic Problems. (6) A Letter to Melania. (7) A book, περὶ ἀπαθείας. (8) 100 Sentences for the Use of Anchorets living simply. (9) Short Sentences. (10) Στιχηρά, in two books, one addressed to monks, and the other to a virgin dedicated to God. (11) Liber de rerum monachalium rationibus. (12) Scholion de tetragrammato Dei nomine. Oudin, i. 883; Tillem. Mém. eccl. x. pp. 368 ff.; Fabr. Bibl. Graec. ix. 284, ed. Harles; Dupin, Hist. Eccl. iii. 1; Cave, Hist. Lit. i. 275; cf. O. Zickler, Evagrius Ponticus (Munich, 1893); J. Dräseke, "Zu Evag.-Pont." in Zeitschrift für wissensch Theol. 1894, xxxvii. 125 ff.
Evagrius (17), an ecclesiastical historian, who wrote six books, embracing a period of 163 years, from the council of Ephesus a.d. 431 to the 12th year of the emperor Mauricius Tiberius, a.d. 594. He was born at Epiphania in Coelesyria a.d. 536 or 537, but accompanied his parents to Apamea for his education, and from Apamea seems to have gone to Antioch, the capital of Syria, and entered the profession of the law. He received the surname of Scholasticus, a term then applied to lawyers (Du Cange, Glossarium, s.v.), gained great favour with Gregory bp. of Antioch, and was chosen by him to assist in his judgments. He seems to have won general esteem and goodwill, for on his second marriage the city was filled with rejoicing, and great honours were paid him by the citizens. He accompanied Gregory to Constantinople, and successfully advocated his cause when he was summoned to answer there for heinous crimes. He also wrote for him a book containing "reports, epistles, decrees, orations, disputations, with sundry other matters," which led to his appointment as quaestor by Tiberius Constantinus and by Mauritius Tiberius as master of the rolls, "where the lieutenants and magistrates with their monuments are registered " (Evagr. vi. 23). This is his own account of his promotion.
His death must have occurred after 594, in which year he wrote his history
at the age of 58 (iv. 28). His other works have perished. The history was intended
as a continuation of those of Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret. He sought
all sources of information at his command—the writings of Eustathius the Syrian,
Zosimus, Priscus, Joannes Rhetor, Procopius of Caesarea, Agathus, and other good
authors—and resolved to bring
Despite his unnecessarily inflated style, he largely attained his end. He is a warm, often an enthusiastic writer, orthodox in his sentiments, and eager in his denunciations of prevailing heresies. Jortin indeed has condemned him as "in points of theological controversy an injudicious prejudiced zealot" (Remarks on Eccl. Hist. ii. p. 120); but Evagrius was a lawyer, not a theologian, and we must look to him for the popular rather than the learned estimate of the theological controversies of his time. His credulous enthusiasm led him to accept too easily the legends of the saints, but in other respects he shews many of the best qualities of an historian. Not a few original documents, decrees of councils, supplications to emperors, letters of emperors and bishops, etc., are preserved in his pages, forming most important authorities for the events to which they relate. Goss (in Herzog) especially praises his defence of Constantine against the slanders of Zosimus. In his general arrangement he follows the reigns of the emperors of the East from Theodosius the Younger to Maurice; but the arrangement of details is faulty. There is often great spirit in the narrative, an excellent specimen of which is his account of the council of Chalcedon (ii. 18). The work is chiefly valuable in relation to the Nestorian and Eutychian heresies, and the councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon. The first ed. of the History is that of Valesius, with notes (Paris, 1673) reprinted at Camb. in Hist. Eccl. Scriptores cum notis Valesii et Reading, and repub. by the Clar. Press. The latest and best ed. is by Bidez and Parmentier (Lond. 1849) in Byzantine Texts edited by J. B. Bury. See also Krumbacher's Gesch. der Byz. Lit. 2nd ed. p. 246. There is a fair Eng. trans. by Meredith Hanmer (Lond. 1619) along with a trans. of Eusebius and Socrates, and more recent ones pub. by Bagster in 1847 and in Bohn's Lib. (Bell).
Evaristus (called Aristus in the Liberian Catalogue), bp. of Rome at the beginning of the 2nd cent. With respect to the exact date and duration of his episcopate, as well as the names and order of succession of his predecessors [Linus; Cletus; Clement], ancient accounts are greatly at variance. Eusebius (H. E. iii. 34, iv. 1) gives Clemens as his immediate predecessor, the third year of Trajan (101) as the date of his accession, and 9 years as the duration of his episcopate; but in his Chronicle he makes the latter 7 years (Chron. iv. 1). Irenaeus, an older authority, who probably got his information when at Rome in the time of Eleutherus towards the end of the cent., also makes Clemens his predecessor, but gives no dates (adv. Haeres. iii. 3, 3). The Liberian (a.d. 354) and subsequent Roman Catalogues, as well as Augustin and Optatus, represent him as succeeding Anacletus, and the former authorities give a.d. 96 as the commencement of his episcopate, and between 13 and 14 years as its duration. The best and probably final authority on the order and dates of the early era of Rome is Bp. Lightfoot's Apostolical Fathers, part i.
Evodius (1), according to early tradition, first bp. of Antioch (Eus. Chron. ann. Abr. 2058; H. E. iii. 22). His episcopate has indirectly the older testimony of Origen, who speaks of Ignatius as the second bishop after Peter (in Luc. Hom. 6, vol. iii. p. 938; see also Eus. Quaest. ad Steph. ap Mai, Scr. Vet. i. p. 2). This tradition has all the appearance of being historical. Ignatius early acquired such celebrity that it is not likely the name of an undistinguished person would have been placed before his, if the facts did not require this arrangement. The language used about episcopacy in the Ignatian epistles agrees with the conclusion that Ignatius was not the first at Antioch to hold the office. As time went on, the fitness of things seemed to demand that Ignatius should not be separated from the Apostles. Athanasius (Ep. de Synodis, i. 607) speaks of Ignatius as coming after the Apostles without mention of any one intervening; Chrysostom makes him contemporary with the Apostles (Hom. in Ignat. vol. ii. p. 593); the Apostolic Constitutions (vii. 46) have recourse to the expedient adopted in the parallel case of Clement of Rome, the hypothesis of a double ordination, Evodius being said to have been ordained by Peter, Ignatius by Paul. Theodoret (Dial. I. Immutab. iv. 82, Migne) and others represent Ignatius as ordained by Peter. The authorities are given at length by Zahn (Patres Apostol. ii. 327).
There is reason to believe that the earliest tradition did not include an ordination even of Evodius by Peter; for the chronicle of Eusebius places the departure of Peter from Antioch three years, or, according to St. Jerome's version, two years before the ordination of Evodius. The chronology of the early bishops of Antioch has been investigated by Harnack (Die Zeit des Ignatius). He infers that the earliest list must have contained only names of bishops of Antioch without any note of lengths of episcopates, but still that Eusebius must have had the work of some preceding chronologer to guide him. We may well believe, as Harnack suggests, that Eusebius got his chronology of early bishops of Antioch from Africanus, to whom he acknowledges his obligation, and whose chronicle has generally been believed to be the basis of that of Eusebius. If the belief had been entertained at the beginning of the 3rd cent. that Evodius had been ordained by Peter, it is incredible that Africanus would have assigned a date which absolutely excludes an ordination by Peter. The date assigned by the chronicle of Eusebius to the accession of Evodius appears to have no historic value, and thus, while we accept the episcopate of Evodius as an historic fact, we have no data for fixing his accession, but may safely place it considerably later than a.d. 42.
Eznik (Eznig, Esnig), an Armenian doctor of the church in the
5th cent. His native place was Koghb or Kolp (whence he was called the Kolpensian),
and he was a disciple of the patriarch Sahak (Isaac) and Mjesrop, the praeceptor
Armeniae. Besides his mother tongue he understood Persian, Greek, and
He died an aged man, as bp. of Bagrewand (Pakrewand) in the province of Airerat (cf. Neumann, Geschichte der Armenischen Literatur, pp. 42 seq.). His main work is The Destruction of False Doctrines, still preserved in the Armenian original (pub. by the Mechitarists of St. Lazarus in the collection of Armenian classics, Venice, 1826). There is a good German trans. by J. M. Schmid (Leipz. 1900), Biblioth. der alten armen. Lit. i. The whole is divided into 4 books—the 1st combats the Gentile doctrine of the eternity of matter, the 2nd the Zoroastrian religion, the 3rd Greek philosophy, the 4th the Gnostic sect of the Marcionites. The immediate occasion of the work was the conflict between Armenian Christianity and Parsism. The 4th book is of value for the history of heresy. The representation given of the Marcionite doctrine of Principias, and the various myths concerning the origin of the human race, its corruption by matter, the mission of Christ, His crucifixion, descent into hell, and victory over the Demiurge, contain much peculiar and characteristic, but much also belonging to the later developments, not the original forms, of Marcionitism.
F
Fabianus (1) (called by the Greeks and in the Liberian Catalogue Fabius, by Eutychius and in the Alexandrian Chronicle Flavianus), bp. of Rome from early in Feb. 236 to Jan. 20, 250, and a martyr. Eusebius relates that, the brethren being assembled in the church to choose a successor to Anteros, Fabianus, a layman lately come from the country, being indicated as the chosen of Heaven by a dove settling on his head, the people acclaimed him as worthy and placed him on the episcopal throne (H. E. vi. 29). That the choice proved a good one is witnessed by Cyprian, who rejoices that "his honourable consummation had corresponded to the integrity of his administration" (Ep. 39, cf. 30).
In the Liberian Catalogue (a.d. 354) he is said to have divided the regions of the city among the deacons, and to have been martyred Jan. 20, 250. In the Felician Catalogue (a.d. 530) and in later editions of the Liber Pontificalis it is added that he made also seven subdeacons to superintend the seven notaries appointed to record faithfully the acts of the martyrs; also that he caused to be brought to Rome by sea the body of Pontianus (the predecessor of his predecessor Anteros), martyred in Sardinia, and buried it in the cemetery of Callixtus on the Appian Way; in which cemetery he too was buried. It is remarkable that, though the Roman calendar designates all the first 30 bishops of Rome except two as saints and martyrs, Fabianus is the first, except Telesphorus and Pontianus, whose martyrdom rests on any good authority (cf. also Eus. H. E. vi. 39; Hieron. de Ill. Vir. c. 54; Cypr. Epp. 39, 30). Fabianus was among the earliest victims of the Decian persecution. Fragments of a slab bearing the inscription ΦΑΒΙΑΝΟC + ΕΠΙ + ΜΡ (Fabianus episcopus martyr), together with others inscribed with the names of Anteros, Lucius, and Eutychianus, Roman bishops of the same period, have been found in what is called the papal crypt of the cemetery of Callixtus, thus attesting the accounts given of the place of his burial (Roma Sotterranea, by Northcote and Brownlow).
Fabianus is specially named by Eusebius (H. E. vi. 36) as one among many bishops to whom Origen wrote in defence of his own orthodoxy. Cyprian mentions him (Ep. 59) as having, with Donatus bp. of Carthage, written a letter severely censuring one Privatus, an heretical bp. of Lambaesa in Numidia, who had been condemned by a synod of 90 bishops at Lambaesa for "many and grievous faults." Nothing more is known about Fabianus with certainty. Great doubt rests on the story (accepted by Andreas du Chesne, in Vit. Pontif., and in the main by the Bollandists) of his having been the founder of the seven Gallic churches of Toulouse, Arles, Tours, Paris, Narbonne, Clermont, Limoges; to which he is said to have sent respectively Saturninus, Trophimus, Gratianus, Dionysius, Paulus, Astremonius, and Martialis as missionary bishops. The story is absent from early records, and is disputable also on other grounds. Still more improbable is the story, accepted by the Bollandists and Baronius, and resting mainly on the authority of the Acts of St. Pontius, that the emperor Philip and his son became Christians, and were baptized by Fabianus. [Philippus (5).] Three spurious decretals are attributed to Fabianus. There are also ten decreta assigned to him by Gratian and others, on matters of discipline.
Fabiola (1), a noble Roman lady, a friend of St. Jerome, who wrote for
her two dissertations (Ep. lxiv. and lxxviii. ed. Vall.) on the dress of
the high priest, and on the stations of the Israelites in the desert; and also a
memoir of her in his touching letter to Oceanus (Ep. lxxvii. ed. Vall.) in
the year of her death, 399. Thierry (St. Jerome, ii. 11) has worked up the
intimations about her into an interesting and dramatic story. She was descended
from Julius Maximus and extremely wealthy; a woman of a lively and passionate nature,
married to a man whose vices compelled her to divorce him. She then accepted a second
husband, the first being still alive. It is probable that this step separated her
from Paula and the other friends of Jerome, and from church communion, and may account
for the fact that we hear nothing of her during Jerome's stay at Rome. After the
death of her second husband she voluntarily went through a public penance. Having
publicly renewed her communion with the church, she sold all her possessions, and
determined to administer the vast sums thus acquired for the good of the poor. She
supported monasteries
Jerome was seeking a suitable dwelling-place for her, and engaged in writing his treatise on the mystical meaning of the high priest's garments, when the inroad of the Huns caused a panic in Palestine. Jerome and his friends hurried to the sea-coast at Joppa, and had hired vessels for flight, when the Huns abandoned their purpose and turned back. Jerome, with Paula and Eustochium, returned to Bethlehem; but Fabiola went on to Rome.
The last three years of her life were occupied with incessant activity in good works. In conjunction with Pammachius she instituted at Portus a hospice (xenodochium), perhaps taking her model from that established by Jerome at Bethlehem; and it was so successful that, as Jerome says, in one year it become known from Parthia to Britain. But to the last her disposition was restless. She found Rome and Italy too small for her charities, and was purposing some long journey or change of habitation when death overtook her a.d. 399. Her funeral was celebrated as a Christian triumph. The streets were crowded, the hallelujahs reached the golden roof of the temples. Jerome's book on the 42 stations (mansiones) of the Israelites in the desert was dedicated to her memory.
Faustus (11), sometimes called "the Breton," from having been born in Brittany, or (as Tillemont thinks) in Britain, but more generally known as Faustus of Riez from the name of his see. Born towards the close of the 4th cent., he may have lost his father while he was young, for we only hear of his mother, whose fervid piety made a great impression on all who saw her. Faustus studied Greek philosophy, but in a Christian spirit; mastered the principles of rhetoric, and may have pleaded for a time at the bar.
While still youthful (probably c. 426 or a little later) he entered the famous monastery of Lerins, then presided over by St. Maximus. Here he became a thorough ascetic and a great student of Holy Scripture, without, however, giving up his philosophic pursuits. Here he probably acquired the reputation, assigned to him by Gennadius, of an illustrious extempore preacher. He became a presbyter, and c. 432 or 433 succeeded Maximus as abbat of Lerins. His tenure was marked by a dispute with his diocesan Theodore, bp. of Fréjus, concerning their respective rights. The third council of Arles was convened by Ravennius, bp. of Arles, for the sole purpose of settling this controversy. The decision left considerable ecclesiastical power in the hands of the abbat. The epistle of Faustus to a deacon named Gratus (al. Gratius or Gregorius), who was heretical on the union of the two natures in the Person of Christ, belongs also to this period.
Faustus next succeeded St. Maximus in the episcopate of Riez in Provence. Baronius places this as late as 472, but Tillemont (Mém. vi. p. 775) as early as 462 or even 456. Faustus continued as bishop the stern self-discipline which he had practised as monk and abbat. He often retired to Lerins, becoming known throughout and beyond his diocese as one who gave succour to those sick whether in body or mind. He seems to have taken a stern view of late repentances, like those so prevalent at an earlier period in the church of N. Africa. In the councils of Arles and of Lyons a presbyter named Lucidus, accused of having taught fatalism through misunderstanding Augustine, was induced to retract; and Leontius, bp. of Arles, invited Faustus to compose a treatise on grace and free choice.
Faustus appears from Sidonius to have had some share in the treaty of 475 between the emperor Nepos and Euric king of the Visigoths, which Tillemont and Gibbon agree in regarding as discreditable to the Roman empire. It wrested Auvergne and subsequently Provence from an orthodox sovereign, and gave them to an Arian. This was unfortunate for Faustus, who c. 481 was banished, probably because of his writings against Arianism. His banishment is naturally attributed to king Euric, on whose death in 483 he returned to Riez. His life was prolonged until at least a.d. 492, possibly for some years later.
His writings have not come down to us in a complete and satisfactory condition. The following are still accessible:—
(1) Professio Fidei.—He opens with a severe attack on the teaching of Pelagius as heretical, but expresses a fear of the opposite extreme, of such a denial of man's power as a free agent as would virtually amount to fatalism.
(2) Epistola ad Lucidum Presbyterum.—Here, too, he anathematizes the error of Pelagius; but also any who shall have declared that Christ did not die for all men, or willeth not that all should be saved.
(3) De Gratia Dei et Humanae Mentis libero Arbitrio.—After again censuring
Pelagius, the writer argues strongly on behalf of the need of human endeavour and
co-operation with the Divine aid. In his interpretation of passages of Holy Scripture
(e.g.
(4) Ad Monachos Sermo.—The tone of this short letter resembles that of his other writings. He refers to excommunication as a terrible weapon only to be used in the last resort. It is sad to see monks go back to the world, especially if, after doing so, they retain their monastic dress. As usual, he is energetic in his appeals to the human element in religion. "Use your will. Resist the devil. Cherish all graces, especially obedience and humility."
(5) De Ratione Fidei Catholicae.—The former part is a brief statement of the case against Arianism. It explains the distinction between Persona and Natura in reference to our Lord's Incarnation, and appears to be addressed to an orthodox but perplexed friend, whom the author treats as a superior. The second portion is metaphysical, and discusses the nature of the soul, which Faustus seems to pronounce material. Claudius Mamertus, in his de Statu Animae, wrote against Faustus on this point. Faustus may, however, not have meant to do more than draw a marked distinction between the Creator and the creature; arguing, as he does, nihil credendum incorporeum praeter Deum.
(6) Homilia de S. Maximi Laudibus.—A eulogy of his predecessor.
(7) Epistolae.—Two have already been described. The other 17 epistles touch upon problems of metaphysics and theology.
Faustus was of unimpeachably good character; of an earnest, active, ascetic life; orthodox on the central doctrine of the Christian faith and suffering exile for it as a confessor; but stigmatized as a semi-Pelagian, and consequently by many authorities, both ancient and modern, denied the title of saint. But his own flock at Riez, deeply moved by his life and preaching, and warmly attached to his memory, insisted on giving him a local canonization as Sanctus Faustus Reiensis; they erected a basilica, dedicated in his name, and kept Jan. 18 as his festival. The first complete ed. of his works was pub. by A. Engelbrecht in Corpus Script. Eccl. Lat. vol. xxi.; cf. other publications of Engelbrecht on the same subject.
Felicissimus (1), deacon of Carthage, whom Novatus associated with himself in the management of a district called Mons (Cyp. Ep. 41). He was the chief agent (signifer seditionis, Ep. 59) of the anti-Cyprianic party, which combined the five presbyters originally opposed to Cyprian's election with the later-formed party for the easy readmission of the lapsed (Epp. 43, 45). Cyprian (Ep. 52) definitely states that Felicissimus had been, when the persecution arose, on the point of being tried before the presbytery on charges of homicidal cruelty to his father and wife. Like other African and Spanish deacons (Neander, vol. i. p. 324, ed. Bohn), he acquired influence through his administration of church property and was able to threaten with excommunication any who accepted relief or office from Cyprian's commissioners. The latter excommunicated him (Ep. 42) with Cyprian's consent. The mild resolution of the council of 252, making easy the readmission of the lapsed on earnest repentance [Cyprianus], destroyed his locus standi. The party then coalesced with that of Privatus (2), who consecrated Fortunatus anti-bishop; and Felicissimus sailed for Rome to conciliate or intimidate Cornelius into recognizing him (Ep. 59). Failing here, the party melted quietly away.
Felicitas (1), commemorated on Nov. 23; martyr at Rome with her seven sons, under Antoninus Pius, and, according to their Acts, at his personal command, Publius being prefect of the city, c. a.d. 150. It is almost certain that there was no authorized persecution under Antonius Pius, but public calamities stirred up the mob to seek for the favour of the gods by shedding Christian blood ( Julii Capitolini, Vita Antonini Pii, c. 9). Doubtless, in some such way, Felicitas and her children suffered. In her Acts Publius the Prefect is represented as commanded by Antoninus to compel her to sacrifice, but in vain, though he appeals to her maternal affection as well as her fears. He then calls upon each of her sons, Januarius, Felix, Philippus, Sylvanus, Alexander, Vitalis, Martialis, with a similar want of success, the mother exhorting them, "Behold, my sons, heaven, and look upwards, whence you expect Christ with His saints." The prefect, having tortured some of them, reported to the emperor, at whose command they were beheaded. Their martyrdom is commemorated by Gregory the Great, in Hom. 3 super Evang. where, preaching in a church dedicated to her, he lauds Felicitas as "Plus quam martyr quae septem pignoribus ad regnum praemissis, toties ante se mortua est. Ad poenas prima venit sed pervenit octava" (Mart. Vet. Rom. Hieron., Bedae, Adonis, Usuardi).
Felicitas (2),
Felix (1) I., bp. of Rome, probably from Jan. 5, 269, to Dec. 30, 274, in the reigns of Claudius and Aurelian. The Liberian Catalogue (354) names the consuls of the years above mentioned as those contemporary with his accession and death, and gives 5 years, 11 months, and 25 days as the duration of his episcopate; while the Liberian Depositio Episcoporum gives Dec. 30 as the date of his death. Later and less trustworthy authorities, including the Liber Pontificalis, differ as to the date and duration of his episcopate. He appears in the Roman Calendar as a saint and martyr, his day being May 30. His martyrdom is asserted, not only in the later editions of the Liber Pontificalis, but also in the early recension of 530, known as the Felician Catalogue. Notwithstanding this testimony, his martyrdom seems inconsistent with the silence of the Liberian Catalogue, and with his name appearing in the Depositio Episcoporum, not the Depositio Martyrum of the same date.
Nothing is known with certainty of his acts, except the part he took in the deposition of Paul of Samosata from the see of Antioch. A synod at Antioch (a.d. 290) having deposed this heretical bishop and appointed Domnus in his place, announced these facts in letters addressed to Maximus and Dionysius, bps. of Alexandria and Rome, and to other Catholic bishops. Felix, who had in the meantime succeeded Dionysius, addressed a letter on the subject to Maximus and to the clergy of Antioch, fragments of which are preserved in the Apologeticus of Cyril of Alexandria, and in the Acts of the council of Ephesus, and which is also alluded to by Marius Mercator, and by Vincent of Lerins in his Commonitorium; cf. Harnack, Gesch. der alt. Ch. Lit. i. 659. Three decretals, undoubtedly spurious, are assigned to him (Harduin, Concil.).
Felix (2) II., bp. of Rome after the exile of pope Liberius (a.d. 355). He has a place in the Roman calendar as a saint and martyr, and in the Pontifical and in the Acts of St. Felix and St. Eusebius as a legitimately elected and orthodox pope, persecuted by the emperor and the Arian faction. Contemporary and other ancient writers (Faustus and Marcellinus, Hilary, Athanasius, Jerome, Rufinus, Sozomen, and Theodoret) unanimously represent him, on the contrary, as an interloper placed in the see violently and irregularly by the emperor and the Arians, and do not allude to his martyrdom. The following is the account given by Marcellinus and Faustus, two contemporary Luciferian presbyters of Rome, who must have had good opportunity of knowing the truth. It occurs in the preface to their Libellus Precum addressed to the emperors Valentinian, Theodosius, and Arcadius during the pontificate of Damasus, who succeeded Liberius, and by whom the writers complain of being persecuted. Immediately on the banishment of Liberius all the clergy, including the archdeacon Felix, swore to accept no other bishop during the life of the exiled pope. Notwithstanding, the clergy afterwards ordained this Felix, though the people were displeased and abstained from taking part. Damasus, pope after Liberius, was among his perjured supporters. In 357 the emperor visited Rome, and, being solicited by the people for the return of Liberius, consented on condition of his complying with the imperial requirements, but with the intention of his ruling the church jointly with Felix. In the third year Liberius returned, and the people met him with joy. Felix was driven from the city, but soon after, at the instigation of the clergy who had perjured themselves in his election, burst into it again, taking his position in the basilica of Julius beyond the Tiber. The faithful and the nobles again expelled him with great ignominy. After 8 years, during the consulship of Valentinianus and Valens (i.e. a.d. 365), on the 10th of the Calends of Dec. (Nov. 22), Felix died, leaving Liberius without a rival as bp. of Rome till his own death on the 8th of the Calends of Oct. (Sept. 24), 366. The other writers mentioned tell us that the election and consecration of Felix took place in the imperial palace, since the people debarred the Arians from their churches; that three of the emperor's eunuchs represented the people, the consecrators being three heretical bishops, Epictetus of Centumellae, Acacius of Caesarea, and Basil of Ancyra; and it was only the Arian section of the clergy, though apparently a large one, that supported Felix.
A very different account is given in the Pontifical and in the Acts of
St. Felix and of St. Eusebius; the former account is undoubtedly to be preferred.
But though Felix, as well as Liberius, has obtained a place in the list of lawful
popes, and has even been canonized, it is thus evident that his claim is more than
doubtful. Accordingly, Augustine, Optatus, and Eutychius (as did Athanasius, Jerome,
and Rufinus) exclude him from their lists of popes. In the Roman church, however,
his claim to the position appears to have remained unquestioned till the 14th cent.,
when, an emendation of the Roman Martyrology having been undertaken in 1582, under
pope Gregory XIII., the question was raised and discussed. Baronius at first opposed
the claims of Felix; a cardinal, Sanctorius, defended them. The question was decided
by the accidental discovery, in the church of SS. Cosmas and Damian in the forum,
of a coffin bearing the inscription, "Corpus S. Felicis papae et martyris, qui
Felix (3) III., (otherwise II.), bp. of Rome from
The pontificate of this Felix was chiefly remarkable for the commencement of the schism of 35 years between Rome and the Eastern patriarchates. In 451 the council of Chalcedon had condemned the Monophysite or Eutychian heresy, adopting the definition of faith contained in the famous letter of pope Leo I. to Flavian, patriarch of Constantinople. The council had also enacted canons of discipline, the 9th and the 17th giving to the patriarchal throne of Constantinople the final determination of causes against metropolitans in the East; and the 28th assigning to the most holy throne of Constantinople, or new Rome, equal privileges with the elder Rome in ecclesiastical matters, as being the second after her, with the right of ordaining metropolitans in the Pontic and Asian and Thracian dioceses, and bishops among the barbarians therein. This last canon the legates of pope Leo had protested against at the council, and Leo himself had afterwards repudiated it, as contrary (so he expressed himself) to the Nicene canons, and an undue usurpation on the part of Constantinople. In connexion with the heresy condemned by the council of Chalcedon and with the privileges assigned by its canons to Constantinople, the schism between the East and West ensued during the pontificate of Felix.
The condemnation of Monophysitism at Chalcedon by no means silenced its abettors, who in the church of Alexandria were especially strong and resolute. They supported Peter Mongus as patriarch; the orthodox supporting first Timotheus Solofacialus, and on his death John Talaia. [Acacius (7); Joannes (11).] Felix, in a synod at Rome, renewed his predecessor's excommunication of Peter Mongus, addressed letters to the emperor Zeno and Acacius, patriarch of Constantinople. Acacius is urged to renounce Peter Mongus, and induce the emperor to do the same. Felix sent also a formal summons for Acacius to appear at Rome and answer the charge of having disregarded the injunctions of Simplicius. The letter to Zeno implored the emperor to refrain from rending the seamless garment of Christ, and to renew his support of the one faith which had raised him to the imperial dignity, the faith of the Roman church, against which the Lord had said that the gates of hell should not prevail; but both the emperor and Acacius continued to support Peter. The papal legates having returned to Rome, Felix convened a synod of 67 Italian bishops, in which he renewed the excommunication of Peter Mongus, and published an irrevocable sentence of deposition and excommunication against Acacius himself. The sentence of excommunication was served on Acacius by one of those zealous champions of Felix, the Sleepless Monks ("Acoemetae"), who fastened it to the robe of the patriarch when about to officiate in church. The patriarch discovered it, but proceeded with the service, and then, in a calm, clear voice, ordered the name of Felix, bp. of Rome, to be erased from the diptychs of the church. This was on Aug. 1, 484. Thus the two chief bishops of Christendom stood mutually excommunicated, and the first great schism between the East and West began. The emperor and the great majority of the prelates of the East supported Acacius; and thus the patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, as well as Constantinople, remained out of communion with Rome.
Another noted Monophysite, called Peter Fullo (i.e. the Fuller), had excited the orthodox zeal of Felix, patriarch of Antioch. He had added to the Tersanctus the clause, "Who wast crucified for us," and was charged with thus attributing passibility to the Godhead. To him, therefore, from a Roman synod, Felix addressed a synodical letter in which, in the name of Peter, the chief of the apostles and the head of all sees, he pronounced his deposition and excommunication.
In 489 Acacius died, and was succeeded by Flavitas, or Fravitas. Felix, on hearing
of the vacancy of the see, wrote to Thalasius, an archimandrite of Constantinople,
warning him and his monks (who appear throughout to have espoused the cause of Rome)
to communicate with no successor till Rome had been fully apprised of all proceedings
and had declared the church of Constantinople restored to its communion. Flavitas
having died within four months after his accession, the popes' letter to him was
received by his
After his rupture with the East, Felix helped to reconstitute the African church,
which had cruelly suffered at the hands of the Arian Vandals. This persecution,
which had raged under king Hunneric, who died in 484, ceased under his successor
Gundamund, when a number of apostates sought readmission to catholic communion.
A synod of 38 bishops held at Rome under Felix in 488 issued a synodical letter
dated
His extant works are 15 letters (Migne, Patr. Lat. lviii. 893 ff.). Gratian gives also a decretum as his, to the effect that the royal will should yield to priests in ecclesiastical causes. The ancient authorities for his Life are his letters and those of his successor Gelasius, the Breviarium of Liberatus Diaconus, and the Histories of Evagrius and Nicephorus Callistus.
Felix (4) IV. (otherwise III.; see Felix II.), bp. of Rome (July 526—Oct. 530) during 4 years, 2 months, and 14 or 18 days (Anastas. Biblioth.). The same authority states that he built the basilica of SS. Cosmas and Damian, restored that of the martyr St. Saturninus, and was buried, on Oct. 12, in the basilica of St. Peter. There is little to be told of him, except the circumstances of his appointment. His predecessor, John I., had died in prison at Ravenna, into which he had been thrown by Theodoric the Ostrogoth, who then ruled the West as king of Italy. Theodoric took the unprecedented step of appointing his successor on his own authority, without waiting for the customary election by clergy and people. This high-handed proceeding seems to have been at length acquiesced in. No subsequent king or emperor laid claim to a like power of interference in the appointment of popes, though the confirmation of elections by the civil power was insisted on, and continued till the election of Zachary in 752, when the confirmation of the exarch of Ravenna, as representing the Eastern emperor, was first dispensed with under the Carlovingian empire. The same freedom of election by clergy and people continued to be the theory till the appointment was given to the College of Cardinals during the pontificate of Nicholas II., a.d. 1059. For previous interventions of the civil power see Bonifacius II., Eulalius (1), Felix III., Symmachus, Laurentius (10). The only further event known as marking the pontificate of Felix is the issue of an edict by Athalaric, the successor of Theodoric, requiring all civil suits against ecclesiastics to be preferred before the bishop and not the secular judge. The edict was called forth by Felix, with the Roman clergy, having complained to the king that the Goths had invaded the rights of churches and dragged the clergy before lay tribunals. It extended only to the Roman clergy, "in honour of the Apostolic see" (Cassiodor. lib 8, c. 24). Justinian I. afterwards extended it, though with an appeal to the civil tribunal, to all ecclesiastics (Justin. Novel. 83, 123).
For this pope's letter, esp. letter to Caesarius of Arles, requiring probation from candidates for the priesthood before their ordination, see Migne, Patr. Lat. lxv. An important decretum of this pope was made known by Amelli in 1882, and edited by Mommsen in Neuer Archiv fur älter deutsch. Gesch. Kunde, 1886. See Duchesne, La Succession du pape Félix IV. (Rome, 1883).
Felix (26) I., bp. of Aptunga, in proconsular Africa. Felix was one of those who laid hands on Caecilian as bp. of Carthage, if not the sole officiating bishop, a.d. 311 (Aug. Brevie. Coll. iii. 14, 26; 16, 29). The Donatist party, having failed in the Court of Inquiry at Rome, under Melchiades, Oct. 2, 313, to establish their case against Caecilian, turned their attack on Felix, whom they sought to convict of the infamous crime of "tradition" in the persecution of Maximus, a.d. 303. The emperor gave orders to Aelianus, the proconsul of Africa, to hold an inquiry on the spot, which took place on Feb. 15, 314 (Aug. Post. Coll. 38, 56; Ep. 43, 3-14; 88; c. Cresc. iii. 61) at Carthage, in the presence of many who had held municipal offices at the time of the persecution. In vain the prosecution relied on a chain of fraudulent evidence elaborately concocted. The proconsul pronounced the complete acquittal of Felix, which was confirmed by the emperor, and repeated in a letter to Verinus, or Valerius, the vicar of Africa, a.d. 321. The whole case was brought up again at Carth. Conf., a.d. 411, when Augustine argued that there was no doubt of the completeness of the imperial decision. Aug. c. Cresc. iii. 81, iv. 79; de Unic. Bapt. 28; Brev. Coll. 41, 42; Post. Coll. 56; Mon. Vet. Don. iii. pp. 160-167 and 341-343, ed. Oberthür; Bruns. Concil. i. 108 ; Routh, Rel. Sacr. iv. 92.
Felix (174), bp. of Tubzoca (perhaps Thibaris in Numidia). His story illustrates
the first edict of persecution issued by Diocletian in Feb. 303, and the special
severity with which it was worked in the West under the emperor Maximian. This edict
did not authorize death as a punishment, but simply prohibited the assembly of Christians
for religious worship; ordered the destruction of churches and sacred documents,
and authorized torture. Official notice of its publication arrived at Tubzoca on
June 5, and the overseer of the city, Magnellianus, summoned first the clergy and
then the bishop, and demanded the sacred writings. Felix replied, "It is better
that I should be burned rather than the Holy Scriptures, since it is better to obey
God rather than man." Three days were given him for reconsideration, during which
time he was committed to the private custody of Vincentius Celsinus, a leading citizen.
Upon his continued refusal he was sent to the proconsul Anulinus at Carthage, June
24. By him the bishop was twice examined. With the edict there seems to have been
sent by Maximian the praetorian prefect or commander of the emperor's guard, to
secure its due execution. To him, upon his final refusal, Felix and his companions
were delivered for transporation into Italy, arriving after four days' sail in Sicily.
At Agrigentum, Catana, Messana, and Taurominium they were received with great honour
by the Christians. Thence they were carried by the prefect to
Felix (186) of Nola. [Paulinus (8).]
Felix (212). [Scillitan Martyrs.]
Firmilianus (1), St., bp. of Caesarea in Cappadocia, one of the greatest prelates of his time. In 232 he already occupied his see (Eus. vi. 26, 27), though Cave (Hist. i. p. 123) speaks of 233 as the year of his elevation. When Origen soon after left Egypt, Firmilian induced him to visit Cappadocia; subsequently he paid Origen long visits in Judaea to advance his own knowledge of theology (Eus. l.c.). He urged Dionysius of Alexandria to attend the council of Antioch, held to repudiate Novatianism (ib. vi. 46; cf. Routh, R. S. iii. 51).
In 256 he is addressed by Cyprian in a letter now lost as to the Asiatic practice of rebaptizing those baptized by heretics. In his long reply (Cyp. Ep. 75) Firmilian describes it as impossible to add much to the strength of Cyprian's arguments. He is clear as to the antiquity of the practice in Asia, which he regards as ratified by the action of the council of Iconium in the case of the Montanists. He speaks of several meetings of the Cappadocian bishops, one immediately before his writing. Baronius, Labbe, and other Roman writers have been anxious to prove that the baptismal dispute originated with Firmilian and the East, but the attempt is against the whole tenor of Cyprianic correspondence as well as the express statement of Eusebius (vii. 3). To Firmilian the see of Jerusalem appears to be the central see, so far as such an idea arises. He presided at Antioch, a.d. 266, in the first synod held to try Paul of Samosata, and visited Antioch twice on this business (Concil. Antioch. contr. Paul. Samos. in Routh, R. S. iii. 304; Eus. vii. 30). Imposed upon by Paul's promises, he procured the postponement of a decision against him. But when it was necessary to convene another synod in 272, Firmilian, who was to have again presided, died on his journey, at Tarsus. To his contemporaries his 40 years of influential episcopate, his friendship with Origen and Dionysius, the appeal to him of Cyprian, and his censure of Stephanus might well make him seem the most conspicuous figure of his time.
Routh (vol. iii. p. 149) points to him as one of the oldest authorities who states with precision the anti-Pelagian doctrine. Basil (de Spiritu Sancto, xxix.) speaks of his discourses as early testimonies to the exactness of his own doctrine, and quotes his agreement with Cyprian on baptism in the epistle to Amphilochius (Ep. 188).
Flavianus (4) I., bp. of Antioch, 381-404. Born at Antioch, of a distinguished family, he was still very young when his father's death left him heir of his considerable property. As bishop he continued to occupy the family mansion at Antioch, which he devoted to the reception of the sick and distressed of his flock. Chrysostom, in his highly coloured eulogium pronounced on receiving priest's orders at his hands, records that he was remarkable from his earliest years for temperance and contempt of luxury, although early deprived of parental control and exposed to temptations incident to youth, wealth, and good birth. Theodoret (H. E. ii. 24) relates that, when a half-concealed Arianism was triumphing, Flavian, with his friend Diodorus (afterwards bp. of Tarsus), left his home and adopted the life of a solitary. The necessities of the times soon recalled them to Antioch, where as laymen they kept alive an orthodox remnant. Leontius was then the intruding bp. of Antioch, and, while a Eusebian at heart, sought by temporizing to preserve a hollow peace in his church. The counsel of the orthodox bp. Eustathius, before he was expelled from Antioch (c. 328), was that his adherents should maintain the unity of the church and continue in communion with his successors in the see; but there was no small risk of their being thus gradually absorbed by the Eusebians and losing hold of the Catholic faith. This danger was strenuously met by Flavian and Diodorus. They rallied the faithful about them, accustomed them to assemble round the tombs of the martyrs, and exhorted them to adhere steadfastly to the faith. They are said by Theodoret to have revived the antiphonal chanting of the Psalms, which tradition ascribed to Ignatius (ib. ii. 24; Socr. H. E. vi. 8). Leontius endeavoured to check the growing influence of these gatherings by causing them to be transferred from the martyries without the walls to the churches of the city, but this only increased their popularity and strengthened the cause of orthodoxy. Flavian and Diodorus became all-powerful at Antioch; Leontius, being unable to resist them, was compelled to retrace his steps (Theod. ii. 24).
Leontius was succeeded by Eudoxius, then by the excellent Meletius, who was deposed,
and in 361 by Euzoïus, the old comrade of Arius. Euzoïus was repudiated with horror
by all the orthodox. Those who had till now remained in communion with the bishops
recognized by the state, separated themselves and recognized Meletius as their bishop.
The old Catholic body, however, who bore the name of Eustathians, would not submit
to a bishop, however orthodox, consecrated by Arians, and continued to worship apart
from their Meletian brethren, as well as from Euzoïus, having as leader Paulinus,
a presbyter highly esteemed by all parties. This schism between two orthodox bodies
caused much pain to Athanasius and others. A council at Alexandria, early in 362,
wisely advised that Paulinus and his flock should unite with Meletius, who had now
returned from exile; but the precipitancy of Lucifer of Cagliari perpetuated the
schism by ordaining Paulinus bishop. The Arian emperor Valens came to reside at
Antioch in June 370; and this was the signal for a violent persecution of the orthodox.
Meletius was banished a third time, and the duty of ministering to the faithful
under their prolonged trials devolved
In 386 Flavian ordained Chrysostom presbyter, and Chrysostom preached a eulogistic
inaugural discourse (Chrys. u.s. §§ 3, 4). The sedition at Antioch and the
destruction of the Imperial Statues, 387, shewed Flavian at his best. When the brief
fit of popular madness was over and the Antiochenes awoke to their danger, Flavian
at their entreaty became their advocate with the emperor, starting immediately on
his errand of mercy (Chrys. de Statuis, iii. 1, xxi. 3). The success of his
mission was complete. Though Paulinus died in 388, the schism continued; for on
his deathbed he had consecrated Evagrius, a presbyter of his church, as his successor
(Socr. v. 15; Soz. vii. 15; Theod. v. 23). Theodosius summoned Flavian to meet him
at a synod at Capua. Flavian excused himself as winter was setting in, but promised
to obey the emperor's bidding in the spring (Theod. v. 23). Ambrose and the other
leading Western prelates urged Theodosius to compel Flavian to come to Rome and
submit to the judgment of the church. Flavian replied to the emperor that if his
episcopal seat only was the object of attack, he would prefer to resign it altogether.
The knot was before long cut by the death of Evagrius. Flavian's influence prevented
the election of a successor. The Eustathians, however, still refused to acknowledge
Flavian, and continued to hold their assemblies apart (Soz. vii. 15, viii. 3; Socr.
v. 15). This separation lasted till the episcopate of Alexander, 414 or 415. The
division between Flavian and Egypt and the West was finally healed by Chrysostom,
who took the opportunity of the presence of Theophilus, patriarch of Alexandria,
at Constantinople for his consecration in 398, to induce him to become reconciled
with Flavian, and to join in dispatching an embassy to Rome to supplicate Siricius
to recognize Flavian as canonical bishop of Antioch. Their mission was entirely
successful (Socr. v. 15; Soz. viii. 3; Theod. v. 23). To shew that all angry feeling
had ceased, and to conciliate his opponents, Flavian put the names of Paulinus and
Evagrius on the diptychs (Cyril. Alex. Ep. 56, p. 203). Flavian lived long
enough to see the deposition and exile of Chrysostom, against which he protested
with his last breath. His death probably occurred in 404 (Pallad. Dial. p.
144; Soz. viii. 24; Theophan. p. 68). He governed
He left behind certain homilies, of which a few fragments are preserved. Theodoret,
in his Eranistes, quotes one on
Flavianus (8), 18th bp. of Constantinople, between Proclus and Anatolius, for about two or three years. He is described by Nicephorus as being at his election guardian of the sacred vessels of the great church of Constantinople, with a reputation for a heavenly life. At the time of his consecration Theodosius II. was staying at Chalcedon. Chrysaphius his minister immediately plotted against the new patriarch. Foiled in an attempt to extort a present of gold to the emperor for acknowledging his elevation, Chrysaphius, with the empress Eudocia for an ally, planned two methods of attack against Flavian—the direct subversion of the authority of the emperor's sister Pulcheria; and the support of Eutyches, to whom the archbishop was opposed. Pulcheria had devoted herself to a religious life; let the emperor order the prelate to ordain her a deaconess. Flavian, receiving the emperor's command to this effect, and beyond measure grieved, sent a private message to Pulcheria, who divined the scheme, and to avoid a struggle retired to Hebdomum, where for a time she led a private life (Theoph. u. infr.).
Flavian having assembled a council of 40 bishops at Constantinople Nov. 8, 448, to compose a difference between the metropolitan bp. of Sardis and two bishops of his province, Eusebius, bp. of Dorylaeum, appeared and presented his indictment against Eutyches. The speech of Flavian remains, concluding with this appeal to the bp. of Dorylaeum: "Let your reverence condescend to visit him and argue with him about the true faith, and if he shall be found in very truth to err, then he shall be called to our holy assembly, and shall answer for himself." For the particulars of this great controversy see Dioscorus and Eutyches. When, on Aug. 8, 449 the Latrocinium assembled at Ephesus, Eutyches violently attacked the archbishop.
On Aug. 11, 449, Flavian expired at Hypepe in Lydia from the effects of the barbarous ill-usage which resulted from this attack. When Pulcheria returned to power, after her brother's death, she had Flavian's remains, which had been buried obscurely, brought with great pomp to Constantinople. It was more like a triumph, says the chronicler, than a funeral procession.
Among the documents which touch on the career of Flavian are the reply of Petrus Chrysologus, archbp. of Ravenna, to a circular appeal of Eutyches, and various letters of Theodoret. Leo wrote Flavian a beautiful letter before hearing that he was dead.
Leo. Mag. Epp. 23, 26, 27, 28, 44; Facund, Pro Trib. Capit. viii. 5; xii. 5; Evagr. ii. 2. etc.; Liberatus Diac. Breviar. xi. xii.; Soz. H. E. ix. 1; Theophan. Chronogr. pp. 84-88, etc.; Niceph. Constant. xiv. 47.
Flavianus (16) II., bp. of Antioch, 458-512, previously a monk in the
monastery of Tilmognon, in Coelesyria (Evagr. H. E. iii. 32), and at the
time of his consecration "apocrisiarius" or nuncio of the church of Antioch at the
court of Constantinople (Vict. Tunun. Chron.; Theophan. Chronogr.
p. 122). Before his consecration Flavian passed for an opponent of the decrees of
Chalcedon, and on his appointment he sent to announce the fact to John Haemula,
bp. of Alexandria, with letters of communion, and a request for the same in return
(Evagr. iii. 23). He speedily, however, withdrew from intercourse with the patriarchs
of Alexandria, and joined the opposite party, uniting with Elias of Jerusalem and
Macedonius of Constantinople (Liberat. c. 18, p. 128). Flavian soon found a bitter
enemy in the turbulent Monophysite Xenaias or Philoxenus, bp. of Hierapolis. On
Flavian's declaring for the council of Chalcedon, Xenaias denounced his patriarch
as a concealed Nestorian. Flavian made no difficulty in anathematizing Nestorius
and his doctrines. Xenaias demanded that he should anathematize Diodorus, Theodore,
Theodoret, and others, as necessary to completely prove that he was not a Nestorian.
On his refusing, Xenaias stirred up against him the party of Dioscorus in Egypt,
and charged Flavian before Anastasius with being a Nestorian (Evagr. iii. 31; Theophan.
p. 128). Anastasius used pressure, to which Flavian yielded partially, trusting
by concessions to satisfy his enemies. He convened a synod of the prelates of his
patriarchate which drew up a letter to Anastasius confirming the first three councils,
passing over that of Chalcedon in silence, and anathematizing Diodorus, Theodore,
and the others. Xenaias, seeking Flavian's overthrow, required of him further a
formal anathema of the council of Chalcedon and of all who admitted the two natures.
On his refusal, Xenaias again denounced him to the emperor. Flavian declared his
acceptance of the decrees of Chalcedon in condemning Nestorius and Eutyches, but
not as a rule of faith. Xenaias having gathered the bishops of Isauria and others,
induced them to draw up a formula anathematizing Chalcedon and the two natures,
and Flavian and Macedonius, refusing to sign this, were declared excommunicate,
a.d. 509 (Evagr. u.s.; Theophan.
p. 131). The next year the vacillating Flavian received letters from Severus, the
uncompromising antagonist of Macedonius, on the subject of anathematizing Chalcedon,
and the reunion of the Acephali with the church (Liberat. c. 19, p. 135). This so
irritated Macedonius that he anathematized his former friend, and drove with indignation
from his presence the apocrisiarii of Antioch (Theophan. p. 131). On the expulsion
of Macedonius, a.d. 511, Flavian obeyed
the emperor in recognizing his successor Timotheus, on being convinced of his orthodoxy,
but without disguising his displeasure at the violent and uncanonical measures by
which Macedonius had been deposed. This exasperated Anastasius, who readily acceded
to the request of Xenaias and Soterichus that a council should be convened,
Florentius (50), a chief minister of state at Constantinople under Theodosius II. and Marcian, a man of the highest reputation for soundness of faith, purity of life, and statesmanlike wisdom (Labbe, Concil. iv. 220). He was consul in a.d. 429, patrician in 448, prefect of the praetorian guards, and the high dignity of prefect of the East was bestowed on him a seventh time by Marcian in 450.
In 448, when Flavian had resolved to put Eutyches on his trial for heretical doctrine, Theodosius demanded that Florentius should have a seat at the synod as his representative. Hitherto the ostensible reason for the presence of imperial officers at ecclesiastical synods was the preservation of order. The ground expressly assigned by the emperor for requiring the admission of Florentius, viz. that the matters under discussion concerned the faith, was a startling innovation which Flavian withstood as long as he dared (Acac. Hist. Brevicul. p. 112; Liberat. Breviar. c. xi.; Labbe, Concil. iv. 247). On the opening of the trial Florentius took his seat among the metropolitans, next to Seleucus, bp. of Amasea (Labbe, 238; Liberat. p. 60), and disclaimed all desire to dogmatize, or to forget his position as a layman; but he took a very leading and authoritative part in the discussion, and manifested a strong leaning towards the acquittal of Eutyches. But his efforts to induce Eutyches to acknowledge the two natures in Christ or to adopt language which might satisfy the council were fruitless, and the interests of orthodoxy compelled him to assent to his condemnation (Labbe, 507, 517). As Eutyches left the hall he lodged with Florentius an appeal against his condemnation to the churches of Rome, Alexandria, and Jerusalem. The bishop availed himself of the plea that the trial was closed to exclude the registration of the appeal (ib. 244). When the council of Chalcedon met, Florentius was present with other high civil dignitaries; but there is no record of the part he took. We have letters to Florentius from Theodoret (Ep. 89), Isidore of Pelusium (Ep. lib. i. 486), and Firmus of Caesarea (Ep. 29).
Florinus (1), for some time in the latter half of the 2nd cent. a presbyter at Rome, deprived for falling into heresy. He is known from two notices (v. 15, 20) in Eusebius, taken from writings of Irenaeus against Florinus. One is an interesting fragment of a letter to Florinus, in which Irenaeus records his youthful recollections of Polycarp, representing how that bishop, whose good opinion Florinus had once been anxious to gain, would have been shocked at his present opinions. The fragment contains unmistakable internal evidence of genuineness. The title of the letter to Florinus was On Monarchy, or that God is not the Author of Evil, and Eusebius remarks that Florinus seems to have maintained the opposite opinion. Later writers have naturally followed the report of Eusebius. Philaster (79) refers to an unnamed heretic, who taught that things which God made were in their own nature evil. Augustine (66) calls the anonymous heretic Florinus and, with little probability, makes him the founder of a sect of Floriniani. He probably arrived at this result by combining the notice in Eusebius with Philaster's mention in another place of Floriani. The work of Irenaeus which we possess does not mention Florinus, and has no trace of the letter, nor does Tertullian, in dealing with the same subject, employ the letter to Florinus. If Florinus ever in a heretical sense made God the author of evil, his errors afterwards took the opposite direction, and he became a Valentinian. In reply to him Irenaeus composed his work On the Ogdoad. If the controversy of Irenaeus with Florinus was earlier than the publication of the treatise on heresies, we should expect some trace of it therein; and the fact that, after the publication of a treatise dealing so fully with Valentinianism, a separate treatise on the Ogdoad was necessary, may point to the controversy having arisen later. In favour of the later date is also the fact that there is extant a Syriac fragment (Harvey, ii. 457), purporting to be an extract from a letter of Irenaeus to Victor of Rome concerning Florinus, a presbyter, who was a partisan of the error of Valentinus, and had published an abominable book. Florinus is not named by Epiphanius, Philaster, or Pseudo-Tertullian who has so many notices of Roman heretics; and it is likely, therefore, that he was not named in the earlier work of Hippolytus, nor in the lectures of Irenaeus, on which that work was founded; he is not named in the later work of Hippolytus, nor by Tertullian. This silence is not easily explained if either Florinus or any school of Floriniani were any source of danger after his exposure by Irenaeus. (cf. Zahn, Forschungen, iv. 233-308).
Fortunatus (17), Venantius Honorius Clementianus, bp. of Poictiers, and the last representative of Latin poetry in Gaul, was born c. 530 at Ceneta, the modern Ceneda, near Tarvisium (Treviso) (Vit. Sanct. Martin. lib. iv. 668). He seems to have resided at an early age at Aquileia, where he came under the influence of one Paulus, who was instrumental in his conversion. Paulus Diaconus (Hist. Langobard. lib. ii. 23) relates that he studied grammar, rhetoric, and poetry at Ravenna. In gratitude for his recovery from blindness, he set out on a pilgrimage to the tomb of St. Martin of Tours c. 565. Crossing the Alps and passing into Austrasia, he visited king Siegbert, for whom he composed an epithalamium on his marriage with Brunehault, couched in terms of extravagant flattery. Euphronius bp. of Tours and Fortunatus became close friends (Miscell. iii. 1-3). After completing his pilgrimage, he continued to travel in Gaul, because of the disturbed state of Italy, due to the incursions of the Lombards, but finding an additional inducement in the society of Rhadegund of Poictiers, for whom he conceived a Platonic attachment. She was the daughter of Bertharius, king of the Thuringians, and had been espoused against her will to Lothair I., king of Neustria, but had separated from him, and retired in 550 to Poictiers, where she founded the convent of St. Croix, more for literary than for religious seclusion, appointing her own domestic Agnes the first abbess. At what date Fortunatus visited Poictiers is uncertain, but he was induced to become chaplain and almoner to the convent. Rhadegund employed her poet-chaplain in correspondence with the prelates of Gaul, and despatched him from time to time on delicate missions. He thus became intimate with Gregory of Tours, Syagrius of Autun, Felix of Nantes, Germanus of Paris, Avitus of Clermont, and many others, to whom his poems are addressed. He also composed Lives of the saints, theological treatises, and hymns, including the famous Vexilla Regis, composed for a religious ceremony at Poictiers. The Pange Lingua, though generally ascribed to his pen, was more probably composed, as Sirmond has shown (in Notis ad Epist. Sidon. Apollin. lib. iii. Ep. 4.), by Claudianus Mamertus. Fortunatus was ordained priest, and, subsequently to the death of Rhadegund in 597, succeeded Plato in the bishopric of Poictiers; but died early in the 7th cent.
His works comprise: (1) Eleven Books of Miscellanies, chiefly in elegiac verse, interesting for the light they throw upon the manners of the time and the history of art (Miscell. i. 12; iii. 13), but as literature all but worthless.
(2) The Life of St. Martin of Tours in four books, consisting of 2,245 hexameter lines, hastily composed, and little more than a metrical version of Severus Sulpicius's incomparably better prose.
(3) An elegiac poem in three cantos, written in the character, and evidently under the inspiration, of Rhadegund. The first, de Excidio Thuringiae, is dedicated to her cousin Amalfred (or Hermanfred); the second is a panegyric of Justin II. and his empress Sophia, who had presented Rhadegund with a piece of the true cross.
(4) A collection of 150 elegiac verses addressed to Rhadegund and Agnes, and a short epigram ad Theuchildem.
(5) The Lives of eleven saints—Hilary of Poitiers, Germain of Paris, Aubin of Angers, Paternus of Avranches, Rhadegund of Poictiers, Amant of Rodez, Médard of Noyon, Remy of Rheims, Lubin of Chartres, Mauril of Angers, and Marcel of Paris—but the first book of the Life of Hilary and the Lives of the three last named saints ought probably to be attributed to another Fortunatus. To these must be added an account of the martyrdom at Paris of St. Denys, St. Rusticus, and St. Eleutherius.
His style is pedantic, his taste bad, his grammar and prosody seldom correct for many lines together, but two of his longer poems display a simplicity and pathos foreign to his usual style—viz. that on the marriage of Galesuintha, sister of Brunehaut, with Chilperic, and his Elegy upon the Fall of Thuringia.
The latest and best ed. of his works is by Leo and Krusch (Berlin, 1881-1885). A good earlier ed. by Luchi is reprinted in Migne's Patr. Lat. lxxxviii. Augustin Thierry, Récits mérovingiens, t. ii. Recit. vi.; and Ampère, Hist. lit. de la France, t. ii. c. 13.
Fortunatus (18), a bp. who has been confounded with Venantius Fortunatus, bp. of Poictiers. Born at Vercellae, he migrated into Gaul, and became intimate with St. Germanus, who induced him to write the Life of St. Marcellus. He was probably the author of bk. i. of the Life of St. Hilary of Poictiers, and of three other Lives of saints ascribed to his more distinguished namesake. He died at Celles, in the diocese of Sens, c. 569. Rivet, Hist. lit. de la France, t. iii. p. 298.
Forty Martyrs, The. Three groups occur as such:—
(1) Forty soldiers, who suffered under Licinius, 320, at Sebaste in Armenia.
A list of their names is given in the martyrology of Ado under March 11. [See
SEBASTE, FORTY
MARTYRS OF, in D. C. A.]
They were young, brave, and noted for their services. The emperor having ordained
that the military police of the cities should offer sacrifices, the governor called
upon these forty to comply. They refused, and withstood both bribes and threats.
Thereupon a new punishment was devised. They were immersed for a whole night in
a frozen pond, a hot bath being placed within sight for any who might choose to
avail themselves of it, their doing so, however, being the sign of apostasy. The
trial was too great for one. He left the pond and flung himself into the bath, but
as soon as he touched the hot water he died. The number of forty was not, however,
broken. The sentinel who watched the bath saw in a vision angels descend and distribute
rewards to all in the pond. The guard at once stripped off his clothing and took
the vacant place in the pond. Next morning they were all flung into fires. There
was one Melito, younger and more vigorous than the rest, whose resolution they thought
they might shake. His mother, however, who was present, herself placed him in the
executioner's cart, saying: "Go, my son, finish this happy voyage with thy comrades,
that thou mayst not be the last presented to God." Their relics were carefully preserved
and carried to various cities, where many churches
(2) Another set of Forty Martyrs in Persia, 375. is commemorated on May 20 (Assemani, Mart. Orient. i. 141). Among them were the bishops Abdas and Ebed-Jesu. Ceillier, iii. 82, 336; Bas. Menol.
(3) Under Dec. 24 Forty Virgin Martyrs under Decius at Antioch in Syria are noted in Mart. Hieron., Adon., Usuard.
Fravitta, 23rd bp. of Constantinople a.d. 489. Our chief authority is Nicephorus Callistus, who relates that on the death of Acacius, the emperor Zeno placed on the altar of the great church of Constantinople two sheets of paper. On one was written a prayer that God would send an angel to inscribe on the blank sheet the name of him whom He wished to be the patriarch. A fast of 40 days with prayer was ordered. The church was given into the custody of a confidential eunuch, the imperial chamberlain, and the imperial seal set on the casket containing the papers. A presbyter named Fravitta was in charge of the suburban church of St. Thecla. Fired with ambition, he paid the eunuch large sums, and promised him more, to write his name on the blank sheet. At the end of the 40 days the casket was opened; the name of Fravitta was found, and he was enthroned amid universal acclamations. Within 4 months he died, and the powerful eunuch was pressing his executors for the promised gold. They revealed the odious tale to the emperor. The forger was turned out of all his employments and driven from the city. Zeno, ashamed of his failure, entrusted the election of the new patriarch to the clergy.
Such is the account of Nicephorus Callistus. In the correspondence between Zeno, Fravitta, and pope Felix on the appointment there is no trace of this story.
Fravitta at one and the same time wrote letters to Peter Mongus asking for his communion, and a synodal to pope Felix begging his sanction and co-operation. This document was carried to Rome by Catholic monks of Constantinople who had always kept separate from Acacius and his friend Mongus. An accompanying letter of Zeno showed great affection for Fravitta; Zeno had only laboured for his appointment because he thought him worthy and to restore peace and unity to the churches. Pope Felix, delighted with the letters, had Zeno's read aloud to the deputation and all the clergy of Rome, who expressed loud approval. When the pope, however, wished the monks from Constantinople to undertake that the names of Acacius and Mongus should be rejected from the diptychs, they replied that they had no instructions on that point. The joy of the pope was finally destroyed by the arrival at Rome of a copy of the letter which Fravitta had sent to Mongus. Directly contrary to that which Felix had received, it actually denied all communion with Rome. The pope would not hear a word more from the monks. Whether the story of Nicephorus Callistus be true or not, Fravitta stands disgraced by this duplicity. Niceph. Cellist. xvi. 19, Patr. Gk. cxlvii. § 684. p. 152; Joann. Zonar. Annal. xiv. iii. Patr. Gk. cxxxiv. § 53, p. 1214; Liberat. Diac. Brev. xviii. Patr. Lat. lxviii.; Felicis Pap. Ep. xii. and xiii. Patr. Lat. lviii. p. 971; Evagr. iii. 23, Patr. Gk. lxxxvi. part ii.; Theoph. Chronogr. 114, Patr. Gk. cviii. p 324.
Fructuosus (1), M., bp. of Tarragona in the 3rd cent. The Acta of his martyrdom and of his two deacons and fellow-sufferers, Eulogius and Augurius, are the most ancient Spanish Acta, and marked by a realistic simplicity which contrasts very favourably with many of the Acta of Diocletian's persecution. Prudentius made use of them in his hymn to the martyrs (Felix Tarraco Fructuose vestris, etc., Peristeph. vi.), and they are largely quoted by St. Augustine (Serm. 273, Migne, Patr. Lat. xxxviii.). Under Valerian and Gallienus in the consulate of Aemilianus and Bassus (a.d. 259), Aemilianus Praeses of Tarragona issued an edict against the Christians, compelling all to sacrifice to the gods. Hearing this, bp. Fructuosus and the whole church of Tarragona gave themselves to unceasing prayer. One night, after Fructuosus had retired, four apparitores appeared at his gate and summoned him and his deacons before the Praeses. This was Sunday, and they remained in prison till Friday, enjoying, however, some intercourse with the brethren outside. Fructuosus even baptized a catechumen within the prison. Appearing before the Praeses, all three simply and steadfastly avowed their faith. Finally the Praeses asked Fructuosus, "Art thou the bishop of the Christians?" He answered, "I am." The Praeses retorted, "Thou wast," and gave orders for them to be scourged and burnt alive. On their way to the amphitheatre Christians and heathens alike crowded around in sympathy. Some offered Fructuosus a cup of aromatic strengthening drink. He refused, saying, "It is not yet time to break the fast " (it being Friday, and ten o'clock; the Friday fast lasting till three). At the gate of the amphitheatre Fructuosus addressed the people. "Be of good cheer; a pastor shall not be wanting to you, nor shall the love and promise of God fail you, either here or hereafter. For this which you behold is but the infirmity of an hour." After the flames were kindled, the ligatures binding their hands were quickly burnt; then Fructuosus, consuetudinis memor, fell on his knees and so passed away.
This is the account of the Acta printed by Tamayo in the Martyr. Hisp. (vol. i. Jan. 21) from a 14th-cent. calendar in the library of the cathedral of Astorga. It omits important points contained in the Bollandist Acta (A.A. S.S. Jan. ii.), which are the same as those printed by Florez (Esp. Sag. xxv.).
Frumentius. [Edesius, 3.]
Fulgentius (3), Fabius Claudius Gordianus, bp. of Ruspe, b. 468, d. 533.
His life was mostly spent in the provinces of N.W. Africa ruled by the Vandal kings,
Genseric, Hunneric, and Thrasimund, and he suffered from their persecutions. The
writings of Fulgentius himself, a biographical memoir prefixed to his works and
addressed to bp. Felicianus, his successor, supposed to be by Ferrandus, a deacon
of Carthage, and a treatise de Persecutione Vandalica, by Victor Vitensis
in 487 (Migne, Patr. Lat. t. lviii.), are the principal sources of information
for the Vandal persecution in Africa.. Every refinement of cruelty seems to have
been visited upon the presbyters, bishops, and virgins of the N. African church
during the reigns of Genseric and Hunneric. At the first incursion of the Vandals
the whole country was desolated, houses of prayer and basilicas razed, neither age
nor sex spared, the tombs of the martyrs rifled for treasure, bishops banished from
their sees, virgins basely used, and every effort made to alienate the people from
the Catholic faith. At the commencement of Hunneric's reign (Victor, lib. ii.) a
gleam of sunshine cheered the church, during which the vacant see of Carthage was
filled by Eugenius, whose extraordinary virtues are duly recorded by his biographers.
His popularity excited the rage and animosity of the conquerors, who forbade their
own people to enter his church. Those who disobeyed were submitted to torture; some
were blinded, and many died of the inhuman treatment. Women were scalped, stripped,
and paraded through the streets. Victor says, "We knew many of these." Nor did the
orthodox alone suffer. Jocundus, the Arian patriarch, was burned alive, and Manicheans
were hunted down like wild beasts. At the end of his 2nd year Hunneric refused all
position in the court or executive to any but Arians, and banished to Sardinia all
who refused to conform; heavy pecuniary fines were imposed whenever a bishop was
ordained; many Christian women died under inhuman cruelties, and many were crippled
for life. In 486 the bishops and priests were exiled into the desert, and in his
8th year Hunneric issued an edict, still preserved (ib. iii.), summoning
the Homoousians to renounce their faith, fixing a date for their submission and
for their churches to be destroyed, books burned, and pastors banished. The consequences
of this edict are detailed with horrible circumstantiality by Victor, and even Gibbon
considers them inhumanly severe. The cruelties of the Diocletian persecution were
equalled, if not surpassed, by these efforts to extirpate the Homoousian faith.
Gordian, the grandfather of Fulgentius, a senator of Carthage, was exiled by Genseric.
His two sons returned home during an interval of grace to find their property in
the hands of Arian priests. Not being allowed to remain at Carthage, they settled
at Telepte in the province of Byzacene. One of them, Claudius, married Maria Anna,
a Christian lady, who gave birth in 468 to Fulgentius. His mother was careful that
he should study the Greek language, and would not allow him to read Roman literature
until he had committed to memory the greater part of the poems of Homer and of the
plays of Menander. He displayed great talent for business and much versatility.
His fine character recommended him to the court, and he was appointed fiscal procurator
of the province. But after perusing Augustine's comment on
The most extended of these dissertations is ad Monimum, libri tres. I. De
duplice praedestinatione Dei. II. Complectens tres quaestiones. III. De vera expositione
illius dicti: et verbum erat apud Deum. Monimus was an intimate friend of Fulgentius,
and, on perusing Augustine's de Perfectione Justitiae Hominis, had thought
that that Father taught predestination to sin as well as to virtue. Fulgentius assured
Monimus that God does not predestinate men to sin, but only to the punishment merited
by sin, quoting
During this period Fulgentius wrote the Liber ad Donatum de Fide Orthodoxa et Diversis Erroribus Haereticorum (Ep. viii. Migne), elsewhere described as a letter to the Carthaginians. His object was succinctly to characterize Sabellian, Arian, Macedonian, and Manichean heresy; he condemns Photinus, and the errors of Eutyches and Nestorius by name, declaring that the true doctrine of the church was to assert the two natures, as against Eutyches, and to repudiate the two persons, against Nestorius. During his residence in Sardinia an important letter was written to Euthymius, de Remissione Peccatorum (§ xiv. Ceillier, p. 527, Migne). The question was asked by Euthymius, a devout laic, whether remission of sins was possible after death. After a broad description of what remission of sin is, Fulgentius declares the human conditions to be "faith," "good works," and "time," but it can only be secured in the Catholic church, which has power to remit all sin except the sin against the Holy Ghost, which he declares to be "final impenitence." The utmost stress is laid upon the irreversible condition of the soul at death. All merits are attributed to Divine grace (Wiggers, op. cit. p 382).
The 3 books, de Veritate Praedestinationis et Gratia Dei (Migne, p. 604), are addressed to John and Venerius, to whom other letters were also sent during the 2nd exile (Ep. xv. Ceillier, § x.) on the doctrines of Faustus of Rhegium (de Riez, Riji, sometimes Galliarum).
Fulgentius lays down, in opposition to Faustus, that grace can neither be known nor appreciated until given; that so long as man is without it, he resists it by word or deed. Faustus had spoken of an imperishable grain of good in every man which is nourished by grace. Free will is this spark of heavenly fire, not obliterated by the fall. Fulgentius urged that there may be free will, but not free will to that which is good.
In 523 Thrasimund died, and his successor, Hilderic, allowed the return of the Catholic bishops, and the election of new ones in the churches still vacant. The bishops were received at Carthage with transports of joy, and none with greater enthusiasm than Fulgentius, who was welcomed with triumphal arches, lamps, torches, and banners. On arriving at Ruspe, he yielded in the monastery entire deference to Felix, took the position of the humblest neophyte, and only suggested more vigorous work for the clerics, more frequent fasting for the monks. In 524 a council was held at Juncensis, apparently to enforce a more rigid attention to the canons. Fulgentius was called to preside. His precedence was disputed by a bishop called Quodvultdeus, but confirmed by his brethren. After the council, Fulgentius besought out of charity that his brethren would transfer this nominal precedence to his rival, thus heaping on his head coals of fire. The primate of Carthage, Boniface, sought the presence of Fulgentius at the dedication of a new church, and wept tears of joy under his powerful discourse. During this period Fulgentius wrote his great work against Fabianus, fragments only of which remain. They discuss a variety of interesting problems bearing on the Divinity of the Holy Spirit and other elements of Trinitarian doctrine. The Sermones which remain, by their flowing eloquence, antithetic style and tender sensibility, attest the power of Fulgentius. He powerfully discriminates between the Son and the Trinity, and clearly implies the double procession of the Holy Spirit. He claims that the Father had created everything by the Son. Men are only wounded by the poison and malice of creatures by reason of their sins. The mightiest beings are submitted to man. There is no evil in nature. He draws weighty distinctions between the sins of the just and the wicked.
Ferrandus the deacon asked whether he might count upon the salvation of an Ethiopian who had come as a catechumen eagerly desiring baptism, but had died at the moment of baptism. Fulgentius starts with the thesis that faith is the indispensable condition of salvation, baptism or no baptism. Heretics and enemies of the church will not be saved by baptism. The Ethiopian had given evidence of faith, and was baptized, though then unconscious, both conditions being indispensable to salvation. He is therefore saved. But he reprobates baptism of the really dead, for baptism removes the stain and curse of original sin, the seat of which is the soul. If the soul is severed from the body, baptism is worthless. He decides that the benefits of the Eucharist are contained in baptism, and hence, he says, for many centuries past, infants are not fed with the Eucharist after their baptism.
In another correspondence Fulgentius argues that the passion was Christ's quâ His whole person, but quâ nature it was the experience of His flesh only. His soul and body were separated at death. His soul went to Hades, His body to the grave, but His Divine nature at that very moment filled all space and time, together with the Father and the Holy Spirit.
Many of the same arguments are repeated in the Letter Addressed to the Monks
of Scythia, who accepted all the decisions of Chalcedon, anathematized Pelagius,
Julian, and even Faustus, and asked for further light. The reply of Fulgentius and
15 other bishops consists of 67 chapters. The points of chief interest are that
Fulgentius denied that the Virgin was conceived immaculate, and that
While pursuing his literary work with such industry, Fulgentius retired from his monastery at Ruspe to another on the island of Circina, and redoubled his self-mortifications. Here his health gave way. When told that a bath was absolutely necessary to prolong his life, he obstinately refused to break his rule. He died in Jan. 533, in his 65th year and the 25th of his episcopate, and Felicianus was elected his successor the same day.
The most complete ed. of his works was issued in Paris (1684) by L. Mangeant. The whole, with many letters to which he replied, is in Migne, Patr. Lat. t. lxv.; Schroeckh, Kirchengeschichte, xvii. xviii. 108 ff.
Fulgentius (4) Ferrandus, a disciple and companion of Fulgentius of Ruspe (3); sharing his exile to Sardinia during the persecution by the Arian kings of the Vandals. Ferrandus received the hospitality of St. Saturninus at Cagliari, and on the death of Thrasimund, a.d. 523, returned to Carthage, where he became a deacon. In all probability he was the author of the Vita prefixed to the works of Fulgentius of Ruspe, and dedicated to Felicianus. Hoffmann, Lex. s.n.; Herzog, Encycl. art. by Wagenmann; Petrus Pithaeus, in preface Lectori, prefixed to Breviatio Canonum Ferrandi, Cod. Canonum, p. 303.
Two letters of Ferrandus to Fulgentius are extant (Migne, Patr. lxv. pp. 378-435), with the lengthy and careful replies of the latter. For the former see Fulgentius (3). The second asked concerning:—1. The Separability of the Persons of the Trinity. 2. Whether the Divinity of the Christ suffered on the cross, or the Divine Person suffered only in the flesh. The fifth question concerned the double gift of the cup to the apostles, as mentioned in St. Luke's gospel. Ferrandus was often appealed to for his own theological judgment. His collected writings (Biblioth. Patr. Chiffletius, 1649) preserve one entitled de Duabus in Christo naturis, and an Epistola Anatolio de quaestione an aliquis ex Trinitate passus est. He is also the author of a Breviatio canonum ecclesiasticorum (Codex Canonum, F. Pithaeus, and Miscellanea Ecclesiastica, Petrus Pithaeus, pp. 303 ff.), a collection and digest of 232 canons of the earliest councils, Nicaea, Laodicea, Sardica, Constantinople, Carthage, etc., chiefly appertaining to the election, ordination, and character of bishops, presbyters, and deacons; the feasts of the church; the duties of virgins, catechumens, etc. It is thought to have been compiled during the reign of Anastasius (d. 518). Ferrandus appears to have had his knowledge of the Greek councils through a translation and digest of such canons as had been previously in use in Spain. The mention of later synods and writings has led others to believe that the Breviatio was compiled c. 547. [CANON LAW, D. C. A.] Ferrandus took a not unimportant part in the violent discussions produced by the edict of Justinian I. (the Capatula Tria), which condemned certain passages from Theodoret, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Ibas of Edessa. Ferrandus was backed by the vehemently orthodox and dyophysite spirit of the N. African church, and in a letter (546) to Anatolius and Pelagius, two deacons of the Roman church, whom Vigilius instructed to communicate with him, declared against the reception of the edict of Justinian. The most complete ed. of his works is by Chiffletius (Dijon, 1649). The two letters to Fulgentius of Ruspe are in Sirmond's and Migne's edd. of Fulgentii Opp.
Fundanus (1) Minucius, proconsul of Asia in the reign of Hadrian. He received the imperial instructions applied for by his predecessor Granianus as to how Christians were to be dealt with (Justin. Mart. Apol. i. § 69; Eus. H. E. iv. 9). [HADRIANUS (1).] This rescript seems to shew that a Christian was not to be tried merely for being a Christian, but only for some definite breach of the law. As this might be due to principles, Christianity would remain still punishable, but only in overt act.
G
Galenus, Claudius, physician, born a.d. 130 at Pergamus, flourished chiefly at Rome under the Antonines, and died in 200 or 201. For a full account see D. of G. and R. Biogr. He belongs to church history only because of a few incidental words referring to Christianity that occur in his voluminous writings. Thus in his de Pulsuum Differentiis (lib. iii. cap. 3, sub. fin. in Opp. t. viii. p. 657, ed. Kühn) he writes: "It is easier to convince the disciples of Moses and Christ than physicians and philosophers who are addicted to particular sects"; and (lib. ii. cap. 4, p. 579) he condemns the method of Archigenes, who requires his dicta to be received absolutely and without demonstration, "as though we were come to the school of Moses and of Christ." In the de Renum Affectuum Dignotione (Kühn, t. xix.) there are other references, but that treatise is spurious. An Arabic writer has preserved a fragment of Galen's lost work, de Republicâ Platonis, which reads: "We know that the people called Christians have founded a religion in parables and miracles. In moral training we see them in nowise inferior to philosophers; they practise celibacy, as do many of their women; in diet they are abstemious, in fastings and prayers assiduous; they injure no one. In the practice of virtue they surpass philosophers; in probity, in continence, in the genuine performance of miracles (verâ miraculorum patratione—does he mean the Scripture miracles, on which their religion was based?) they infinitely excel them" (Casiri, Biblioth. Arabico-Hispana, vol. i. p. 253). For apologetic remarks on Galen's testimony see Lardner's Credibility (Works, vol. vii. p. 300, ed. 1838).
Galerius, emperor. (Gaius Galerius Valerius Maximianus on his coinage;
called Maximus in some Acts of martyrs, that having apparently been his name
until Diocletian changed it; see Lact. Mort. 18; nicknamed Armentarius
from his original occupation.) He was a native of Near Dacia, on the S. of the
The year 303 brought Galerius prominently into contact with the church. He had conceived a hatred for the Christians, originating (so far as we can see) almost wholly in his fanatical superstition and aversion to Christian morality. His mother was a noted votaress of the Phrygian orgies, and plied her son continually with entreaties to demolish Christianity. She was supported by the magician and so-called Platonist THEOTECNUS (Cedr. vol. i. p. 47, ed. Bonn), who had also acquired an ascendancy over Galerius. The winter of 302–303 was spent by Galerius at Nicomedia, where he used every effort to compel the reluctant Diocletian to annul the legislation of GALLIENUS, to break the forty years' amity between the empire and the church, and to crush Christianity. Step by step he gained his points, until Diocletian consented to proscribe the open profession of Christianity and to take all measures to suppress it, short of bloodshed (Lact. Mort. ii, "rem sine sanguine transigi"). The first edict of Diocletian, however, was not strong enough to content Galerius. The demolition of buildings which proclaimed the power of the church, the prohibition of synaxis, the burning of the books used in the Christian ritual, the civic, social, and military degradation of Christians, were too slow ways of abolishing it. His one desire was to remove Diocletian's expressive clause, that "no blood was to be shed in the transaction." A fire broke out in the part of the palace where Diocletian lived. Lactantius, then resident at Nicomedia, asserts that it was set alight by Galerius, whose object was to persuade the Augustus that his trusty Christian chamberlains were conspiring against him; but on application of torture to the whole household, they were acquitted. A fortnight later another occurred, and Galerius (who, ostensibly to escape assassination, perhaps really to avoid discovery, immediately departed) convinced Diocletian of the existence of a Christian plot, and the emperor signed his second edict, ordering the incarceration of the entire clergy, though even now there was to be no bloodshed.
In putting these edicts into execution Galerius shews occasional signs of a reluctant intention to adhere to the principles of Diocletian's legislation. His return to his own province in 304 was marked by a sudden crowd of martyrdoms where the edicts had before not even been published, but his conduct in the case of St. ROMANUS shews that, when directly appealed to, he felt bound to forbid the capital punishment of even obstreperous Christians (Eus. Mart. Pal. ii.). The time was coming, however, when Galerius was to have more liberty of action. In 304, probably during a total collapse of Diocletian's health, the so-called Fourth Edict was issued by Maximian, no doubt in conjunction with Galerius, making death the penalty of Christianity. Diocletian began to recover in March 305, and abandoned his long-held intention of abdicating on May 1 in that year, not improbably because of the commotion which had been caused by the Fourth Edict. Galerius, who had long coveted the promised diadem, would brook no more delay, and with much violence compelled the enfeebled Augustus to retire, leaving himself nominally second to Constantius, whose death in July 306 left Galerius supreme.
Political troubles which followed did not divert Galerius from persecution. On
Thus did the dying persecutor try to pose as a kind reformer, and to lead the God of the Christians to remit his temporal punishment. "The Unknown God to Whom he had at last betaken himself gave no answer to his insolent and tardy invocation" (De Broglie, i. 207). The edict was posted at Nicomedia on April 30; he died on May 5 or 13, 311.
Galla (5) Placidia, daughter of Theodosius I., by his second wife Galla. When in 410 Rome was captured by Alaric, Placidia was taken prisoner, but was treated with great respect (Olympiod. ap. Phot. Biblioth. lxxx.; Zos. Hist. vi. 12), and in Jan. 414, at Narbona in Gaul, married Ataulphus, who had succeeded his uncle Alaric. After the death of Ataulphus, Placidiareturned to Italy, a.d. 416, and dwelt with her paternal uncle Honorius, at Ravenna. In Jan. 417 she married Constantius. By him she had two children, Valentinian and Honoria (Olympiod. u.s.) Her influence over Constantius was soon shewn in his active persecution of the Pelagians (Prosp. Chron. s.a. 418), when, in Feb. 421, Honorius admitted Constantius to a share of the empire. On Sept. 11, 421, Constantius died. Placidia again took up her abode with Honorius at Ravenna, but their mutual affection being replaced by bitter hate, which occasioned serious disturbances in the city, she and her children were sent to Theodosius II. at Constantinople (Olympiod. u.s.). On the death of Honorius in Aug. 423, Theodosius declared for Valentinian. Valentinian being but a child, the authority of Placidia was now supreme, and among her first acts was the issue of three edicts in rapid succession for the banishment of all "Manicheans, heretics, and schismatics, and every sect opposed to the Catholic faith" (Cod. Theod. XVI. v. 62, July 17; ib. 63, Aug. 4; ib. 64, Aug. 6, 425, all dated from Aquileia), meaning especially the adherents of the antipope Eulalius, who were still numerous in Rome. These edicts were soon followed by another of great severity, directed against apostates (Cod. Theod. XVI. vii. 8, Apr. 7, 426).
In 427 the machinations of Aetius put Placidia in conflict with her tried friend Boniface, count of Africa, who, in despair, appealed for help to the Vandals, and Africa was overrun by their forces. Placidia explained matters to Boniface, and urged him to do his best to repair the injury which the empire had sustained. But it was too late; the Vandals were masters of the country, and Africa was lost (Procop Bell. Vandal. i. 4; Augustine, Ep. 220; Gibbon, c. xxxiii.).
In 449 Placidia was at Rome with Valentinian. The legates of Leo had just returned from the Robber Council of Ephesus. Leo bitterly bewailed the doings of that assembly to Placidia, who immediately wrote to Theodosius and his sister Pulcheria, intreating them to interfere in defence of the faith of their ancestors and to procure the restoration of Flavian, the deposed bp. of Constantinople (Conc. Chalced., pt. i. Ep. 26, 28, 30; Labbe, iv. 53, 55, 58). She died soon afterwards at Rome, and was buried at Ravenna (Idatius, Chr. s.a.; Gibbon, u.s.).
Gallienus P. Licinius, emperor, son of Valerian, appointed by the senate coadjutor to his father very shortly after Valerian's succession in Aug. 253. In 260 his father's captivity in Persia left him politically irresponsible.
One great act brings him into church history. On his father's fall, he was legally
bound to put every clergyman to death wherever found, and to deal in almost as summary
a fashion with all other Christians. [VALERIAN.]
Gallienus had had three years' experience of the difficulty and wearisomeness of
this task. The "Thirty Tyrants," moreover, were foes formidable enough to attract
what little attention could be spared from pleasure. Accordingly, in 261 he issued
a public edict, by which Christianity was for the first time put on a clearly legal
footing as a religio licita. This edict is the most marked epoch in the history
of the church's relation to the state since the rescript of Trajan to Pliny, which
had made Christianity distinctly a religio illicita. The words in which Eusebius
describes the edict (the text of which is lost) imply no more than that actual
persecution was stopped (H. E. vii. 13), which might have been done
without a legal recognition of Christianity; but Eusebius has preserved a copy of
the encyclical rescript which the emperor addressed to the Christian bishops of
the Egyptian province, which shews that the position of "the bishops" is perfectly
recognized by the pagan government. The rescript informs the bishops that orders
have been issued to the pagan officials to evacuate the consecrated places; the
bishops' copies of the rescript will serve as a warrant against all interference
in reoccupying. Thus formally, universally, and deliberately was done what Alexander
Severus had done in an isolated case in a freak of generosity—i.e, the right
of the Corpus Christianorum to hold property was fully recognized. If Christianity
had not been explicitly made a religio licita, this would have been impossible.
The great proof, however, of the footing gained by the church through Gallienus's
edict lies in the action of his successor Aurelian in the matter of Paul of Samosata.
Though Aurelian's bigoted sun-worship and hatred of the church were well known,
and his death alone prevented a great rupture, the Catholics were so secure of their
legal position as actually to appeal to the emperor in person to decide their dispute;
and Aurelian, as the law then stood, not only recognized the right of the church
to hold property, but also to decide internal disputes
Gallus (1) Caesar, son of Julius Constantius (youngest brother of Constantine the Great) and his first wife Galla; born A.D. 325 at Massa Veternensis near Siena in Tuscany (Amm. xiv. 11, 27). In the general massacre of the younger branches of the imperial family on the death of Constantine in 337, two young brothers were alone preserved—Gallus who was ill of a sickness which seemed likely to be mortal, and Julian a child of seven.
Both were brought up as Christians, and entered with apparent zeal into the externals of the Christian life. In 350 Gallus received the dignity of Caesar, which the childless Constantius bestowed upon him on succeeding to the sole government of the empire by the death of his brother Constans. In the West Constantius was distracted by the usurpation of Magnentius in Gaul, while in the East the Persians were a perpetual source of alarm. Gallus had to make a solemn oath upon the Gospels not to undertake anything against the rights of his cousin, who similarly pledged himself to Gallus. He received at the same time the strong-minded and unfeminine Constantina as his wife, and Lucilianus, the count of the East, as his general (Zos. 2, 45. Philost. iv. 1 refers to the oath between Constantius and Gallus; cf. Chron. Pasch. p. 540 ; Zonaras, xiii. 8).
The records of his short reign at Antioch come to us chiefly from Ammianus (lib. xiv.). They are almost entirely unfavourable to him. His defence of the frontier against the Persians was indeed successful (Zos. 3, 1; Philost. iii. 28, speaks strongly on this point), but his internal policy was disastrous.
Besides the report of his harsh and open misgovernment, accounts of secret treason meditated by him were conveyed to Constantius. The emperor, with his usual craft, sent an affectionate letter and desired his presence, as he wished to consult him on urgent public business (Amm. xiv. 11, 1). When he arrived at Petovio in Noricum, he was seized by the count Barbatio, deprived of his imperial insignia, and conveyed, with many protestations that his life was safe, to Flanon in Dalmatia, where he was closely guarded. The all-powerful eunuch Eusebius was then sent to interrogate him upon his various crimes. Gallus did not deny them, but blamed his wife. Constantius ordered his execution, which took place towards the close of 354.
His instruction had been Arian under the direction of Constantius, and he seems to have been influenced not a little by the Anomoean Aetius. This notorious man had been sent to him to be put to death as a heretic. Gallus spared him on the intercession of Leontius, bp. of Antioch, and became very friendly with him. According to Philostorgius, he made him his religious instructor, and attempted by his means to recall Julian to the faith, when he heard that he was wavering (Philost. H. E. iii. 27). There is no reason to doubt that the young Caesar was a zealous Christian after a sort, and that he was distressed by his brother's danger of apostasy.
Gallus (11), abbat, the apostle of Switzerland. One primary authority is the Vita S.Galli, compiled by Walafrid Strabo, abbat of Reichenau (a.d. 842–849), and pub. by Surius (Vitae Sanct. Oct. 16, t. iv. 252 seq., Colon. 1617), by Mabillon (Acta SS. O.S.B. ii. 215 seq.), and Migne (Patr. Lat. cxiii. 975 seq.). Another Vita S. Galli, ex MS. St. Gall. 553, is published by Portz (Mon. Germ. Hist. ii. 189). The original documents are to be found in Wartmann's Nerkundenbuch der Abtei St. Gallen, vols. i.–iii. 1865–1882.
He undoubtedly was of Irish birth, and his original name was Cellach, Calech, or Caillech. Trained at Bangor, in the famous school of St. Comgall, he accompanied Columbanus into Gaul, a.d. 585, and in his exile from Luxeuil along the Rhine into Switzerland, and, apparently from his aptness at learning the languages, proved a most useful assistant in preaching to the Suevi, Helvetii, and neighbouring tribes. [COLUMBANUS.] When Columbanus in 612 left Switzerland to escape the persecution of the Burgundian court, Gallus was detained at Bregenz by a fever, but as soon as he could, returned to his friend the priest Willimar, at Arbona on the S. shore of the Lake of Constance, and devoted his remaining years to the conversion of the wild tribes inhabiting this eastern frontier of Austrasia. On the banks of the Steinaha or Steinach he built his cell and oratory, in the midst of a thick forest. Twelve others accompanied him. His collection of rude huts determined the site of the town and monastery of St. Gall. When the see of Constance became vacant in 616, the episcopate was urgently pressed upon him, and again in 625, but he declined, and was allowed to nominate his deacon John, a native of the place. The sermon he preached at John's consecration is extant in Latin—a wonderful specimen of Irish erudition, simple yet full of vigour, learned and devout, giving an abstract of the history of God's dealings from the creation, of the fall and redemption, of the mission of the apostles and calling of the Gentiles, and ending with a powerful appeal to Christian faith and life, which gives some idea of the state of the corrupt and barbarous society he was seeking to leaven. Beyond these few incidents we know little. He died Oct. 16, 645 or 646, at Arbona, aged 95, but some propose an earlier date.
The oratory of St. Gall gave rise to one of the most celebrated monasteries of the middle ages, and its library to this day stands unrivalled in the wealth and variety of its ancient manuscripts. (For an account of the school of St. Gall and its cultivation of the fine arts, see Hist. lit. de la France, iv. 243–246.)
Gaudentius, bp. of Brescia (Brixia), successor of PHILASTER
(Philastrius) c. a.d. 387. Of the early
life of Gaudentius nothing is known for certain. He was probably a native of Brescia;
at any rate, he was well known there in his youth. From the language which he uses
in reference to his predecessor he appears to have been intimately acquainted with
him (though Tillemont is wrong in his interpretation of the words "ego . . . minima
ejus pars"). He had a brother Paul, in deacon's orders ("frater carnis et spiritus
germanitate carissime"—though his metaphorical use of similar language in speaking
of St.
The episcopate of Gaudentius was not, so far as we know, eventful. But there was one remarkable adventure in the course of it. In the year 404 or 405 he was chosen, along with two other bishops and two Roman priests, to bear to the Eastern emperor Arcadius an epistle from his Western colleague Honorius, and from Innocent I. of Rome and the Italian bishops, urging that an oecumenical council should be convened, to examine the case of St. John Chrysostom, who had been deposed and banished from Constantinople. Palladius (Dial. c. 4), who accompanied the envoys and who gives us this information, does not, indeed, mention the see of the envoy Gaudentius; but no other bearer of the name is so likely to have been chosen as the bp. of Brescia. The mission was ineffectual, and such sufferings were inflicted upon the envoys as might well earn for Gaudentius his title of "Confessor." He received a warm letter of thanks from St. Chrysostom (Ep. 184) for his exertions on his behalf. The letter probably refers to exertions preparatory to the mission, or the reference to the fate of the mission would have been more explicit.
How long Gaudentius held his see is not certain. In his sermon on Philaster he mentions that it is the fourteenth time that he has pronounced his yearly panegyric; but as the date of his consecration to the episcopate is conjectural, this indication is not decisive. That he was still bishop in 410 appears from the fact that the learned Rufinus dedicated to him, in or about that year, his trans. of the Clementine Recognitions, in which he describes him as "nostrorum decus insigne doctorum," and says that every word that fell from him deserved to be taken down for the benefit of posterity. Rufinus refers particularly to his knowledge of Greek; and though he does not directly name the see which he held, the identification is aided by his statement that the Gaudentius to whom his work was dedicated was heir to the virgin Silvia—probably the Silvia, sister-in-law of Rufinus the wellknown praefectus orientis, to whom Gamurrini attributes, though probably without good reason, the Peregrinatio he discovered in 1884. This Silvia is known to have been buried at Brescia (Gamurrini, Peregrinatio, p. xxxvi; Butler, Lausiac Hist. i. p. 296, ii. pp. 148, 229). Gaudentius was buried in a church at Brescia, which is thought to be the same as his own Concilium Sanctorum.
Gaudentius was not a writer. The most modest of men, he thought it enough if he might instruct the flock committed to him by word of mouth (Praefatio ad Benivolum). But there was a leading magistrate of Brescia named Benivolus, who had formerly (in 386) thrown up his situation in the imperial service rather than abet the attacks of Justina upon St. Ambrose. This man, one year, was hindered by sickness from attending the Easter services. He begged Gaudentius to write down for him the addresses which he had failed to hear. Gaudentius complied. In addition to the eight discourses on the directions in Exodus concerning the Passover and two on the Marriage at Cana, which had been delivered during that Eastertide, he sent also four on various Gospel texts, and a fifth on the Maccabean martyrs. Besides these fifteen sermons sent to Benivolus, four occasional sermons of his are in existence, taken down in shorthand and published (apparently) without his consent. They were delivered respectively on the day of his own consecration, at the dedication of his new basilica, at Milan by desire of St. Ambrose on the feast of St. Peter and St. Paul, and on the anniversary of his predecessor's death. To these sermons are added two expository letters, one to a man named Serminius on the Unjust Steward, the other to his brother Paul on the text "My Father is greater than I."
Gaudentius felt himself bound, like others of his time to give "spiritual,"
i.e. allegorical, interpretations of his texts. These are often in the highest
degree fantastic, and have drawn upon their author the severe criticism of Du Pin
(Bibl. eccl. siècle v. pt. i.). But Gaudentius generally prepares for them
by a literal interpretation, and when he does so, the exegesis is usually marked
by good sense. Gaudentius is interested in textual criticism, and more than once
remarks on the correspondence or conflict between the Latin text, as he knows it,
and the Greek. He is an independent interpreter himself (Serm. xix., "Ego
tamen pro libertate fidei opportunitatem dictorum secretus traxi ad," etc.), and
vindicates the like freedom for others (Serm. xviii. "Nulli praejudicaturus,
qualiter interpretari voluerit"). When dealing with moral
The chief ed. of his works is that of Paolo Gagliardi (Galeardus), canon of Brescia, pub. at Padua in 1720, or rather the second and improved ed. of 1738, printed at Brescia. This is reprinted in Migne's Patr. Lat. vol. xx. Accounts of Gaudentius and his works will be found in Tillemont, t. x. pt. 2; in Nirschl, Lehrbuch d. Patrologie (Mainz, 1883), ii. pp. 488ff.; in Hauck-Herzog Realencycl. vi. (by Leimbach); and in Wetzer and Welte, Kirchenlex. v. (by Hefele).
Gaudentius (7), Donatist bp. of Thamugada (Temugadi), a town of Numidia, about 14 Roman miles N.E. of Lambesa (Ant. Itin. 34, 2), one of the seven managers on the Donatist side in Carth. Conf., a.d. 411 (Mon. Vet. Don. pp. 288, 408, ed. Oberthur). His name is chiefly known by his controversy with St. Augustine, c. 420. Dulcitius had informed him what was the course intended by the imperial government towards the Donatists. Gaudentius replied in two letters, which Dulcitius sent to Augustine, whose reply to them in two books entitled contra Gaudentium (Aug. Opp. vol. ix. 707–751, ed. Migne) may be regarded as representing the close of the Donatist controversy (vol. i. p. 895). The Donatist cause, already languishing, from this time fell into a decay, to which these treatises of St. Augustine materially contributed. Sparrow Simpson, S. Aug. and African Ch. Divisions (1910), pp. 133–137.
Gelasius (1) I., bp. of Rome after Felix III. (or II.) from
Acacias being now dead, the dispute concerned only the retention of his name in the diptychs of the Eastern church. Felix had ''demanded its erasure as a condition of intercommunion with his successors, but they had refused to comply. The patriarch of Constantinople was now Euphemius; the emperor Anastasius. On his accession Gelasius wrote a respectful letter to the emperor, who did not reply. To Euphemius the new pope did not write, as was usual, to inform him of his accession. Euphemius, however, wrote twice to Gelasius, expressing a strong desire for reconciliation between the churches, and a hope that Gelasius would, through condescension and a spirit of charity, be able to restore concord. He insisted that Acacias himself had been no heretic, and that before he communicated with Peter Mongus the latter had been purged of heresy. He asked by what synodical authority Acacias had been condemned; and alleged that the people of Constantinople would never allow his name to be erased; but suggested that the pope might send an embassy to Constantinople to treat on the subject. Gelasius, in his reply, couched in a tone of imperious humility, utterly refuses any compromise. He speaks of the custom of the bishops of the apostolic see notifying their elevation to inferior bishops as a condescension rather than an obligation, and one certainly not due to such as chose to cast in their lot with heretics. He treats with contempt the plea of the determined attitude of the people of Constantinople. The shepherd ought, he says, to lead the flock, not the flock control the shepherd. The letter thus asserts in no measured terms the supremacy of the see of Rome, and the necessity of submitting to it. "We shall come," he concludes, "brother Euphemius, without doubt to that tremendous tribunal of Christ, with those standing round by whom the faith has been defended. There it will be proved whether the glorious confession of St. Peter has left anything short for the salvation of those given to him to rule, or whether there has been rebellious and pernicious obstinacy in those who were unwilling to obey him."
In 493 Gelasius wrote a long letter to the Eastern bishops. Its main drift was
to justify the excommunication of Acacias by asserting that he had exceeded his
powers in absolving Peter Mongus without the authority of the Roman see, and plainly
asserts the supremacy
In 495 Gelasius convened a synod of 46 bishops at Rome to absolve and restore to his see Misenus of Cumae, one of the bishops sent by pope Felix to Constantinople in the affair of Acacius, who had been then won over, and in consequence excommunicated. Before receiving absolution this prelate was required to declare that he "condemned, anathematized, abhorred, and for ever execrated Dioscorus, Aelurus, Peter Mongus, Peter Fullo, Acacius, and all their successors, accomplices, abettors, and all who communicated with them." Gelasius died in Nov. 496.
A curious treatise of his called Tomus de Anathematis Vinculo refers to those canons of the council of Chalcedon, giving independent authority to the see of Constantinople, of which pope Leo had disapproved, setting forth that the fact of this council having done something wrongly did not impair the validity of what it had rightly done, and that the approval of the see of Rome was the sole test of what was right. The tract contains further arguments as to Rome alone having been competent to reconcile Peter Mongus or to absolve Acacius, and in reference to the idea of the emperor having had power in the latter case without the leave of Rome, the same distinction between the spheres of the ecclesiastical and civil jurisdictions is drawn as in the letter to the emperor. Melchizedek is referred to as having in old times been both priest and king; the devil, it is said, in imitation of him, had induced the emperors to assume the supreme pontificate; but since Christianity had revealed the truth to the world, the union of the two powers had ceased to be lawful. Christ, in consideration of human frailty, had now for ever separated them, leaving the emperors dependent on the pontiffs for their everlasting salvation, the pontiffs on the emperors for the administration of all temporal affairs. Milman (Lat. Christ.) remarks on the contrast between the interpretation of the type of Melchizedek and that given in the 13th cent. by pope Innocent IV., who takes Melchizedek as prefiguring the union in the pope of the sacerdotal and royal powers.
Two other works are attributed to Gelasius in which views are expressed not easily reconciled with those of his successors. One is a tract, the authenticity of which has not been questioned, against the Manicheans at Rome, in which the practice, adopted by that sect, of communion in one kind is strongly condemned. His words are, "We find that some, taking only the portion of the sacred body, abstain from the cup of the sacred blood. Let these (since I know not by what superstition they are actuated) either receive the entire sacraments or be debarred from them altogether; because a division of one and the same mystery cannot take place without great sacrilege." Baronius evades the obviously general application of these words by saying that they refer only to the Manicheans.
The treatise de Duabus Naturis, arguing against the Eutychian position
that the union of the human and divine natures in Christ implies the absorption
of the human into the divine, adduces the Eucharist as the image, similitude, and
representation of the same mystery, the point being that as, after consecration,
the natural substance of the bread and wine remains unchanged, so the human nature
of Christ remained unchanged notwithstanding its union with divinity. His words
are "The sacraments of the body and blood of Christ which we take are a divine thing,
inasmuch as through them we are made partakers of the divine nature; and yet the
substance or nature of bread and wine ceases not to be." This language being inconsistent
with the doctrine of transubstantiation, Baronius first
Among his works is a treatise Decretum de Libsis Recipiendis, fixing the canonical books of Scripture, and distinguishing between ancient ecclesiastical writers to be received or rejected. It bears signs of a later date, having been first assigned to Gelasius by Hincmar of Rheims in the 7th cent. The most memorable of the works attributed to him is the Gelasian Sacramentary, which was that in use till Gregory the Great revised and abbreviated it. A new ed. was edited by H. A. Wilson (Oxf. 1894). See also C. H. Turner, in the Jl. of Theol. Studies (1900–1901), i. 556 ff. [SACRAMENTARY in D. C. A.] A Sacramentary in several books found in the queen of Sweden's library, and published by Thomasius in 1680, is supposed to be the Gelasian one. The main authorities for his Life, besides the Liber Pontificalis, are the letters of himself and his contemporaries, and his other extant writings.
Gelasius (13) of Cyzicus, in 2nd half of the 5th cent., author of a work on the history of the council of Nicaea, entitled by Photius The Acts of the First Council in Three Books. Our only knowledge of the author is derived from himself. Photius acknowledges his inability to determine who he was. We learn from Gelasius's own words that he was the son of a presbyter of Cyzicus, and, while still residing in his father's house, fell in with an old parchment volume which had belonged to Dalmatius, bp. of Cyzicus, containing a long account of the proceedings of the council of Nicaea. This document not supplying all the information he desired, Gelasius examined the works of other writers, from which he filled up the gaps. He mentions the work of an ancient writer named John, a presbyter otherwise unknown, the works of Eusebius of Caesarea and Rufinus (whom he calls a Roman presbyter), who were both eye-witnesses, and many others. From these and other sources Gelasius compiled his history of the Nicene council. It is sometimes taken for granted that it contains a complete collection of the synodal acts of the council. There is, however, no evidence of the existence of such a collection, or of any one having seen or used it. Athanasius had none such to refer to (cf. Athan. de Decret. Syn. Nic. 1. 2), and certainly we do not possess it in Gelasius (cf. Hefele, Hist. of Councils,Eng. trans. 263, 264). From the work itself we learn that it was composed in Bithynia. As an historical authority it is almost worthless. Its prolix disputations and lengthy orations are, as Cave has justly remarked, evidently the writer's own composition. Dupin's verdict is still more severe. "There is neither order in his narrative, nor exactness in his observations, nor elegance in his language, nor judgment m his selection of facts, nor good sense in his judgments." Instances of his untrustworthiness are seen in his statements that the council was summoned by pope Sylvester, and that Hosius of Cordova presided as his delegate; and he devotes many chapters (ii. 11–24) to disputations on the divinity of the Holy Spirit, which had not then come into controversy at all. The work is in vol. ii. of Labbe's collection (col. 103–286) and in those of Harduin and Mansi. Phot. Biblioth. Codd. 15, 88, 89; Fabric. Biblioth. Graec. v. 24, vi. 4; Cave, Hist. Lit. i. 454; Dupin, iv. 187; Le Quien, Or. Christ. iii. 568.
Gennadius (10), 21st bp. of Constantinople, 458–471. between Anatolius and Acacius. His first public appearance was in an attack on Cyril, in two works, c. 431 or 432, Against the Anathemas of Cyril, and Two Books to Parthenius. In the latter he exclaims, "How many times have I heard blasphemies from Cyril of Egypt? Woe to the scourge of Alexandria!" In 433 Gennadius was probably one of those who became reconciled with Cyril.
In 458 he was a presbyter at Constantinople and designated by Leo to fill the see as a man of spotless reputation, on whom no suspicion had ever breathed, and of holy life and conspicuous learning. From the beginning of his episcopate Gennadius proved his zeal for the Catholic faith and the maintenance of discipline. His discretion was before long tested. Timothy Aelurus, chased from the see of Alexandria by order of the emperor, had obtained leave to come to Constantinople, intending, by a pretence of Catholicism, to re-establish himself on his throne. Gennadius, urged by Leo, bp. of Rome, June 17, 460, did his utmost to prevent the voyage of Timothy, and to secure the immediate consecration of an orthodox prelate for Alexandria. All happened as Leo desired; Timothy Aelurus was banished to the Chersonese, and Timothy Solofaciolus was chosen bp. of Alexandria in his stead. An appointment which Gennadius made about this time, that of Marcian, who had been a Novatianist, but had come over to the orthodox church, to the important post of chancellor of the goods of the church of Constantinople, shewed his liberality, penetration, and desire for order. Two Egyptian solitaries told John Moschus a story which is also told by Theodorus Lector. The church of St. Eleutherius at Constantinople was served by a reader named Carisius, who led a disorderly life. Gennadius severely reprimanded him in vain. According to the rules of the church, the patriarch had him flogged, which was also ineffectual. The patriarch sent one of his officers to the church of St. Eleutherus to beg that holy martyr either to correct the unworthy reader or to take him from the world. Next day Carisius was found dead, to the terror of the whole town. Theodorus also relates how a painter, presuming to depict the Saviour under the form of Jupiter, had his hand withered, but was healed by the prayers of Gennadius.
Gennadius ordained Daniel the Stylite presbyter, as related in that saint's life,
at the request of the emperor Leo, standing at the foot of the Pharos and performing
the ceremonies there. The buying and selling of
Gennadius died in 471, and stands out as an able and successful administrator, for whom no historian has anything but praise, if we except the criticism naturally aroused by his attack in his younger days against Cyril of Alexandria, an attack which the unmeasured language of Cyril perhaps excuses.
Gennadius wrote a commentary on Daniel and many other parts of O.T. and on all the epistles of St. Paul, and a great number of homilies. Of these only a few fragments remain. The principal are on Gen., Ex., Ps., Rom., I. and II. Cor., Gal., and Heb., and are interesting specimens of 5th-cent. exegesis. That on Romans, a series of explanatory remarks on isolated texts, is the most important. He fails to grasp the great central doctrine of the epistle, but shews thought and spiritual life. Gennadius, CP. Patr., Patr. Gk. lxxxv. p. 1611, etc.; Bolland. AA. SS. Aug. 25, p. 148; Ceillier, x. 343.
Gennadius (11) Massiliensis, presbyter of Marseilles, who died in 496.
If we accept his de Viris Illustribus as it is commonly published, we are warranted in classing Gennadius of Marseilles with the semi-Pelagians, as he censures Augustine and Prosper and praises Faustus. Moreover, the very laudatory account of St. Jerome at the commencement of the book seems inconsistent with the hostile reference to that father under the art. Rufinus in the same catalogue.
The de Viyis Iliustribus in its most commonly accepted form was probably published c. 495. and contains, in some ten folio pages, short biographies of ecclesiastics between 392 and 495. Although lacking the lively touches of his great predecessor, Jerome, the catalogue of Gennadius exhibits a real sense of proportion. The greater men stand out in its pages, and it conveys much real and valuable information. With due allowance for the bias referred to, it may be regarded as a trustworthy compilation.
His other treatise, entitled Epistola de Fide med, or de Ecclesiasticis Dogmatibus Liber, begins with a profession of faith in the three creeds, interwoven with the names of those who are considered by the writer (with occasionally questionable accuracy) to have impugned this or that article of belief. Gennadius considers (like later writers, e.g. Aquinas) that all men, even those alive at the second Advent, will have to die (7). But this conviction, though derived from a widespread patristic tradition, is, he admits, rejected by equally catholic and learned Fathers. Of the theories concerning the soul of man subsequently known as the creationist and the traducianist views, he espouses the creationist. He will not allow the existence of the spirit as a third element in man besides the body and the soul, but regards it as only another name for the soul (19). Heretical baptism is not to be repeated, unless it has been administered by heretics who would have declined to employ the invocation of the Holy Trinity (52). He recommends weekly reception of the Eucharist by all not under the burden of mortal sin. Such as are should have recourse to public penitence. He will not deny that private penance may suffice; but even here outward manifestation, such as change of dress, is desirable. Daily reception of holy communion he will neither praise nor blame (53)· Evil was invented by Satan (57). Though celibacy is rated above matrimony, to condemn marriage is Manichean (67). A twice-married Christian should not be ordained (72). Churches should be called after martyrs, and the relics of martyrs honoured (73). None but the baptized attain eternal life; not even catechumens, unless they suffer martyrdom (74). Penitence thoroughly avails to Christians even at their latest breath (80). The Creator alone knows our secret thoughts. Satan can learn them only by our motions and manifestations (81). Marvels maybe wrought in the Lord's name even by bad men (84). Men can become holy without such marks (85). The freedom of man's will is strongly asserted in this short treatise, but the commencement of all goodness is assigned to divine grace. The language of Gennadius is here not quite Augustinian; but neither is it Pelagian, and the work was long included among those of St. Augustine.
The de Viris Illustribus is given in most good edd. of the works of St. Jerome, and is ed. by Dr. Richardson in the Lib. of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers; the Liber de Ecclesiasticis Dogmatibus is in the Appendix to t. viii. of the Benedictine ed. of St. Augustine (p. 75). Cf. C. H. Turner in J. of Theol. Studies (1905), vii. 78–99, who prints a new text of the Liber de Eccl. Dogm.
Genovefa (Geneviève), patron saint of Paris and of France. The
most ancient records tell the story of her life as follows: About
a.d. 430 St. Germanus of Auxerre and
St. Lupus of Troyes, proceeding to England to combat the Pelagian heresy, stayed
one evening at Nanterre, then a village, about 7 miles from Paris. The villagers
assembled to see the two renowned prelates, and a little girl attracted the notice
of St. Germanus. He learnt that her name was Genovefa, her parents' names Severus
and Gerontia. The parents were summoned, and bidden rejoice in the sanctity of their
daughter, who would be the means of saving many. Addressing himself to the child,
he dwelt on the high state of virginity, and engaged her to consecrate herself.
Before departing St. Germanus reminded her of her promise, and gave her a brazen
coin marked with the cross, to wear as her only ornament. Henceforth miracles marked
her out as the spouse of Christ. When St. Germanus arrived in Paris on a second
journey to Britain, he asked tidings of St. Genovefa, and was met with the murmurs
of her detractors. Disregarding their tales, he sought her dwelling, humbly saluted
her, shewed the people the floor of her chamber wet with her secret tears, and commended
her to their love. When the rumour of Attila's merciless and irresistible progress
reached Paris, the terrified citizens were for fleeing with their families and goods.
But Genovefa
The chief authority for her history is an anonymous author, who asserts that he wrote 18 years after her death, therefore c. a.d. 530. This life was first published by Jean Ravisi, of Nevers, in his Des Femmes illustres (Paris, 521), and then by Surius, with corrections in the style (Jan. 3); again, by the Bollandists, in 1643, from better MSS., together with another Life differing only in unimportant particulars (Acta SS. Jan. 1, 138 seq.). The Life of St. Germanus of Auxerre by Constantius (c. 5, Boll. Acta SS. Jul. vii. 211), and that part of St. Genovefa's which relates to him, almost certainly have a common source, or else one is taken from the other, with slight alterations. That episode being subtracted, there is nothing in the remainder which might not be the work of a later age. The history, therefore, must be accepted with great doubt. Innumerable Lives of St. Genovefa have appeared in France in modern times, mostly of a devotional character, and useless for critical or historical purposes. Saintyves, Vie de Ste. Geneviève; Baillet, Vies des saints, Jan. 3, t. ii. 417; Bedouet, Hist. et eulte de Ste. G. (Paris, 1866); Lefeuve, Hist. de Ste. G. c. xiii. (Paris, 1842); Fleury, Hist. ecclés. lxix. 22, lxxiv. 39; Dulaure, Hist. de Paris, i. 240–241.
Genseric, king of the Vandals, the illegitimate son of king Godigiselus, reigned in Spain jointly with his legitimate brother GUNDERIC, and on the death of the latter, a.d. 428, became sole sovereign. He is said to have been originally a Catholic, but early in life embraced the Arian heresy.
Before the death of Gunderic, Boniface, count of Africa, forced to seek safety in revolt, invited the Vandals to invade Africa. Genseric readily accepted, and in May 429, according to Idatius (in 427 according to Prosper), crossed into Africa with 50,000 warriors, who poured over the fertile and defenceless provinces. Carthage, Cirta, and Hippo Regius alone withstood the tide of invasion. The Vandals especially ravaged the churches, basilicas, cemeteries, and monasteries. Bishops and priests were tortured to compel them to disclose the church treasures. Victor mentions two who were burnt alive—the venerable Papinian, one of his predecessors in the see of Vita, and Mansuetus, bp. of Urci. Hippo was besieged, but through the efforts of count Boniface, who had returned to his allegiance, supported by an army of allied Goths, the Vandals were obliged by famine, after a siege of 14 months, to abandon the attempt. St. Augustine died in Aug. a.d. 430, in the 3rd month of the siege (Possidius, Life of St. Aug. in Migne, Patr. Lat. xxxii. 59). Soon afterwards Boniface, defeated with great loss, returned to Italy. Genseric concluded at Hippo, on Feb. 10, 435, a peace with Valentinian, undertaking to pay a tribute for the territories he had conquered, and to leave unmolested those still held by Valentinian, sending his son Hunneric as a hostage. In 437 Genseric began to persecute the Catholic bishops in the ceded territories, of whom Possidius Novatus and Severianus were the most illustrious, and not only took their churches from them, but banished them from their sees. Four Spaniards, Arcadius, Probus, Paschasius, and Eutychius, who were faithful servants of Genseric, but who refused at his command to embrace Arianism, were tortured and put to death. Paulillus, a younger brother of Paschasius and Eutychius, was cruelly scourged and reduced to slavery.
Genseric, after procuring the restoration of his son, took Carthage by surprise,
Oct. 19, 439. The bishops and noble laity were stripped of their possessions and
offered the alternative of slavery or exile. Quodvultdeus, bp. of Carthage, and
a number of his clergy were compelled to embark in unseaworthy ships, but reached
Naples in safety. All the churches within the walls of Carthage were handed over
from the Catholics to the Arians, and also many of those outside, especially two
dedicated to St. Cyprian. The Arians in this were, however, only meting out to the
Catholics treatment such as they received where the latter party was the stronger.
Genseric ordered funeral processions of the Catholics to be conducted in silence
and sent the remainder of the clergy into exile. Some of the most distinguished
clergy and laity of these provinces petitioned the king to be allowed to live in
peace under the Vandals. He replied, "I have resolved to let none of your race and
name escape. How then do you dare to make such a demand?" and was with difficulty
restrained by the entreaties of his attendants from drowning the petitioners in
the adjoining sea. The Catholics, deprived of their churches, were obliged to celebrate
the divine mysteries where and as best they could. In 440 Genseric equipped a fleet,
with which he ravaged Sicily and besieged Palermo. At the instigation of Maximus,
the leader of the Arians in Sicily, he persecuted the Catholics, some of whom suffered
martyrdom. According to Prosper, he was recalled by news of the arrival in Africa
of count Sebastian, son-in-law of count Boniface, but Idatius places his arrival
ten years later. Sebastian had come as a friend to take refuge at his court, but
Genseric, who feared his renown as a statesman and general, tried to convert him
to Arianism, that his refusal might supply a pretext for putting him to death. Sebastian
evaded his demands by a dexterous reply, which Genseric was unable to answer, but
some other excuse for his execution was shortly found. In
a.d. 441 a new peace was concluded,
by
The whole of Africa now fell into the hands of Genseric, and also Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica, and the Balearic Islands. His fleets yearly sailed from Carthage in the early spring, and ravaged all the Mediterranean coasts. When leaving Carthage on one of these expeditions, the helmsman asked Genseric whither he should steer. "Against those," he replied, "who have incurred the wrath of God." His object was not only to plunder, but to persecute. Spain, Italy, Dalmatia, Campania, Calabria, Apulia, Bruttium, Venetia, Lucania, Epirus, and the Peloponnese all suffered from his ravages. After the death of Deogratias, a.d. 457, Genseric did not allow any more bishops to be consecrated in the proconsular province, the peculiar domain of the Vandals, so that of the original number of 164 only three were left in Victor's time. One Proculus was sent to compel the bishops to give up all their books and the sacramental vessels. When they refused, they were seized by force and the altar-cloths made into shirts for the soldiers. St. Valerian, bp. of Abbenza, was expelled from that town. No one was allowed to receive him into their house or permit him to remain on their land, and he was long obliged to lie by the roadside. At Regia the Catholics had ventured at Easter to take possession of their church. The Arians, headed by a priest named Adduit, attacked the church, part forcing an entrance with drawn swords and part shooting arrows through the windows. The reader was killed in the pulpit by an arrow, and many worshippers slain on the altar-steps. Most of the survivors were executed by Genseric's orders. Genseric, by the advice of the Arian bishops, commanded all officials of his court to embrace Arianism. According to Victor's account, Armogast, one of the number, refused, and was tightly bound with cords, but they broke like a spider's web; and when he was hung head downwards by one foot, he seemed to sleep as peacefully as if in his bed. His persecutors, unable to overcome his resolution, were about to kill him, but were dissuaded by an Arian priest, lest he should be reverenced as a martyr. He was accordingly compelled to labour in the fields and afterwards to tend cattle near Carthage.
The emperor Majorian in 460 assembled a fleet of 300 vessels at Carthagena to recover Africa. His plans were betrayed to the Vandals, who surprised and carried off the greater part of his ships. Genseric, however, in alarm, concluded peace with Majorian. In 468 Leo collected a mighty armament of 1,113 ships, each containing 100 men (Cedrenus, 350, ed. Dindorf.), under the command of his brother-in-law Basiliscus. The main armament landed at the Hermaean promontory (Cape Bon), about 40 miles from Carthage. Genseric, by means, it was generally believed, of a large bribe, induced Basiliscus to grant a truce for five days. He used this time to man all the ships he could, and, the wind becoming favourable, attacked the Romans and sent fire-ships among their crowded vessels. Panic and confusion spread through the vast multitude, most of whom tried to fly, but a few fell fighting gallantly to the last. After this victory Genseric regained Sardinia and Tripoli, where the Roman arms had met with success, and ravaged the Mediterranean coasts more cruelly than before, till a peace was concluded between him and the emperor Zeno. Genseric, at the request of the emperor's ambassador Severus, released those prisoners who had fallen to his own or his sons' lot, and allowed him to ransom as many others as he could (Malchus, de Legationibus, 3, ed. Dindorf), and, at Leo's entreaty, allowed the churches of Carthage to be reopened and the exiled bishops and clergy to return. Soon afterwards he died, on Jan. 24, 477.
According to the description of Jornandes (de Gothorum Origine, c. 33,
in Cassiodorus, i. 412, in Migne, Patr. Lat. lxix. 1274), Genseric was of
moderate stature and lame from a fall from his horse. He was a man of few words,
and thus better able to conceal the deep designs he had conceived. He scorned luxury,
was greedy of empire, passionate, skilful in intrigue, and cruel; but it must be
remembered that all our informants are writers who hated and dreaded himself and
his nation both as heretics and enemies. With every allowance for Salvian's rhetoric
(de Gubernatione Dei, vii. in Migne, Patr. Lat. liii.), it must be
admitted that his description of the morals of the Vandals and those of the
Genseric's name is variously spelt Gizericus, Gaisericus, Geisericus, and Zinzirichus. The sources for the above account are the Chronicles of Prosper and Idatius (in Migne, Patr. Lat. li.); Procopius, de Bello Vandalico, i. 3–7; Isidorus, de Regibus Gothorum (Isid. Opp. vii. 130–133, in Migne, Patr. Lat. lxxxiii. 1076); and Victor Vitensis, de Persecutione Vandalica, i. (in Migne, Patr. Lat. lviii.). Gibbon, cc. xxxiii. xxxvi. and xxxvii., may also be consulted; and Ruinart's dissertation in his appendix to Victor Vitensis, and Ceillier, Histoire des auteurs sacrés, x. c. 28.
Georgius (3), bp. of Laodicea ad mare in Syria Prima (335–347), who took
part in the Trinitarian controversies of the 4th cent. At first an ardent admirer
of the teaching of Arius and associated with Eusebius of Nicomedia, he subsequently
became a semi-Arian, but seems ultimately to have united with the Anomoeans, whose
uncompromising opponent he had once been, and to have died professing their tenets
(Newman, Arians, pt. ii. p. 275). He was a native of Alexandria. In early
life he devoted himself with considerable distinction to the study of philosophy
(Philost. H. E. viii. 17). He was ordained presbyter by Alexander, bp. of
Alexandria (ib.; Eus. Vit. Const. iii. 62). Having gone to Antioch,
he endeavoured to mediate between Arius and the Catholic body. To the Arians he
shewed how, by a sophistical evasion based on
Georgius (4), commonly called of Cappadocia (Athan. Ep. ad Episc. 7); Arian intruding bp. of Alexandria (356–361). He was born, according to Ammianus Marcellinus, at Epiphania in Cilicia (xxii. 11, 3), and, if so, must have been Cappadocian only by descent. Gregory Nazianzen describes him as not purely free-born (Orat. xxi. 16), and as "unlearned," but he undoubtedly collected a library which Julian, no bad judge, describes as "very large and ample," richly stored with philosophical, rhetorical, and historical authors, and with various works of "Galilean" or Christian theology (Epp. 9, 36). In Feb. 356, after Athanasius had retired from Alexandria in consequence of the attack on his church, which all but ended in his seizure, he heard that George was to be intruded into his throne, as Gregory had been 16 years previously. George arrived in Alexandria, escorted by soldiers, during Lent 356 (de Fug. 6). His installation was a signal for new inflictions on Alexandrian church-people. "After Easter week," says Athanasius (ib.), "virgins were imprisoned, bishops led away in chains" (some 26 are named in Hist. Arian. 72) ; "attacks made on houses"; and on the first Sunday evening after Pentecost a number of people who had met for prayer in a secluded place were cruelly maltreated by the commander, Sebastian, a "pitiless Manichean," for refusing to communicate with George.
The intruding bishop was a man of resolution and action (Soz. iii. 7). Gregory
of Nazianzus, who disparages his abilities, admits that he was like a "hand" to
the Arians, while
The Arians, of course, regarded George as a martyr; and Gibbon took an evident pleasure in representing "the renowned St. George of England" as the Alexandrian usurper "transformed "into a heroic soldier-saint; but bp. Milner (Hist. Inquiry into the Existence and Character of St. George, 1792) and others have shewn that this assumption of identity is manifestly false, the St. George who is patron saint of England being of an earlier date, though of that saint's life, country, or date we have no certain information, such traditions as we possess being given in the next art.
Georgius (43), M., Apr. 23 (Μεγαλομάρτυς,
Bas. Men.); traditionally the patron saint of England, a military tribune
and martyr under Diocletian at Nicomedia,
A.D. 303. He was a native of Cappadocia and of good birth. Some time before
the outbreak of the great persecution he accompanied his mother to Lydda, in Palestine,
where she possessed property. As soon, however, as he heard of the publication of
the first edict (Feb. 23, 303), he returned to Nicomedia where, as some think, he
was the celebrated person who tore down the imperial proclamation, and then suffered
death by roasting over a slow fire (Eus. H. E. viii. 5). [DIOCLETIAN.]
The earliest historical testimony to the existence and martyrdom of St. George is
an inscription in a church at Ezr᾿a or Edhr᾿a, in S. Syria, copied by Burckhardt
and Porter, and discussed by Mr. Hogg in two papers before the Royal Society of
Literature (Transactions, vi. 292, vii. 106). This inscription states that
the building had been a heathen temple, but was dedicated as a church in honour
of the great martyr St. George, in a year which Hogg, by an acute argument, fixes
as 346. (For another view, however, which assigns the inscription to 499 see Böckh's
Corp. Inscript. Graec. ed. Kirchhoff, t. iv. No. 8627.) His name occurs again
in another inscription in the church of Shaka, 20 miles E. of Ezr᾿a, which Hogg
dates a.d. 367. (Böckh, l.c.
No. 8609, cf. 8630; for other instances of transformations of heathen temples into
churches and hospitals in the 4th and 5th cent., see Böckh, l.c. 8645, 8647.)
The council assembled at Rome by pope Gelasius,
a.d. 494 or 496 (Hefele, Concil.
i. 610, iii. 219, ed. Paris, 1869), condemned the Acts of St. George, together with
The Medieval Legends.—The Arians of the 5th cent. seem to have corrupted his acts for their own purposes. Their story is that he was arrested by Datianus, emperor of Rome, or, according to others, of Persia, by whom he was in vain ordered to sacrifice to Apollo. The magician Athanasius undertook to confound the saint. After various attempts the magician was converted and baptized, as well as the queen Alexandra. After many miracles and various tortures, St. George was beheaded. It is strange that, notwithstanding the decrees of Rome and Constantinople, this Arian corruption became the basis of all subsequent legends, and even found its way into the hymns of St. John Damascene in honour of St. George (Mai. Spicil. Rom. t. ix. p. 729; Ceillier, xii. 89). The addition of a horse and a dragon to the story arose out of the imaginations of medieval writers. The dragon represents the devil, suggested by St. George's triumph over him at his martyrdom (cf. Eus. Vita Constant. iii. 3). When the race of the Bagratides ascended the throne of Georgia at the end of the 6th cent., they adopted St. George slaying the Dragon as part of their arms (Malan, Hist. of Georgian Ch. pp. 15, 29). The horse was added during the Frankish occupation of Constantinople as suitable, according to medieval ideas, to his rank and character as a military martyr. St. George was depicted on a horse as early as 1227, according to Nicephorus Gregoras (Hist. Byzant. viii. 5), where will be found a curious story concerning a picture in the imperial palace at Constantinople, of St. George mounted upon a horse, which neighed in the most violent style whenever an enemy was about to make a successful assault upon the city. The earliest trace we can now find of the full-grown legend of St. George and the dragon, and the king's daughter Sabra, whom he delivered, is in the Historia Lombardica, popularly called the Golden Legend, of Jacobus de Voragine, archbp. of Genoa, a.d. 1280, and in the breviary service for St. George's Day, till revised by pope Clement VIII. Thence it became the foundation of the story as told in Johnson's Historie of the Seven Champions of Christendom, and the old ballad of St. George and the Dragon, reprinted in the third volume of Percy's Reliques, many features of which Spenser reproduces in his Faëry Queen. Busbecq in the 16th cent. found in the heart of Asia Minor a legend of the Turkish hero Chederles, to whom were ascribed exploits similar to those of St. George (Ep. 1, pp. 93, 95, ed. 1633), and he found Georgian Christians venerating above every image that of St. George on horseback, regarding him as having conquered the evil one (Ep. 3, p. 209).
Connexion with England.—St. George's story was well known in England from
the 7th cent., most probably through the Roman missionaries sent by Gregory. Arculf,
the early traveller, when returning to his bishopric in France, was carried northward
to Iona, c. 699, where he told the monks the story of St. George, whence,
through Adamnan and Bede, it became widely known in Britain. St. George has a place
in the Anglo-Saxon ritual of Durham assigned to the early part of the 9th cent.,
pub. by the Surtees Society a.d. 1840,
and among the publications of the Percy Society we have an Anglo-Saxon Passion
of St. George, the work of Aelfric, archbp. of York
a.d. 1020–1051, ed. by Hardwick
a.d. 1850, in whose preface is much
interesting information on this point. His special fame, however, in this country
arose immediately out of the early Crusades. William of Malmesbury (Gesta Reg.
Angl. ed. Sir T. D. Hardy, ii. 559) tells us that, when the Crusaders were hard
pressed by the Saracens at the battle of Antioch, June 28, 1089, the soldiers were
encouraged by seeing "the martyrs George and Demetrius hastily approaching from
the mountainous districts, hurling darts against the enemy, but assisting the Franks"
(cf. Gibbon, cap. lviii.; Michaud's Hist. of Crusades, i. 173, ed. Lond.;
on the military fame of St. Demetrius see Böckh, Corp. Inscrip. iv. 8642;
Du Cange, Gloss. i. 974; Texier, op. cit. pp. 123–132). This timely
apparition at the very crisis of the campaign led the Crusaders, among whom were
a large contingent of Normans under Robert, son of William the Conqueror, to adopt
St. George as their patron. During the campaigns of Richard I. in Palestine, St.
George appeared to him and so became a special favourite with the Normans and English
(Itin. of Richard I. in Chron. of Crusades, ed. Bohn, p. 239). In 1222 a
national council at Oxford ordered his feast to be kept as a lesser holiday throughout
England. He was not, however, formally adopted as patron saint of England till the
time of Edward III., who founded St. George's chapel at Windsor in 1348. In 1349
Edward joined battle with the French near Calais, when, "moved by a sudden impulse,"
says Thomas of Walsingham, "he drew his sword with the exclamation, Ha! St. Edward,
Ha! St. George, and routed the French" (cf. Smith's Student's Hume, cap.
x. § 8). From that time St. George replaced St. Edward the Confessor as patron of
England. In 1350, according to
Controversy.—The consentient testimony of all Christendom till the Reformation attested the existence of St. George. Calvin first questioned it. In his Institutes, lib. iii. cap. 20, § 27, when arguing against invocation of saints, he ridiculed those who esteem Christ's intercession as of no value unless "accedant Georgius aut Hippolytus aut similes larvae," where, unfortunately for himself, he places Hippolytus in the class of ghosts or phantoms together with St. George. Dr. Reynolds, early in the 17th cent., was the first to confuse the orthodox martyr of Lydda with the Arian bp. of Alexandria. [GEORGIUS (4).] Against him Dr. Heylin argued in an exhaustive treatise (Hist. of St. George of Cappadocia), giving (pp. 164–166) a very full list of all earlier authors who had referred to St. George, including a quotation from a reputed treatise by St. Ambrose, Liber Praefationum, which is not now extant. The controversy was continued during the 18th cent. Dr. Milner wrote in defence of the historical reality of St. George, provoked doubtless by Gibbon's well-known sneer in c. xxiii. of his history. See further Mart. Vet. Rom., Mart. Adon., Mart. Usuard., which all fix his martyrdom at Diospolis in Persia (cf. Herod. ed. Rawlinson, i. 72, v. 49, vii. 72); Hogg, however, well suggests the Bithynian town of that name, which was in the Persian empire under Cyrus (Pasch. Chron. ed. Bonn, p. 510; Sym. Metaphrast.; Magdeburg. Centur. cent. iv. cap. iii.; Ceillier, xi. 404, iii. 58, 89, 297; Alban-Butler, Lives of Saints; Malan, Hist. of the Georgian Church, pp. 28, 51, 54, 72; E. A. Wallis Budge, The Martyrdom and Miracles of St. George of Cappadocia: the Coptic texts ed. with an Eng. trans., Lond. 1888).
Germanus (8), St., bp. of Auxerre, born probably c. 378, at Auxerre, near the S. border of what was afterwards Champagne. The parents of German caused him to be baptized and well educated. He went to Rome, studied for the bar, practised as an advocate before the tribunal of the prefect, on his return married a lady named Eustachia, and rose to be one of the six dukes of Gaul, each of whom governed a number of provinces (Gibbon, ii. 320), Auxerre being included in German's district. German, having been ordained and nominated as his successor by Amator, bp. of Auxerre, was, on the latter's death, unanimously elected, and consecrated on Sun. July 7, 418. His wife became to him as a sister; he distributed his property to the poor; he became a severe ascetic, and, as his biographer Constantius says, a "persecutor of his body," abstaining from salt, oil, and even from vegetables, from wine, excepting a small quantity much diluted on Christmas Day or Easter Day, and from wheat bread, instead of which he ate barley bread with a preliminary taste of ashes (cinerem praelibavit). He wore the same hood and tunic in all seasons, and slept on ashes in a framework of boards. "Let any one speak his mind," says Constantius, to whom some details of German's life must have come down not free from exaggeration, "but I positively assert that the blessed German endured a long martyrdom." Withal he was hospitable, and gave his guests a good meal, though he would not share it. He founded a monastery outside Auxerre, on the opposite bank of the Yonne, often crossing in a boat to visit the abbat and brethren.
Pelagianism had been rife in its founder's native island of Britain; and the British clergy, unable to refute the heretics, requested help from the church, we may say from their mother church, of Gaul. Accordingly a numerous synod unanimously sent to Britain German and Lupus, bp. of Troyes, both going the more readily because of the labour involved. So says Constantius, who is followed closely by Bede (i. 17). But Prosper of Aquitaine, a contemporary, in his Chronicle for a.d. 429, says that pope Celestine, "at the suggestion of the deacon Palladius, sent German as his representative" (vice sua) into Britain; and in his contra Collatorem, written c. 432, speaks of Celestine as "taking pains to keep the Roman island" (Britain) "Catholic" (c. 21 or 24). The truth probably lies in a combination of the pope's action with the councils, at any rate as regards German. Lupus is not included by Prosper—of him evidently Celestine took no thought, but, we may reasonably believe, gave some special commission to German either before (so Tillemont, Mémoires, xiv. 154) or at the time of the Gallic synod: it is not probable that, as Lingard supposes, the synod's commission was only to Lupus and German "sent" by the pope alone (Angl. Sax. Ch. i. 8).
When the two prelates reached Nanterre near Paris, German saw in the crowd which
met them the girl GENOVEFA,
whom he bade live as one espoused to Christ, and who became "St. Geneviève of Paris."
Arrived in Britain, the bishops preached the doctrines of grace in churches and
on the country roads with great effect; till the Pelagian leaders challenged them
to a discussion, apparently near Verulam. A great multitude assembled: the two bishops,
appealing to Scripture in support of the Catholic position, silenced their opponents,
and the shouts of the audience hailed their victory. German and Lupus then visited
the reputed tomb of the British protomartyr Alban; and Constantius adds the famous
tale of the Alleluia Victory. The Britons were menaced by Picts and Saxons: German
and Lupus encouraged them to resist, catechized and baptized the still heathen majority
in their army, and then, shortly after Easter 430,
In 447 German was again entreated by British churchmen to aid them against Pelagianism. He took with him Severus, bp. of Treves, a disciple of Lupus, and having on his way vindicated Genovefa against calumniators, landed in Britain, triumphed again over the Pelagians, and procured their banishment from the island. Welsh traditions record his many activities on behalf of the British church. They lay the scene of the Alleluia victory at Maes-garmon near Mold; they speak of colleges founded by German, of national customs traced to his authority; and although much of this is legendary and the stories in Nennius about his relations with king Vortigern apocryphal, he probably did more for British Christianity than Constantius records. He had no sooner returned home than another occasion for his humane intervention arose. The Armoricans, whose country had not yet acquired (through British immigration) the name of Brittany, were in chronic revolt against the empire, hoping to obtain favourable terms for Armorica. German set forth at once for Italy, and on June 19, 448 reached Milan; proceeding to Ravenna, he obtained pardon for the Armoricans, but unfortunately news came that they had again revolted, and his mission proved in vain. German was soon afterwards taken ill. His lodging overflowed with visitors; a choir kept up ceaseless psalmody by his bedside. He died July 31, 448, having been bishop 30 years and 25 days. His body was embalmed, and a magnificent funeral journey to Gaul attested the reverence of the court. He was buried in a chapel near Auxerre on Oct. 1. Constantius's Life is in Surius, de Probatis Sanctorum Historiis, vol. iv. A metrical Life and a prose account of his "miracles," both by a monk named Hereric, are in Acta Sanctorum, July 31.
Germanus (18) (Germain), St., 20th bp. of Paris, born at Autun of parents of rank named Eleutherius and Eusebia (c. 496), and educated at Avalon and Luzy (Lausia). In due time he was ordained deacon, and three years later priest. He was next made abbat of the monastery of St. Symphorian at Autun, by bp. Nectarius. In 555, being present at Paris on some mission to Childebert, when that see was vacant by the death of Eusebius, he was raised to the archbishopric. His great object seems to have been to check the unbridled licence of the Frank kings, and to ameliorate the misery produced by constant civil war. In 557 he was present at the third council of Paris, and appears to have exercised considerable influence over Childebert, whose edict against pagan revelry on holy days may have been due to St. Germanus (Migne, Patr. Lat. lxxii. 1121), and likewise the building by Childebert of the church of St. Vincent to receive the stole of that martyr which he had brought from Spain. (See the charter given by Aimoin, de Gest. Franc. ii. 20, ed. Jac. du Brevi, Paris, 1602, and cf. Hist. Litt. de la France, iii. 270). This church was said to have been consecrated by St. Germanus on the day Childebert died (Dec. 23, 558). Childebert's successor Clotaire was, according to Venantius Fortunatus, at first not equally amenable, but a sickness changed his disposition. Germanus's death is variously dated 575, 576, and 577. He was buried in an oratorium near the vestibule of the church of St. Vincent; and in 754 his body was removed with great ceremony into the church itself, in the presence of Pippin and his son Charles the Great, then a child. The church henceforth was called St. Germain des Prés.
There is extant by St. Germanus a treatise on the Mass, or exposition of the old Gallic Liturgy (Patr. Lat. lxxii. 89; cf. Ceillier, xi. 308 seq., for the reasons for ascribing it to him). Among his writings is also generally counted the privilege which he granted to his monastery exempting it from all episcopal jurisdiction (c. 565). Its authenticity has been vehemently attacked and defended (see Migne, Patr. Lat. lxxii. 81 n. and the authorities there referred to). St. Germanus's Life was written by Venantius Fortunatus, his contemporary and friend, but the work is little else than a string of miracles. It may be found in Mabillon's Acta SS. Ord. S. Bened. i. 234–245 (Paris, 1668–1701). See also Boll. Acta SS. Mai. vi. 774 sqq.; Gall. Christ. vii. 18–21; Mansi, ix. 747, 805, 867, 869; and, for the monastery, the Dissertatio of Ruinartius, in Bouquet, ii. 722.
Gervasius (1), June 19 (Us.); Oct. 14 (Bas. Menol.). Martyr with
Protasius at Milan, under Nero. These two brothers were sons of Vitalis, whose martyrdom
at Ravenna and mythical acts are recorded in Mart. Adon. Apr. 28. After 300
years, and when their memory had entirely faded, God is said to have revealed their
place of burial to St. Ambrose in a dream. [AMBROSIUS.]
The empress Justina was striving to obtain one of the churches of Milan for Arian
worship, and help was needed to sustain the orthodox in their opposition to the
imperial authority, Just at this time a new and splendid basilica was awaiting consecration.
The people, as a kind of orthodox demonstration, wished it consecrated with the
same pomp and ceremonial as had been used for another new church near the Roman
Gate. Ambrose consented, if he should have some new relics to place therein. He
therefore ordered excavations to be made in the church of St. Nabor and St. Felix,
near the rails which enclosed their tomb. The search was rewarded by the discovery
of the bodies of "two men of wondrous size, such as ancient times produced" (Amb.
Ep. xxii. § 2), with all their bones entire and very much blood. They were
removed to the church of St. Fausta, and the next day to the new Ambrosian church,
where they were duly enshrined. At each different stage St. Ambrose delivered impassioned
and fanciful harangues. In that on their enshrinement he claims that they had already
expelled demons, and restored to sight a blind butcher, one Severus, who was cured
by touching the pall that covered the relics. The Arians ridiculed the matter, asserting
that Ambrose had hired persons to feign themselves demoniacs. The
Gildas (Gildasius, Gildus, Gillas), commemorated Jan. 29. In medieval
Lives Gildas appears in a well-defined individuality, but a more critical view detects
so many anachronisms and historical defects that it has been questioned, first,
whether he ever lived, and secondly, whether there were more Gildases than one.
Though he is mentioned by name, and his writings quoted from by Bede, Alcuin, William
of Newburgh, Geoffrey of Monmouth, and Giraldus Cambrensis, there is no memoir of
him written within several centuries of his supposed date, and the two oldest, on
which the others are based, are ordinary specimens of the unhistorical tone of mind
of the 11th and 12th cents. To surmount the chronological and historical difficulties,
Ussher, Ware, Bale, Pitseus, Golgan, and O'Conor have imagined at least two of the
name, perhaps even four or six, about the 5th and 6th cents. These have received
distinguishing designations, and thus have obtained a recognized position in history.
But the more probable and more generally received opinion is that there is but one
Gildas, who could not have lived earlier than about the end of the 5th cent. or
later than that of the 6th. The oldest authority is Vita Gildae, auctore monacho
Ruyensi anonymo, ed. by the Bollandists (Acts SS. Jan. 29, iii. 573 seq.),
and attributed to the 11th cent. or earlier. The other was written by Caradoc of
Llancarvan in the 12th cent. (Engl. Hist. Soc. 1838). (For pub. and MS. Lives see
Hardy's Descript. Cat. i. pt. i. 151–156, pt. ii. 799.) With what seems more
or less a common groundwork of fact, these Lives have much that is irreconcilable.
"Nor need this seem so very strange," says O'Hanlon (Irish Saints, i. 473–474)
"when both accounts had been drawn up several centuries after the lifetime of Gildas,
and when they had been written in different centuries and in separate countries.
The diversities of chronological events, and of persons hardly contemporaneous,
will only enable us to infer that the sources of information were occasionally doubtful,
while the various coincidences of narrative seem to warrant a conclusion that both
tracts were intended to chronicle the life of one and the same person. It deserves
remark, however, that" (quoting from Mon. Hist. Brit. i. pt. i. 59, n.) "both
are said to have been born in Scotland. One was the son of Nau, the other of Cau:
the eldest son [? brother] of one was Huel, of the other Cuil. Both lives have stories
of a bell, both Gildases go to Ireland, both go to Rome, and both build churches.
The monk of Ruys quotes several passages from Gildas's de Excidio, and assigns
it to him: and Caradoc calls him 'Historiographus Britonum,' and say that he wrote
Historiae de Regibus Britonum." Bp. Nicolson (Eng. Hist. Libr. 32,
3rd ed.) concludes that Gildas "was monk of Bangor about the middle of the 6th cent.;
a sorrowful spectator of the miseries and almost utter ruin of his countrymen by
a people under whose banner they had hoped for peace." Those who believe there was
only one Gildas do not entirely agree as to his dates, one for his birth being sought
between a.d. 484 and 520, and one for
his death between a.d. 565 and 602.
In his de Excidio Britanniae he says he was born in the year of "obsessionis
Badonici montis" (c. 26). The Annales Cambriae place the "bellum Badonis"
in 516, and the Annales Tigernachi Gildas's death in 570: these dues are
probably nearest the truth. By
The writing ascribed to Gildas was long regarded as one treatise, de Excidio
Britanniae; but is now usually divided into the Historia Gildae and
Epistola Gildae. The former is a bare recital of the events of British history
under the Romans, and between their withdrawal and his own time; the latter a querulous,
confused, and lengthy series of bitter invectives in the form of a declamatory epistle
addressed to the Britons, and relating specially to five kings, "reges sed tyrannos,"
named Constantinus, Aurelius, Conan, Vortiporus, Cuneglasus and
Maglocunus.
Glycerius (5), a deacon in Cappadocia, who caused Basil much annoyance by his extravagant and disorderly proceedings c. 374. Being a vigorous young man, well fitted for the humbler offices of the church, and having adopted the ascetic life, he was ordained deacon by Basil, though to what church is doubtful. It is variously given as Venesa, Veësa, Venata, and Synnasa. His elevation turned the young man's head. He at once began to neglect the duties of his office, and gathered about him a number of young women, partly by persuasion, partly by force, of whom he took the direction, styling himself their patriarch, and adopting a dress in keeping with his pretensions. He was supported by the offerings of his female followers, and Basil charges him with adopting this spiritual directorship in order to get his living without work. The wild and disorderly proceedings of Glycerius and his deluded adherents created great scandal and caused him to be gravely admonished by his own presbyter, his chorepiscopus, and finally by Basil himself. Glycerius turned a deaf ear, and having swelled his fanatical band by a number of young men, he one night hastily left the city with his whole troop against the will of many of the girls. The scandal of such a band wandering about under pretence of religion, singing hymns, and leaping and dancing in a disorderly fashion, was increased by the fact that a fair was going on, and the young women were exposed to the rude jests of the rabble. Fathers who came to rescue their daughters from such disgrace were driven away by Glycerius with contumely, and he carried off his whole band to a neighbouring town, of which an unidentified Gregory was bishop. Several of Basil's letters turned on this matter, the further issue of which is not known.
Glycerius (8), emperor of the West, afterwards bp. of Salona. In
The supposition that he was bp. of Milan rests on very slender ground. Ennodius,
bp. of Pavia, who dedicates short poems to several successive bishops of Milan,
inscribes one to Glycerius, whom he places between Martinianus and Lazarus (carm.
82, in Patr. Lat. lxiii. 349); but there is nothing in the verses to identify
him with the ex-emperor. Ennodius,
Gnosticism. The zeal with which a learner commences the study of ecclesiastical history is not unfrequently damped at an early stage, when he finds that, in order to know the history of religious thought in the 2nd cent., he must make himself acquainted with speculations so wild and so baseless that it is irksome to read them and difficult to believe that time was when acquaintance with them was counted as what alone deserved the name of "knowledge." But it would be a mistake to think too disdainfully of those early heretics who go by the common name of Gnostics. In the first place, it may be said in their excuse that the problems which they undertook to solve were among the most difficult with which the human intellect has ever grappled—namely, to explain the origin of evil, and to make it conceivable how the multiplicity of finite existence can all have been derived from a single absolute unconditioned principle. And besides, these speculators only did what learned theologians have constantly since endeavoured to do—namely, combine the doctrines which they learned from revelation with the results of what they regarded as the best philosophy of their own day, so as to obtain what seemed to them the most satisfactory account and explanation of the facts of the universe. Every union of philosophy and religion is the marriage of a mortal with an immortal: the religion lives; the philosophy grows old and dies. When the philosophic element of a theological system becomes antiquated, its explanations which contented one age become unsatisfactory to the next, and there ensues what is spoken of as a conflict between religion and science; whereas, in reality, it is a conflict between the science of one generation and that of a succeeding one. If the religious speculations of the 2nd cent. appear to us peculiarly unreasonable, it is because the philosophy incorporated with them is completely alien to modern thought. That philosophy gave unlimited licence to the framing of hypotheses, and provided that the results were in tolerable accordance with the facts, no other proof was required that the causes which these hypotheses assumed were really in operation. The Timaeus of Plato is a favourable specimen of the philosophic writings which moulded the Gnostic speculations; and the interval between that and a modern treatise on physics is fully as wide as between Gnosticism and modern scientific theology. So it has happened that modern thought has less sympathy with heretical theories deeply coloured by the philosophy of their own time than with the plain common sense of a church writer such as Irenaeus, which led him to proceed by the positive historical method, and reject what was merely fanciful and speculative. And it may be said that deeply important as were some of the particular questions discussed in the conflict between the church and Gnosticism, an even more important issue of that conflict was the decision of the method by which religious knowledge was to be arrived at. The Gnostics generally held that the Saviour effected redemption by making a revelation of knowledge, yet they but feebly attempted to connect historically their teaching with his; what was derived from Him was buried under elements taken freely from heathen mythologies and philosophies, or springing from the mere fancy of the speculator, so that, if Gnosticism had triumphed, all that is distinctively Christian would have disappeared. In opposition to them, church writers were led to emphasize the principle that that alone is to be accounted true knowledge of things divine which can be shewn by historical tradition, written or oral, to have been derived from the teaching of Christ and His apostles, a principle the philosophic justice of which must be admitted if Christ be owned as having filled the part in the enlightenment of the world which orthodox and Gnostics alike attributed to Him. Thus, by the conflict with Gnosticism reverence in the church was deepened for the authority of revelation as restraining the licence of human speculation, and so the channel was marked out within the bounds of which religious thought continued for centuries to flow.
We deal here with some general aspects of the subject, referring to the articles on the chief Gnostic teachers for details as to the special tenets of the different Gnostic sects.
Use of the Word Gnosticism.—In logical order we ought to begin by defining
Gnosticism, and so fixing what extension is to be given to the application of the
term, a point on which writers are not agreed. Baur, for instance, reckons among
Gnostics the sectaries from whom the Clementine writings emanated, although on some
of the most fundamental points their doctrines are diametrically opposed to those
commonly reckoned as Gnostic. We conform to more ordinary usage in giving to the
word a narrower sense, but this is a matter on which controversy would be only verbal,
Gnosticism not being a word which has in its own nature a definite meaning. There
is no difficulty in naming common characteristics of the sects commonly called Gnostic,
though perhaps none of them is distinctive enough to be made the basis of a logical
definition. They professed to be able to trace their doctrine to the apostles. Basilides
was said to have learned from a companion of St. Peter; gospels were in circulation
among them which purported to have been written by Philip, Thomas, and other apostles;
and they professed to be able to find their doctrines in the canonical scriptures
by methods of allegorical interpretation which, however forced, could easily be
paralleled in the procedure of orthodox writers. If we made our definition turn
on the claim to the possession of such a Gnosis and to the title of Gnostic, we
should have to count Clement of Alexandria among Gnostics and I. Timothy
among Gnostic writings; for the church writers refused to
We have no reason to think that the earliest Gnostics intended to found sects separated from the church and called after their own names. Their disciples were to be Christians, only elevated above the rest as acquainted with deeper mysteries, and called γνωστικοί, because possessed of a Gnosis superior to the simple faith of the multitude. Probably the earliest instance of the use of the word is by Celsus, quoted by Origen, v. 61, where, speaking of the multiplicity of Christian sects, he says that there were some who professed to be Gnostics. Irenaeus (i. xxv. 5, p. 104), speaking of the Carpocratians and in particular of that school of them which Marcellina established at Rome, says that they called themselves Gnostics. It is doubtless on the strength of this passage that Eusebius (H. E. iv. 7), quoting Irenaeus in the same context, calls Carpocrates the father of the sect called that of the Gnostics. In the habitual use of the word by Irenaeus himself it does not occur as limited to Carpocratians. Irenaeus, in his first book, when he has gone through the sects called after the names of heretical teachers, gives in a kind of appendix an account of a number of sects in their general characteristics Ophite, but he does not himself use that name. He calls them "multitudo Gnosticorum," tracing their origin to Simon Magus, and counting them as progenitors of the Valentinians. And constantly we have the expression Basilidians, Valentinians, etc., "et reliqui Gnostici," where, by the latter appellation, the Ophite sects are specially intended. The form of expression does not exclude from the title of Gnostic the sects named after their founders; and the doctrine of the Valentinians is all through the work of Irenaeus a branch of "Gnosis falsely so called"; yet it is usually spoken of less as Gnosticism than as a development of Gnosticism, and the Valentinians are described as more Gnostic than the Gnostics, meaning by the latter word the Ophite sects already mentioned. In the work of Hippolytus against heresies, the name is almost exclusively found in connexion with the sect of the Naassenes or Ophites, and three or four times it is repeated (v. 2, p. 93; 4, p. 94; 11, p. 123) that these people call themselves Gnostics, claiming that they alone "knew the depths." The common source of Epiphanius and Philaster had an article on the Nicolaitanes, tracing the origin of the Gnostics to Nicolas the Deacon (see also Hippolytus, vii. 36, p. 258, and the statement of Irenaeus [II. ii. p. 188] that Nicolaitanism was a branch of Gnosis). Epiphanius divides this article into two, making the Gnostics a separate heresy (Haer. 26). Hence ancient usage leaves a good deal of latitude to modern writers in deciding which of the 2nd-cent. sects they will count as Gnostic.
Classification of Gnostic Sects.—Some general principles of philosophic
classification may be easily agreed on, but when they come to be applied, it is
found that there are some sects to which it is not obvious where to assign a place,
and that some sects are separated whose affinities are closer than those of others
which are classed together. A very important, though not a complete, division is
that made by Clement of Alexandria (Strom. iii. 5) into the ascetic and licentious
sects: both parties agreeing in holding the essential evil of matter; the one endeavouring
by rigorous abstinence to free as much as possible man's soul from the bondage to
which it is subjected by union with his material part, and refusing to marry and
so enthral new souls in the prisons of bodies; the other abandoning as desperate
any attempt to purify the hopelessly corrupt body, and teaching that the instructed
soul ought to hold itself unaffected by the deeds of the body. All actions were
to it indifferent. The division of Neander is intended to embrace a wider range
than that just described. Taking the common doctrine of the Gnostic sects that the
world was made by a Being different from the supreme God, he distinguishes whether
that Being was held to have acted in subordination to the Supreme, and on the whole
to have carried out his intentions, or to have been absolutely hostile to the supreme
God. Taking into account the generally acknowledged principle that the Creator of
the world was the same as the God worshipped by the Jews, we see that Gnostics of
the second class would be absolutely hostile to Judaism, which those of the former
class might accept as one of the stages ordained by the Supreme in the enlightenment
of the world. Thus Neander's division classifies sects as not unfriendly to Judaism
or as hostile to it; the former class taking its origin in those Alexandrian schools
where the authority of such teachers as Philo had weight, the latter among Christian
converts from Oriental philosophy whose early education had given them no prejudices
in favour of Judaism. Gieseler divides into Alexandrian Gnostics, whose teaching
was mainly influenced by the Platonic philosophy, and Syrian strongly affected by
Parsism. In the former the emanation doctrine was predominant, in the latter dualism.
Undoubtedly the most satisfactory classification would
Gnosticism, in its first stage, did not proceed far outside the limits of Syria. What Lipsius counts as the second stage dates from the migration of Gnostic systems to Alexandria, where the myths of Syriac Gnosis came to be united to principles of Grecian philosophy. Different Gnostic systems resulted according as the principles of this or that Grecian school were adopted. Thus, in the system of Valentinus, the Pythagorean Platonic philosophy predominates, the Stoic in that of the Basilidians as presented by Hippolytus. In these systems, tinged with Hellenism, the Jewish religion is not so much controverted or disparaged as ignored. The mythological personages among whom in the older Gnosis the work of creation was distributed are in these Hellenic systems replaced by a kind of abstract beings (of whom the Valentinian aeons are an example) which personify the different stages of the process by which the One Infinite Spirit communicates and reveals itself to derived existences. The distinction between faith and knowledge becomes sharpened, the persons to whom faith and knowledge respectively are to serve as guides being represented as essentially different in nature. The most obvious division of men is into a kingdom of light and a kingdom of darkness. The need of a third class may have first made itself felt from the necessity of finding a place for members of the Jewish religion, who stood so far above heathenism, so far below Christianity. The Platonic trichotomy of body, soul, and spirit afforded a principle of threefold classification, and men are divided into earthly (ὑλικοί or χοϊκοί), animal (ψυχικοί), and spiritual (πνευματικοί). In these Hellenic Gnostic systems the second class represents not Jews but ordinary Christians, and the distinction between them and the Gnostics themselves (who are the spiritual) rests on an assumed difference of nature which leaves little room for human free will. Salvation by faith and corresponding works is disparaged as suitable only for the psychical, the better sort of whom may, by this means, be brought to as high a position in the order of the universe as their nature is capable of; but the really spiritual need not these lower methods of salvation. It suffices for them to have the knowledge of their true nature revealed for them to become certain of shaking off all imprisoning bonds and soaring to the highest region of all. Thus ordinary historical Christianity runs the risk of meeting the same fate in the later Gnostic systems that befell Judaism in the earlier. The doctrines and facts of the religion are only valued so far as they can be made subservient to the peculiar notions of Gnosticism; and the method of allegorical interpretation was so freely applied to both Testaments that all the solid parts of the religion were in danger of being volatilized away.
The natural consequence of this weakening of the historic side of Christianity
was the removal of all sufficient barrier against the intrusion of heathen elements
into the systems; while their moral teaching was injuriously affected by the doctrine
that the spiritual were secure of salvation by necessity of their nature and irrespectively
of their conduct. Gnosticism, in its third stage, struggles in various ways to avoid
these faults, and so again draws nearer to the teaching of the Catholic church.
Thus the DOCETAE of Hippolytus
allow of immense variety of classes, corresponding to the diversity of ideas derived
from the world of aeons, which each has received; while again they deny to none
a share in our Lord's redemption, but
We add brief notes on a few main points of the Gnostic systems.
Creation and Cosmogony.—Philo (de Op. Mund.) had inferred from the expression, "Let us make man," of Genesis that God had used other beings as assistants in the creation of man, and he explains in this way why man is capable of vice as well as virtue, ascribing the origin of the latter to God, of the former to His helpers in the work of creation. The earliest Gnostic sects ascribe the work of creation to angels, some of them using the same passage in Genesis (Justin. Dial. cum Tryph. c. 67).
Doctrine with respect to Judaism.—The doctrine that the Creator of the world is not the supreme God leads at once to the question, What then is to be thought of the God of the Jews, who certainly claimed to have created the world? This question is most distinctly answered in the doctrine of the Ophite system (Iren. i. 30). According to it he who claimed to be a jealous God, acknowledging none other, was led by sheer ignorance to make a false pretension. He was in truth none other than the chief of the creative angels, holding but a subordinate place in the constitution of the universe. It was he who forbad to Adam and Eve that knowledge by which they might be informed that he had superiors, and who on their disobedience cast them out of Paradise.
Doctrine concerning the Nature of Man.—With the myth, told by Saturninus, of the animation of a previously lifeless man by a spark of light from above, he connected the doctrine, in which he was followed by almost all Gnostic sects, that there would be no resurrection of the body, the spark of light being taken back on death to the place whence it had come, and man's material part being resolved into its elements. Saturninus is said to have taught the doctrine, antagonistic to that of man's free will, that there were classes of men by nature essentially different, and of these he counted two—the good and the wicked. The doctrine became common to many Gnostic systems that the human frame contained a heavenly element struggling to return to its native place.
Redemption and Christology.—The Gnostic systems generally represent man's spirit as imprisoned in matter, and needing release. The majority recognize the coming of Christ as a turning-point in human affairs, but almost all reduce the Redeemer's work to the impartation of knowledge and the disclosure of mysteries. With regard to the nature of Christ, the lowest view is held by Justinus, who describes Jesus but as a shepherd boy commissioned by an angel to be the bearer of a divine revelation, and who attributes to Him at no time any higher character. Carpocrates makes Jesus a man like others, only of more than ordinary steadfastness and purity of soul, possessing no prerogatives which other men may not attain in the same or even higher degree if they follow, or surpass, His example. Besides furnishing an example, He was also supposed to have made a revelation of truth, to secret traditions of which the followers of Carpocrates appealed. At the opposite pole from those who see in the Saviour a mere man are those who deny His humanity altogether. We know from St. John's epistle that the doctrine that our Lord had not really come in the flesh was one which at an early time troubled the church.
Authorities.—The great work of Irenaeus against heresies is the chief storehouse whence writers, both ancient and modern, have drawn their accounts of the Gnostic sects. It was primarily directed against the then most popular form of the heresy of Valentinus, and hence this form of Gnosticism has thrown all others into the shade, and many modern writers when professing to describe Gnosticism really describe Valentinianism. Irenaeus was largely copied by Tertullian, who, however, was an independent authority on Marcionism; by Hippolytus, who in his work against heresies adds, however, large extracts from his independent reading of Gnostic works; and by Epiphanius, who also gives a few valuable additions from other sources. The Stromateis of Clement of Alexandria, though provokingly desultory and unsystematic, furnish much valuable information about Gnosticism, which was still a living foe of the church. The writings of Origen also yield much important information. The matter, not borrowed from Irenaeus, to be gleaned from later heresiologists is scanty and of doubtful value.
Modern works which have made valuable contributions to the knowledge of Gnosticism include Neander, Genetische Entwickelung (1818), and Church Hist. vol. ii. (1825 and 2nd ed. 1843, trans. in Clarke's series); Burton, Bampton Lectures (1829); Baur, Christliche Gnosis (1835); Die christliche Kirche der drei ersten Jahrhunderte (1853, 2nd ed. 1860); and Mansel, The Gnostic Heresies (1875).
Gordianus (7), father of pope Gregory the Great, was a noble Roman of
senatorial rank; and descended from a pope Felix (Joann. Diac. in Vit. S. Gregorii;
Greg. Dialog. l. 4, c. 16). John the Deacon says that Felix IV. (acc.
523) was his ancestor; but this pope being described as a Samnite, whereas Gregory
is always spoken of as of Roman descent, Felix III. (acc. 467) is more probable.
A large property accrued to Gregory on his father's death. Gordianus is described
as a religious man, and thus contributing to the eminently religious training of
his son, though not canonized after death, as were his wife Silvia, and his two
sisters, Tarsilla and
Gratianus (5) (Flavius Gratianus Augustus), emperor 375–383, son of Valentinian, was born at Sirmium in 359 while his father was still an officer in the army. When Valentinian was chosen emperor by the soldiers in 364, Gratian was not five years old. On Aug. 24, 367, Valentinian, at Amiens, declared him "Augustus."
When Valentinian died in 375, the infant child of his second wife Justina (Valentinian II.) was proclaimed Augustus by his principal officers (Amm. xxx. 10), in reliance upon the youth and good nature of Gratian, who was at Trèves, and who recognized his young brother almost immediately. Justina fixed her court at Sirmium; and the Western empire was perhaps nominally divided between the two brothers, Gratian having Gaul, Spain, and Britain, and Valentinian, Italy, Illyricum, and Africa (Zos. iv. 19). But this division must have been simply nominal, as Gratian constantly acted in the latter provinces (see Tillem. Emp. v. p. 140, and cf. the laws quoted infra). For the first years of his reign, till the death of his uncle Valens, Gratian resided chiefly at Trèves, whence most of his laws are dated. His first acts were to punish with death some of the prominent instruments of the cruelties committed in the name of justice and discipline, which had disgraced his father's later years, especially the hated Maximinus. Another act, doubtless at the beginning of his reign, shewed his determination to break with paganism more effectually than his predecessors had done. This was his refusal of the robe of pontifex maximus, when it was brought to him according to custom by the pontifices; thinking (as the heathen historian tells us) that it was unlawful for a Christian (Zos. iv. 36). The title appears indeed to some extent on coins and inscriptions, but it is not easy to fix their date.
The Eastern empire was, meanwhile, in the hands of the incompetent Valens, in great danger from Goths. In 378 the Alamanni Lentienses passed the Rhine in great force and threatened the Western empire, but were heavily defeated by Gratian at Argentaria, near Colmar (Amm. xxxi. 10). This set him free to move towards the East; and at Sirmium he heard of the defeat of his uncle at Adrianople, Aug. 7, and of his ignoble death (ib. 11, 6; 12, 10). The situation was extremely critical for an emperor not 20 years of age. The barbarians were in motion on all the frontiers. The internal condition of the West was insecure, from the tacit antagonism between the two courts, and the East was now suddenly thrown upon his hands, as Valens had left no children. Gratian shewed his judgment by sending for the younger Theodosius, son of the late count Theodosius and about 13 years older than himself, who after his father's execution was living in retirement upon his estates in Spain (Victor, Ep. 72, 74, etc.; cf. Themist. Orat. 14, p. 183 A). Theodosius, loyal and fearless like his father, was at once entrusted with command of the troops as magister militum. His successes over the barbarians (probably Sarmatians) encouraged Gratian to appoint him emperor of the East with general applause (Theod. v. 5, 6).
Gratian returned from Sirmium by way of Aquileia and Milan, at which places he passed some parts of July and Aug. 379. He had previously been brought into contact with St. Ambrose, and had received from him the two first books of his treatise de Fide, intended specially to preserve him against Arianism. This teaching had its due effect; and he now addressed a letter to the bp. of Milan (see infra). St. Ambrose sent him two more books of his treatise, and probably had personal intercourse with him. Gratian then went on to his usual residence at Trèves, but during the following years resided much more frequently at and near Milan, especially in winter; his intercourse with St. Ambrose resulting in his confirmation in the Catholic faith. There was, however, another side to this practical neglect of the Gallic provinces. The Western provincials—never very contented—felt the absence of the imperial court. If Gratian had continued to reside at Trèves, the rebellion of Magnus Maximus might never have taken place, and certainly would not have grown so formidable.
The influence of St. Ambrose is shewn by the ecclesiastical laws (see infra),
and in the removal of the altar of Victory from the senate-house at Rome in
a.d. 381 (St. Ambr. Ep. 17,
5; Symm. Ep. 61, ad init. et ad finem). The heathen senators, though in the
These laws were followed by a famine in Italy, especially in Rome, which the pagans naturally ascribed to sacrilege (Symm. l.c.).
A much more serious danger was the revolt of Magnus Maximus, a former comrade of Theodosius in Britain, who was probably jealous of his honours, and was now put forward as emperor by the soldiers. [MAXIMUS (2).] This rising took place a.d. 383 in Britain, whence the usurper passed over to the mouth of the Rhine, gathering large bodies of men as he went. Gratian set out to meet him, with his two generals Balio and Merobaudes, the latter a Frank by birth. The two armies met near Paris, and Gratian was deserted by nearly all his troops (Zos. iv. 35; Ambr. in Ps. 61, 17). Only 300 horse remained faithful. With these he fled at full speed to Lyons. The governor received him with protestations of loyalty, and took a solemn oath on the Gospels not to hurt him. Gratian, deceived by his assurances, took his place in his imperial robes at a feast, during or soon after which he was basely assassinated (Aug. 25) at the age of 24, leaving no children. The traitor even denied his body burial (Ambr. l.c., and 23 f.; Marcell. sub anno).
Gratian was amiable and modest—in fact, too modest to be a good governor in these
rough times. He was generous and kind-hearted, of an attractive disposition and
beautiful person. His tutor Ausonius had taken pains to inspire him with tastes
for rhetoric and versification. He was chaste and temperate, careful in religious
conduct, and zealous for the faith. His great fault was a neglect of public business
through devotion to sport, especially to shooting wild beasts with bow and arrows
in his parks and preserves (Amm. l.c.; Victor, Ep. 73). He once killed
a lion with a single arrow (Aus. Epig. 6); and St. Ambrose alludes to his
prowess in the chase, adopting the language of David's elegy over Jonathan—"Gratiani
sagitta non est reversa retro" (de Obitu Valent. 73; cf. the old Latin of
The ecclesiastical policy of Gratian was more important than his civil or military government. His reign, coinciding with that of Theodosius, saw orthodox Christianity for the first time dominant throughout the empire. His measures in behalf of the church were often tainted with injustice towards the sects. But it is probable that the laws were very imperfectly carried out (see Richter, p. 327). His first general law against heretical sects is dated from Trèves, May 1, 376, and speaks of a previous law of the same kind (Cod. Theod. xvi. 5, 4), which may, however, be one of Valens (and Valentinian).
In 377, shortly before the death of Valens, he condemned rebaptism, and ordered the Donatist churches to be restored to the Catholics and their private meeting-houses confiscated (Cod. Theod. xvi. 6, 2). The death of Valens was naturally the signal for the disciple of St. Ambrose to restore the Catholics of the East to their possessions. He recalled all those whom his uncle had banished, and further issued an edict of toleration for all Christian sects, except the Eunomians (extreme Arians, see Soz. vi. 26), Photinians, and Manicheans (Socr. v. 2; Soz. vii. 1). Theodoret (v. 2) appears to confuse this with the later edict of Gratian and Theodosius. On the strong representations of Idacius of Merida, the Priscillianists, an enthusiastic sect of Gnostics numerous in Spain (Sulpicius Severus, Chron. ii. 47, 6), were also excepted.
On his return from Sirmium, Gratian wrote the following affectionate and interesting autograph (Ambr. Ep. 1, 3) letter to St. Ambrose: "I desire much to enjoy the bodily presence of him whose recollection I carry with me, and with whom I am present in spirit. Therefore, hasten to me, religious priest of God, to teach me the doctrine of the true faith. Not that I am anxious for argument, or wish to know God in words rather than in spirit; but that my heart may be opened more fully to receive the abiding revelation of the divinity. For He will teach me, Whom I do not deny, Whom I confess to be my God and my Lord, not raising as an objection against His divinity that He took upon Himself a created nature like my own [non ei obiciens, quam in me video, creaturam]. I confess that I can add nothing to the glory of Christ; but I should wish to commend myself to the Father in glorifying the Son. I will not fear a grudging spirit on the part of God. I shall not suppose myself such an encomiast as to increase His divinity by my praises. In my weakness and frailty I utter what I can, not what is adequate to His divinity. I desire you to send me a copy of the same treatise, which you sent before [de Fide, i. ii.], enlarging it by a faithful dissertation on the Holy Spirit: prove that He is God by arguments of Scripture and reason. May the Deity keep you for many years, my father, and worshipper of the eternal God, Jesus Christ, Whom we worship." St. Ambrose replies, excusing his non-attendance upon the emperor, praising the expressions of his faith, and sending two fresh books of his treatise. For the new book, de Spiritu Sancto, he asks time, knowing (as he says) what a critic will read them. The subject was at this moment being largely discussed in the Eastern church.
It is assumed by De Broglie that the bishop and the emperor did not meet at this
time, but St. Ambrose writes in the letter just quoted,
About this time must be dated the occurrences mentioned by St. Ambrose in de Spiritu Sancto, i. §§ 19–21. The empress Justina, an Arian, had obtained from Gratian a basilica for the worship of her sect, to the great distress of the Catholics. He restored it, however, apparently of his own motion, to their equal surprise and delight, perhaps a.d. 380 (cf. Richter, n. 30, p. 692; de Spiritu Sancto, § 20, neque enim aliud possumus dicere, nisi sancti Spiritus hanc priore gratiam, quod ignorantibus omnibus subito Basilicam reddidisti). St. Ambrose also obtained another victory over the Arians in 380 in his journey to Sirmium, where Justina apparently also went. In spite of her vehement opposition, he succeeded in consecrating an orthodox bishop to the metropolitan see of Illyria, and thus laid the foundation for the suppression of heresy in that quarter of the empire (Paulinus, Vita Ambrosii, 11).
Gratian evidently agreed in the important edict issued by his colleague Theodosius on Feb. 27, 380, from Thessalonica to the people of Constantinople. This remarkable document declared the desire of the emperors that all their subjects should profess the religion given by St. Peter to the Romans and now held by the pontiff Damasus, and Peter, bp. of Alexandria—that is to say, should confess the one deity and equal majesty of the three persons of the Blessed Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; and further, that they alone who hold this faith are to be called Catholics, and their places of meeting churches; while the rest are branded as heretics, and are threatened with an indefinite punishment (Cod. Theod. xvi. 1, 2; cf. the law of the next year, which mentions various Catholic bishops of the East, whose communion was to be the test of orthodoxy, including Nectarius of Constantinople—perhaps the reference to Damasus had given offence). De Broglie says of these laws, "It was impossible to abjure more decidedly the pretension of dogmatizing from the elevation of the throne, which had been since Constantine the mania of all the emperors and the scourge of the empire" (vol. v. p. 365). But correct dogmatism is still dogmatism, and the definition of truth by good emperors kept up the delusion that the right of perpetual interference with religion was inherent in their office.
In May 383, at Padua, Gratian issued a penal law against apostates, and those who try to make others apostatize from Christianity.
In 381 he summoned the council of Aquileia (which met on Sept. 5) to decide the cases of the Illyrian bishops Palladius and Secundianus, who were accused of Arianism. Their condemnation put an end to the official life of Arianism in that important district (Ambr. Ep. 9). The records of this council are preserved by St. Ambrose, (following his 8th epistle in the Benedictine ed.), who took the chief part in it, though he did not technically preside. The same council took up the case of pope Damasus and besought the emperor to interfere against the partisans of the antipope Ursinus (ib. 11). The relations of Gratian with the see of Rome are somewhat obscure, but some extension of its privileges and pretensions dates from this reign. According to the documents first published by Sirmond, a synod held in Rome soon after Gratian's accession made large demands for ecclesiastical jurisdiction and particularly asked that the bp. of Rome should only be judged by a council of bishops or by the emperor in person. Gratian in his rescript to Aquilinus the vicar (of Rome?) grants and confirms several privileges, but says nothing of the latter request. Some doubt hangs over the whole of these documents. (See Godefroy, Cod. Theod. vol. vi. appendix, pp. 17, 18; Baron. Annals, sub anno 381, §§ 1, 2; Tillem. Damase, arts. 10 and 11. Greenwood, Cathedra Petri, vol. i. pp. 239–242; Hefele, Councils, § 91, does not even hint at their existence.)
In consequence of the success of the council of Aquileia St. Ambrose was anxious to call together an oecumenical assembly at Rome to settle the dispute between Nectarius and Maximus, who both claimed the see of Constantinople, and pressed the emperor Theodosius on the point (Epp. 13 and 14), who, however, naturally viewed this interference with coldness (Theod. v. 8, 9). A council, nevertheless, met at Rome, but without doing much beyond condemning the Apollinarians.
Returning to Milan, St. Ambrose took leave of the young emperor for the last time. Their intercourse had always been tender and affectionate, and was the last thought of the emperor before his death.
We may here mention an instance of their relations, which may have been at this or at any other period of their friendship (de Broglie, to make a point, puts it here, vol. vi. p. 45, but neither Paulinus, § 37, nor Sozomen, vii. 25, gives any hint of date). A heathen of quality was condemned to death for abusing Gratian and calling him an unworthy son of Valentinian. As he was being led to execution, Ambrose hurried to the palace to intercede for him. One Macedonius, master of the offices, it would seem, ordered the servants to refuse him admittance, as Gratian was engaged in his favourite sport. Ambrose went round to the park gates, entered unperceived by the huntsmen, and never left Gratian till he had overcome his arguments and those of his courtiers and obtained remission of the sentence. "The time will come," he said to Macedonius, "when you will fly for asylum to the church, but the church doors will be shut against you." The anecdote of the criminal is told by Sozomen, l.c.; the words to Macedonius are given by Paulinus, u.s.
Gregorius (3), surnamed Thaumaturgus, bp. of Neocaesarea in Pontus,
c. 233–270; born c. 210 at Neocaesarea on the Lycus, the modern Niksar;
the son of wealthy and noble heathen parents. Christianity had as yet made little
progress in that neighbourhood,
Gregory (originally Theodorus) stated that his father died and he himself passed through a remarkable spiritual crisis in his 14th year. He attributed the change of sentiment to "the Divine Logos, the Angel of the counsel of God, and the common Saviour of all." He left it, however, doubtful in what precisely the change consisted. His mother having suggested the pursuit of rhetoric, he was advised to study specially Roman law and become an alumnus of the celebrated school of jurisprudence at Berytus in Syria. His sister needed an escort to Palestine to join her husband in his high position under the Roman governor at Caesarea. The young Gregory and his brother Athenodorus took this opportunity to travel. "My guardian angel" (says he) "on our arrival at Caesarea handed us over to the care and tuition of Origen," and the brothers, abandoning their journey, remained there under the personal spell of the teacher for five years. The mental processes by which Gregory was led to Christ throw considerable light on the mind of Origen and the methods of Christian education in the 3rd cent. These details are preserved in a panegyric on Origen, which before leaving Caesarea the young student pronounced to a great assembly in the presence of his master. They differ in several particulars from the account of Gregory of Nyssa (Greg. Nys. Vita Thaum.; Migne, Patr. Gk. vol. xlvi. pp. 893–958). According to Gregory's own statements (Orat. de Orig. c. vi.), Origen enticed his pupils first to the study of philosophy, which he recommended as a duty to the Lord of all, "since man alone of all creatures is deemed by his Creator as worthy to pursue it." "A thoughtful man, if pious, must philosophize," says he, so "at length, like some spark lighting on our soul, love was kindled and burst into flame within us, a love to the Holy Logos, the most lovely object of all, Who attracts all to Himself by His unutterable beauty." "only one object seemed worthy of pursuit, philosophy and the master of philosophy, this divine (θεῖος) man." His love to Origen was like that of Jonathan for David. Gregory praises Origen for his Socratic discipline, and for the way in which his teacher probed his inmost soul with questions, pruned his native wildness and repressed his exuberance. He was taught to interrogate his consciousness, and critically to investigate reasonings and the meanings of words. Origen accustomed his pupils first to the dialectic method of inquiry, and then, in Aristotelian fashion, fed them to contemplate the "magnitude, the wondrousness, the magnificent, and absolutely wise construction of the world." He seems to have followed (strangely enough) the order of the sciences in Comte's classification of the branches of human knowledge. Thus, he began with "the immutable foundation of all, geometry, and then" (says Gregory) "by astronomy he lifted us up to the things highest above us." He reduced things to their "pristine elements," "going over the nature of the whole and of each several section," "he filled our minds with a rational, instead of an irrational, wonder at the sacred oeconomy of the universe and the irreprovable constitution of all things." These words and much more that might be quoted from the Panegyric are a strange comment on the thaumaturgic actions freely attributed to Gregory. Morals followed physics, and emphasis is laid by Gregory on the practical experience by which Origen desired his pupils to verify all theories, "stimulating us by the deeds he did more than by the doctrines he taught." He urged the study of Grecian philosophy for the direct culture of their moral nature. The end of the entire discipline was "nothing but this: By the pure mind make thyself like to God, that thou mayest draw near to Him and abide in Him." Origen advised Gregory to study all the writings of the philosophers and poets of old, except the Atheists, and gave reasons for a catholic and liberal eclecticism, and, with a modern spirit, disclaimed the force of prejudice and the misery of half-truths and of fixed ideas, and the advantage of "selecting all that was useful and true in all the various philosophers, and putting aside all that was false." Gregory says of his master: "That leader of all (ἀρχηγὸς πάντων) who speaks in undertones (ὑπηχῶν) to God's dear prophets and suggests to them all their prophecy and their mystic and divine word, has so honoured this man Origen as a friend as to appoint him to be their interpreter." Evidently to Gregory the gift of interpretation was as much a divine charisma as prophecy itself. So great were the joys thus placed within his reach that he adds with rapture, "He was truly a paradise to us, after the similitude of the Paradise of God." He regrets his departure from Caesarea, as Adam might bewail his expulsion from Eden, having to eat of the soil, to contend with thorns and thistles, and dwell in darkness, weeping and mourning. He says, "I go away of my own will, and not by constraint, and by my own act I am dispossessed, when it is in my option to remain."
The influence of Origen's teaching upon Gregory and Athenodorus is confirmed by Eusebius (H. E. vi. 30), who adds that "they made such improvement that both, though very young, were honoured with the episcopate in the churches of Pontus."
Gregory of Nyssa describes Gregory of Neocaesarea as spending much time in Alexandria,
Immediately on his return to Neocaesarea Gregory received a letter from Origen
(Philocalia, c. 13), revealing the teacher's extraordinary regard for his
pupil, whom he describes as "my most excellent lord and venerable son." Gregory
is exhorted to study all philosophies, as a preparation for Christianity and to
aid the interpretation of Holy Scripture. He is thus to spoil the Egyptians of their
fine gold, in order to make vessels for the sanctuary, and not idols of his own.
He is then urged with some passion to study the Scriptures, and to seek from God
by prayer the light he needs (see Ante-Nic. Library, Origen's works, vol.
i. 388–390, for a translation of this letter). Shortly after his return Gregory
became bishop of his native city, and one of the most celebrated (διαβόητος)
bishops of the age (Eus. H. E. vi. 30, and vii. 14). The curious details
of his ordination are referred to in Basil's Menol. Graec. (Nov. 17), where
it is stated that he was ordained by Phaedimus, bp. of Amasea, when the two were
at a distance from each other. Our only guide for the subsequent details of his
life is Gregory of Nyssa. Some of that writer's most extraordinary statements are
in measure vouched for by his brother Basil the Great, and by Rufinus in his expansion
of the history of Eusebius. As the later father tells the story, the young and saintly
student, on reaching home, was entreated by the entire population to remain as their
magistrate and legislator. Like Moses, he took counsel of God, and retired into
the wilderness, but, unlike Moses, he married no wife, and had virtue only for his
spouse. Then we are told that Phaedimus, bp. of Amasea, sought to consecrate him
by guile, but failed, and adopted the expedient of electing and ordaining him by
prayer when he was distant a journey of three days. We are assured that this induced
Gregory to yield to the summons, and to submit afterwards to the customary rites.
Gregory only demanded time for meditation on the truths of the Christian faith before
accepting the commission. This meditation issued in the supposed divine revelation
to him in the dead of the night of one of the most explicit formularies of the creed
of the church of the 3rd cent., "after he had been deeply considering the reason
of the faith, and sifting disputations of all sorts." Gregory saw a vision of St.
John and the mother of the Lord, and the latter commanded the former to lay before
Gregory the true faith. Apart from this romance, the formulary attributed to Gregory
is undoubtedly of high antiquity, and Lardner (Credibility, vol. ii. p. 29)
does not argue with his wonted candour in his endeavour to fasten upon it signs
of later origin.
There can be little doubt that the missionary labour of Gregory was great and successful, and that his personal influence was extraordinary. A few of the marvellous occurrences detailed by Gregory of Nyssa are referred to by Basil and Rufinus. Basil tells us (de Spir. Sancto, l.c.) "that Gregory was a great and conspicuous lamp, illuminating the church of God, and that he possessed, from the co-operation of the Spirit, a formidable power against the demons; that he turned the course of rivers by giving them orders in the name of Christ; that he dried up a lake, which was the cause of strife to two brothers; and that his predictions of the future made him the equal of the other prophets; . . . that by friends and enemies of the truth he was regarded, in virtue of his signs and prodigies, as another Moses." But Gregory of Nyssa expands into voluminous legend the record of these deeds. With the exception of a reference to the river Lycus, the Panegyric of Gregory of Nyssa contains no verifying element, giving neither names, dates, nor places for these astounding portents. They were, as Dr. Newman observes, wrought at such times and seasons as to lead to numerous conversions. They were described as well-known facts in a hortatory address and in ecclesiastical style. But they contrast very forcibly with the philosophical bias of Gregory's mind, and they are not referred to until a century after their occurrence.
One of the most interesting facts introduced by his panegyrist refers to Gregory's selection of an obscure person, Alexander the charcoal burner, as bishop over the neighbouring city of Comana. He was preferred to men of eloquence and station by reason of his humble self-consecration to God, and justified the choice by reason of his excellent discourse, holy living, and martyr death.
The great missionary success of Gregory and the rapid growth of the Church must have preceded the persecution under Decius, which began in 250 and 251. The edict was ferocious, and, in the hands of sympathetic governors, cruelly carried out. [DECIUS.] Gregory advised those who could do so to save themselves and their faith by flight and concealment. His enemies pursued him into his retreat, but Gregory of Nyssa says that they found in place of the bishop and his deacon two trees. This "prodigy" differs so profoundly (as do others in the same writer) from the N.T. miracles, both in character and motive, that they form an instructive hint as to the ethnic and imaginative source of the whole cycle.
In 257 Gregory returned to Neocaesarea, and when, in 258, peace was restored to the church, he ordered annual feasts in commemoration of the martyrs. He is credited by his biographer with the doubtful wisdom of hoping to secure the allegiance of those who had been in the habit of worshipping idols, by arranging ceremonials in honour of the martyrs resembling that to which they had been accustomed. This time-serving is an unfavourable indication of character, and does something to explain the melancholy defection from moral uprightness and honour of many of his supposed converts. The conversion of the heathen is said to have been greatly quickened by a fearful plague which was partly, at least, due to Gregory's miraculous powers.
At his death the number of heathen who now remained in his diocese is said to
have dwindled to 17, the exact number of Christians found there when Phaedimus consecrated
him (Vit. Thaum. l.c. p. 954). But the Christianity of the Neocaesareans
must have been in many cases of a very imperfect kind, if we may judge from one
of the most authentic documents referred to his pen, and entitled Epistola Canonica
S. Gregorii . . . de iis qui in barbarorum incursione idolothyta comederant, et
alia quaedam peccata commiserant. Numerous authorities, Dodwell (Dissertationes
in Cyprianum), Ceillier (vol. ii. p. 444) question the genuineness of the last,
the eleventh, of canons, but the conviction widely prevails that the previous ten
are genuine. They refer to the circumstances which followed the ravages of the Goths
and Boradi in Pontus, and Asia Minor generally, during the reign of Gallienus. The
prevailing disorder tempted numerous Christians in Pontus to flagrant acts of impiety
and disloyalty. Some took possession of the goods of those who had been dragged
into bondage. Others identified themselves with the barbarians, actually helping
the heathen in their uttermost cruelty towards their brethren. These facts are gathered
from the "canons" in which Gregory denounced strenuously the commission of such
crimes, and assigned to them their ecclesiastical penalty. The bishop does not linger
over the mere ceremonial uncleanness that might follow from enforced consumption
of meat
Other works have been wrongly attributed to Gregory; e.g.
ἔκθεσις τῆς κατὰ μέρος πίστεως, which Vossius
published in Latin in 1662, among the works of Gregory, and which Cardinal Mai (Scrip.
Vet. vii. p. 170) has presented in Greek from the Codex Vaticanus. It
is given by Migne (l.c. pp. 1103–1123). The best interpretation of the title
is, "A creed not of all the dogmas of the church, but only of some, in opposition
to the heretics who deny them" (Ante-Nicene Library, vol. xx. p. 81). It
differs from the former confession in its obvious and technical repudiation of Arianism,
and its distinct references to the later Nestorian, and Eutychian heresies. Other
treatises and fragments given in edd. of his works, and also trans. in A.-N.
L., are: Capitula duodecim de Fide, with interpretation, attributed by
Gretser to Gregory (ed. Ratisbon, 1741). Ad Tatianum Disputatio de Animâ,
which must have been written by a medieval philosopher when the philosophy of Aristotle
was beginning to exert a new influence (Ceillier). Four Homiliae, preserved
by Vossius, on "the Annunciation to the Holy Virgin Mary," and on "Christ's Baptism,"
are totally unlike the genuine writing of Gregory; they are surcharged with the
peculiar reverence paid to the Mother of our Lord after the controversy between
Nestorius and Cyril, and they adopt the test-words of orthodoxy current in the Arian
disputes. Two brief fragments remain to be added, one a comment on
Gregory was present at the first council at Antioch (264) to try Paul of Samosata. His brother Athenodorus accompanied him, and they are named among the most eminent members of the council (Eus. H. E. vii. 28).
Gregory was buried in the church he had built in Neocaesarea, and commemorated on Nov. 17 (Cal. Ethiop.) and Nov. 23 (Cal. Arm.).
Editions of his Works.—The most noted have been those of Gerard Vossius, 1640, in 4to, and in 1622, in folio. They had been published in Bibl. Patr. Cologne in 1618. The Panegyric on Origen by Sirmond, 1609, 4to. De la Rue included it in his ed. of Origensis Opera, vol. iv. The various fragments attributed to Gregory are all pub. by Migne (Patr. Gk. vol. x.). See esp. Ryssel, Gregorius Thaumaturgus (Leipz. 1880). His Address to Origen and Origen's Letter to Gregory have been trans. with intro. and notes by W. Metcalfe (S.P.C.K.). There are also translations of his works in the Ante-Nic. Lib. vol. vi.
Gregorius (7), St., "the Illuminator" (Gregor Lusavoritch), "the sun of Armenia," the apostle, first patriarch and patron saint of Armenia, c. 302–331. Of his life and times the best if not the only authorities are Agathangelos, who was secretary to Tiridates king of Armenia, the persecutor and afterwards the convert of Gregory, and Simeon Metaphrastes. A French trans. of the former was printed in vol. i. of the Historiens del᾿ Arménie (1867), by Victor Langlois. The Life of St. Gregory by Metaphrastes (Migne, Patr. Gk. cxv. 941–996) is evidently drawn from Agathangelos. The silence of all Greek writers about Gregory is remarkable. The Rev. S. C. Malan trans. the Life and Times of St. Gregory the Illuminator from the Armenian work of the Vartabed Matthew, which is the main source of the following sketch.
Gregory was born c. 257 in Valarshabad, the capital of the province of Ararat in Armenia. His father Anak, or Anag, a Parthian Arsacid, of the province of Balkh, murdered, c. 258, Chosroes I. of Armenia. The dying king commanded the whole family of Anak to be slain, but an infant was saved, carried to the Cappadocian Caesarea, there brought up in the Christian faith, and baptized Gregorius.
Tiridates II., son of Chosroes, recovered the kingdom c. 284 by the help of Diocletian, whose favour he had gained and whose hatred of Christianity he had imbibed. Gregory became his servant, and was raised to the rank of a noble. In the first year of his reign Tiridates went to the town of Erez (Erzenga) in Higher Armenia, to make offerings to Anahid, the patron-goddess of Armenia; but Gregory, refusing to take any part in this idolatry, endeavoured to turn the king from his idols, and spoke to him of Christ s the judge of quick and dead. Then followed what are known as "the twelve tortures of St. Gregory," borne with unsurpassed fortitude (but see Dowling's Armenian Church, S.P.C.K. 1910). After two years Tiridates ordered the saint to be thrown into a muddy pit infested with creeping creatures, into which malefactors were wont to be hurled, in the city of Ardashat, and there he lived for 14 years, being fed by a Christian woman named Anna. This is one of several traces in the story of an already-existing Christianity in Armenia.
The king's barbarous treatment of a community of religious women, who c.
300 took refuge within his domains and built a convent outside the city of Valarshabad,
brought a plague upon him and his people, which was only relieved when Gregory was
fetched from the pit. Gregory instructed the people, and at his order they built
three churches where the King's crimes had been perpetrated, and he called the place
Etchmiadzin (the descent of the Only-begotten), its Turkish name being Ütch-Kilise
(Three Churches). Gregory was consecrated bp. for Armenia c. 302, by Leontius,
bp. of Caesarea in Cappadocia. His cathedral was in Valarshabad. He destroyed the
idol temples, "conquering the devils who inhabited them"—i.e. the priests
and supporters of the old religion—and baptized the king and his court in the Euphrates.
This national conversion occurred before Constantine had established the church
in the Roman empire, and Armenia was thus the first kingdom to adopt Christianity
The Bollandists have printed Agathangelos and other Lives of Gregory. Acta SS. viii. Sept. pp. 295–413; Basil. Men. Sept. 30, in Migne, Patr. Gk. cxvii.; Le Quien, Or. Chr. i. 1355, 1371. In honour of her founder the Armenian church has been called the Armeno-Gregorian. Saint-Martin (Mém. sur l᾿Arménie, i. 436) and Langlois (Historiens, ii. 387) date his consecration a.d. 276.
Gregorius (8), the Cappadocian, appointed by Arianizing bishops
at Antioch in the beginning of 340—not, apparently, of 339, as the Festal Index
says, and clearly not at the Dedication Festival in 341 as Socrates says (ii. 20)—to
supersede Athanasius in the see of Alexandria. A student in the schools of Alexandria,
he had received kindness from Athanasius (Greg. Naz. Orat. xxi. 15). He arrived
on
Gregorius (12) Baeticus, St., bp. of Eliberi, Elvira, or Granada, c. 357–384; first mentioned as resisting the famous Hosius of Cordova, when under the persecution of Constantius Hosius gave way so far as to admit Arian bishops to communion with him. This must have been in or before A.D. 357, the year of Hosius's death. At the council of Ariminum Gregorius was one of the few bishops who adhered to the creed of Nicaea, and refused to hold communion with the Arian Valens, Ursacius, and their followers. Our authority for this is a letter to Gregorius by Eusebius of Vercellae from his exile in the Thebaid (printed among the works of St. Hilary of Poitiers, ii. 700, in Migne, Patr. Lat. x. 713). Eusebius there acknowledges letters he had received from Gregorius, giving an account of his conduct, and commends him highly for having acted as became a bishop. Gams, however (Kirchengesch. ii. 256–259, 279–282), maintains that Gregorius was one of the bishops who fell into heresy at Ariminum, and further identifies him with the Gregorius in the deputation sent by the council to Constantius and headed by Restitutus of Carthage, who assented to and subscribed an Arian formula of belief at Nice, in Thrace, Oct. 10, 359, and held communion with the Arian leaders, Valens, Ursacius, and others (St. Hilary of Poitiers, ex Opere Historico Fragmentum 8, in Migne, Patr. Lat. x. 702).
Gregorius is generally supposed to have been one of the leaders of the schism
originated by Lucifer of Cagliari. This theory is supported by the terms of praise
applied to him by the Luciferians Faustinus and Marcellus in their Libellus Precum
ad Imperatores (c. 9, 10, 20, 25, 27, in Migne, Patr. Lat. xiii. 89,
90, 97, 100, 102); and also by the way St. Jerome, in his Chronicle under
the date 374= a.d. 370 (in Migne,
Patr. Lat. xxvii. 695), couples him with Lucifer of Cagliari, saying that
the latter with Gregorius a Spanish, and Philo a Libyan, bishop, "nunquam se Arianae
miscuit pravitati." Florez, however (Esp. Sagr. xii. 121), maintains that
no certain proof of this theory exists. Gams, on the other hand (op. cit.
ii. 310–314), maintains that even before the death of Lucifer, Gregorius was the
recognized head of the sect. On the authority of the Libellus Precum, c.
25, he considers that Gregorius, after Lucifer's return from exile in 362, visited
him in Sardinia; and he identifies with Gregorius the bishop mentioned in c. 63
as at Rome under the assumed name of Taorgius, and as having consecrated one Ephesius
as bp. of the Luciferians there, an event which he dates between 366 and 371. From
the Libellus Precum and the Rescript of Theodosius in reply addressed to
Cynegius, Gregorius was apparently alive in 384. In none of the above passages is
his see mentioned, as he is called only episcopus Hispaniarum or Hispaniensis, but
it is supplied by St. Jerome, de Vir. Illust. c. 105 (Hieron. Op.
ii. 937, in Migne, Patr. Lat. xxiii. 703) Opinions have been much divided
as to the book de Fide, attributed to him by Jerome. The Bollandists (Acta
SS.
The materials for a Life of Gregorius are thus scanty, the Libellus Precum being of very doubtful authority, and widely different estimates have been formed of him. But the two charges of Arianism and Luciferianism seem mutually destructive.
Gregorius (13) I., bp. of Nazianzus in Cappadocia, father of Gregorius Nazianzenus. [Gregorius (14).] Originally a member of the Hypsistarii, a sect numerous in Cappadocia, he was converted to the Catholic faith, married a lady named Nonna, and was soon afterwards consecrated bp. of Nazianzus, c. 329. He was a pillar of the orthodox party, though weak enough to sign the creed of Ariminum in deference to Constantius, a.d. 360. He took part in the ordination of Basil to the see of Caesarea [Basilius]; he opposed the attempts of the emperor Valens, a.d. 371, to overthrow the Catholic faith; yet he, as well as Basil, was spared the banishment inflicted on many bishops (Socr. iv. 11). After an episcopate of 45 years, he died a.d. 374. His son frequently mentions his good father, both in his sermons and his verses, and pronounced a funeral oration over him. Greg. Naz. Oratio xviii. in Migne, Patr. Gk. xxxv. 330; Le Quien, Oriens Christ. i. 411.
Gregorius (14) Nazianzenus, bp. (370–390) of Sasima and of Constantinople, has been fortunate in his biographers. He left them abundant materials in his works, especially in a large collection of letters and a long autobiographical poem.
St. Gregory takes his distinctive title from Nazianzus, a small town in S.W. Cappadocia, near which, in a district known as the Tiberine (Ep. ii. Op. ii. 2; Basil, Ep. iv.), at a village called Arianzus, where his father had an estate, he was born. Both his parents are known to us. His father bore the same name [GREGORIUS (13)] and belonged in early life to the sect of the HYPSISTARII (Orat. xviii. 5; Op. i. 333). His mother's name was Nonna, a child of Christian parents (Philtatius and Gorgonia), and is praised by her son as a model of Christian virtues. To her life and prayers he attributes his father's conversion.
The date of his birth we may reasonably fix from his own words in 325–329.
Nonna, in fulfilment of a vow, dedicated him to the Lord, but not by baptism. She taught him to read the Scriptures, and led him to regard himself as an Isaac offered in sacrifice to God, Who had given him to another Abraham and Sarah. He, as another Isaac, dedicated himself. He rejoices to tell of the examples set him at home and of the bent given to his studies by companionship with good men. The tutor to whose care the brothers were committed was Carterius, perhaps the same who was afterwards head of the monasteries of Antioch and instructor of Chrysostom (Tillem. Mémoires, ix. 370).
At Caesarea in Cappadocia probably was commenced Gregory's friendship with Basil, which, tried by many a shock, survived them all, and was the chief influence which moulded not only the life of both friends, but also the theology of the Christian church. Gregory and his brother went to Caesarea in Palestine to pursue the study of oratory (Orat. vii. 6, Op. ii. 201); Caesarius departing thence to Alexandria, and Gregory remaining to study in the school made famous by Origen, Pamphilus, and Eusebius. Thespesius was then the master of greatest renown, and Euzoïus was a fellow-pupil with Gregory (Hieron. de Eccles. Script. c. 113). >From Palestine Gregory went to Alexandria (Orat. l.c.). Here Didymus filled the chair of Pantaenus, Clement, and Origen, and Athanasius the episcopal throne, though probably an exile at the time. Gregory pressed on to Athens. A ship of Aegina offered him passage (Orat. xviii. 31, Op. i. 351). Off Cyprus a fierce storm struck her. The thunder, lightning, darkness, creaking of the yards, shaking of the masts, cries of the crew, appeals for help to Christ, even by those who before had not known Him, all added to the terror of the scene. The storm continued 22 days, during which they saw no chance of deliverance. Gregory's chief fear was lest he should die without baptism. In prayer he dedicated himself again to God, and sought for help. The prayer was answered, and the rescued crew were so affected that they all accepted Gregory's God.
Among the Athenian sophists of the day, none were more famous than Himerius and Proaeresius, with whom Gregory continued the study of oratory. At Athens Gregory and Basil were together again (Orat. xliii. 15; Op. i. 781); Gregory rendering the freshman Basil various friendly offices, such as exempting him from the rough practical joking which all who joined the Athenian classes had to pass through. [BASILIUS.] The Armenians, jealous of the newcomer, whose fame had preceded him, and with some of the old feeling of antagonism against Cappadocia, tried to entrap him in sophistical debates. When they were being defeated, Gregory, feeling the honour of Athens at stake, came to the rescue, but soon saw their real object, and left them to join his friend (Orat. xliii. 16, 17; ib. 782, 783). These things are trifles, but had important effects. The two friends, rendered obnoxious to their companions, were bound the more closely to each other. Their fellow-students, for various reasons, bore various names and surnames. The two friends were, and desired to be called, Christians; they had all things in common, and "became as one mind possessing two bodies" (Orat. xliii. 20, 21; ib. 785, 786; Carm. xi. 221–235; Op. ii. 687). Among other students then at the university was Julian the Apostate. Gregory claims that he had even then discerned his character in his very looks; and that he used to warn their fellow-students that Rome was cherishing a serpent (Orat. v. 24, Op. i. 162).
Gregory must have spent at Athens probably not less than ten years. He went there a beardless youth; he left about his 30th year. To the effect of those years the matter and form alike of his work bear witness.
Leaving probably about the beginning of 356, Gregory went first to Constantinople,
wishing to see the new Rome before his return to Asia. Here he unexpectedly met
his brother Caesarius, journeying to Nazianzus from Alexandria. The mother had longed
to see both her sons return together, and
But in the midst of various trifling irritations of domestic duty, which went far to mar the life he had marked out for himself, Gregory heard from Basil, who had resolved to found a coenobitic system in Pontus, and asked his friend to join him. Gregory answered by proposing to Basil to join them at the Tiberine, where the ascetic life in common could be followed and the duties of home performed (Ep. i. Op. ii. 1). Basil did visit Arianzus, but remained only a short time. >From Caesarea he again wrote to Gregory, after which Gregory set out for Pontus. One substantial result of their joint labours is preserved in the Philocalia, a series of extracts from the exegetical works of Origen. Gregory himself speaks of this work, which he sent as a present to his friend Theodosius of Tyana (Ep. cxv. Op. ii. 103). We know from Gregory's own words also that he took part in composing the famous "Rules" of Basil. It is not clear how long he remained in Pontus. Clemencet thinks two or three years, and the supposition agrees with Gregory's regret that he had but tasted enough of the life there to excite his longing for more (Orat. ii. 6, Op. i. 14). The silence of Gregory with regard to his return may be due to another cause. Constantius had required the bishops throughout the empire to accept the creed of Rimini (a.d. 359–360), and the bp. of Nazianzus, though hitherto faithful to the Nicene doctrine, did so. The monks of his diocese were devoted to Athanasius, and there followed a division in the church, which Gregory alone could heal. He induced the bishop to make a public confession of orthodoxy, and delivered a sermon on the occasion (Orat. vi. Op. i. 179 seq.). If this division at Nazianzus occurred in 360, we have the reason of Gregory's return (Tillem. Mém. ix. 345; Schröckh, Kirchengesch. xiii. 287; Ullmann, Gregorius von Nazianz. s. 41). If with Clemencet and others (Op. i. pp. xciv. seq.) it is assigned to 363–364, we must suppose that the return was due to the general claim of filial duty. In any case he came to Nazianzus, and received letters from Basil asking him to return to Pontus (Ep. vi. ad fin., Op. ii. p. 6). The aged bishop felt the need of support and help, and resolved to overrule the scruples which made Gregory shrink from the responsibilities of the priesthood. The ordination occurred on one of the high festivals, probably at Christmas, a.d. 361 (Nicetas, ii. 1021; Tillem. Mém. ix. 352). Nicetas assumes that the congregation compelled Gregory to accept ordination (cf. Carm. xi. de Vitâ suâ, 345–348, Op. ii.) Such forced ordinations were not unknown (Bingham, Orig. Eccles. iv. 2–5 and ix. 7, 1). Basil was in the same way made priest.
Gregory preached in the church at Nazianzus on the Easter Day following his ordination,
and had expected that a crowded church would have welcomed his return and have applauded
his first sermon; but the church was almost deserted. Gregory could not be ignorant
of the cause of this estrangement. His flight from the work of the priesthood demanded
an explanation, and Gregory determined to give an answer worthy of the question
and of himself. It is contained in the second oration (Op. i. ii. 65). In
no part of his writings do we find proof of greater study. It is practically a treatise
on the pastoral office, and forms the foundation of Chrysostom's de Sacerdotio
and of the Cura Pastoralis of Gregory the Great, while writers in all ages
have directly or indirectly drawn largely from it. The earlier part treats of the
reasons for his flight: (1) he was wholly unprepared for the ordination; (2) he
had always been attracted by the monastic life; (3) he was ashamed of the life and
character of the mass of the clergy; (4) he did not at that time, he did not now—and
this reason weighed with him most of all—think himself fit to rule the flock of
Christ and govern the minds of men" (Orat. ii. 9). He then discusses for
40 sections the duties and difficulties of the true pastor (ib. 10–49). "His
first duty is to preach the word, and this is so difficult that to fulfil it ideally
would require universal knowledge. Theological knowledge is absolutely necessary,
especially of the doctrine of the Trinity, lest he fall into the Atheism of Sabellius,
or the Judaism of Arius, or the Polytheism too common among the orthodox. It is
necessary to hold to the truth that there is one God, and to confess that there
are three persons, and attributes proper to each; but for this there is need of
the Spirit's help. Much more is it difficult to expound it to a popular audience,
both from the preacher's imperfection and the people's want of preparation. Zeal
not according to knowledge leads men away from the truth. Then, there is the desire
of vainglory, with inexperience, and her constant attendant, rashness, inconstancy,
based on ignorance of the Scripture; and a subjective eclecticism which ends in
an uncertain creed, and leads men to doubt of truth, as if a blind or deaf man were
to place the evil not in himself but in the light of the sun or the voice of his
friend. It is more easy to instruct minds wholly ignorant than those which have
received false teaching; but the work of weeding, as well as that of sowing, must
be done. The work of a spiritual ruler is like that of a man trying to manage a
herd of beasts, old and young, wild and tame. He must, therefore, be single in will
to rule the whole body, manifold to govern each member of it. Some must be fed with
milk; some with more solid food. For all this who is sufficient? There are spiritual
hucksters who adulterate the word of truth; but it is better to be led than to lead
others, and to learn than
Such is the general character of the famous Τοῦ
Αὐτοῦ Ἀπολογητικός. Did it alone remain
to us, Gregory must still have been thought of as one of the four pillars of the
Greek church, and we should still read the chief traits of his personal character.
It was written in 362. Julian the Apostate had entered Constantinople on Dec. 11,
361, and persuaded Gregory's brother Caesarius to remain at court. Gregory was then
with Basil, who had indignantly rejected like advances, and he blushes that the
son of a bishop should accept them. It made their father weary of life, and had
to be hidden from their mother (Ep. vii. Opp. ii. 7). The effect of
this letter upon Caesarius we may judge from his declaration before Julian: "In
a word, I am a Christian, and I mean to be one," and from the exclamation of the
emperor: "O happy father of such unhappy children!" (Orat. vii. 13, Op.
i. 206; cf. De Broglie, Constance, ii. 207). Gregory esteemed the victory
of Caesarius as a more precious gift than the half of the empire (Orat. vii.
14, ad init.). But Julian had bitter revenge in store. He ordered that no
Christian should teach profane literature. This caused Gregory to compose many of
the poems now extant, probably as reading-books for Christian schools. Towards the
end of 363 or the beginning of 364 he wrote two Invectives against Julian (Orat.
iv. Op. i. 78–147; Orat. v. ib. 147–175). The emperor had fallen,
pierced by an arrow, in the previous June. The orator in these philippics held him
up as the sum of all that was vile. In the first sentence he is called "the dragon,
the apostate, the Assyrian, the common enemy, the great mind" (
While Gregory was thus employed at Nazianzus, Basil returned from Pontus to Caesarea,
where Eusebius had been made bishop, and was ordained against his will. He informed
his friend of this, and Gregory replied in a letter which is important as shewing
his thoughts about the position in which both he and Basil had been placed. "Now
the thing is done it is necessary to fulfil one's duty—such at least is the way
in which I look at it—especially in the present distress, when many tongues of heretics
are raised against us, and not to disappoint the hopes of those who have put their
faith in us and in our past life" (Ep. viii. Op. ii. 8). A difference
arose ere long between Eusebius and Basil. Its origin is not known, and Gregory
thought it better that it should not be (Orat. xliii. 28, Op. i. 792).
It shews Gregory in the character of peacemaker. The warm friend of Basil, he was
no less an admirer of the bishop, and an advocate for the rights of authority. Invited
In 370 Valens made a civil division of Cappadocia into two provinces, and in
372 Anthimus, bp. of Tyana, claimed equal rights with the bp. of Caesarea—i.e.
the rights of metropolitan of Cappadocia Secunda, of which Tyana was the capital.
Basil resisted this claim, and Gregory, who had returned to Nazianzus, offered,
in a letter full of affectionate admiration (Ep. xlviii. Op. ii. 40),
to visit and support his friend and went to Caesarea. Thence they proceeded together
to the foot of Mount Taurus in Cappadocia Secunda, where was a chapel dedicated
to St. Orestes, and where the people were accustomed to pay their tithes in kind.
On their return they found the mountain-passes at Sasima guarded by followers of
Anthimus. A struggle took place, and Gregory implies that he was personally injured
(Carm. xi. 453, Op. ii. 699). He seems soon afterwards to have returned
to Nazianzus, whither he was followed by Basil, who had resolved (by way of securing
his own rights) to make Sasima a bishopric, and Gregory the first bishop. In this
he was aided by the elder Gregory, and the son yielded against his own will (Orat.
ix. Op. i. 234–238). At the last moment he fled, but was pursued by Basil,
and at length consecrated (Orat. x. Op. i. 239–241). But he still
put off the duties of his see, until Basil sent Gregory of Nyssa to remonstrate.
But Anthimus was again prepared to resist by armed force, and Gregory finally abandoned
duties which he had never willingly accepted. Basil wrote reproaching him, and he
replied in the same tone. "He would not fight with the warlike Anthimus, for he
was himself little experienced in war, and liable to be wounded, and one, moreover,
who preferred repose. Why should he fight for sucking-pigs and chickens, which after
all were not his own, as if it were a question of souls and of canons? And why should
he rob
The year 373 was an "annus mirabilis" for Nazianzus, and called forth two remarkable discourses from Gregory. An epidemic among their cattle, a season of drought, and a destructive tempest in harvest reduced the people to absolute poverty. They turned in their need to the church, and compelled Gregory to address them. The discourse seems to have been impromptu. Gregory "regrets that he is the constrained speaker rather than his father—that the stream is made to flow while the fountain is dry—and then urges that divine punishments are all in mercy, and that human sins are the ordinary causes of public woes"; then plainly puts before his hearers the special sins of their city and invites them to penitence and change of life (Orat. xvi. Op. i. 299). The inability of the inhabitants to pay the imperial taxes led to an insurrection. At the approach of the prefect with a body of troops they took refuge in the church, and he consented to hear Gregory's plea. While the Invective against Julian reminds us of the Philippics or the de Coronâ, we have here an oration which has borne without injury comparison with the pro Ligario or pro Marcello, or Chrysostom's plea for Eutropius or Flavian (Benoît, p. 355). The first part points the afflicted people to the true source of comfort; the second is addressed to princes and magistrates. "The prefect was subject to the authority of the teacher, which was higher than his own. Did he wield the sword? it was for Christ. Was he God's image? so were the poor suffering people. The most divine thing was to do good; let him not lose the opportunity. Did he see the white hair of the aged bishop, and think of his long, unblemished priesthood, whom, it may he, the very angels found worthy of homage (λατρείας), and did not that move him?" "I adjure you by the name of Christ, by Christ's emptying Himself for us, by the sufferings of Him Who cannot suffer, by His cross, by the nails which have delivered me from sin, by His death and burial, resurrection and ascension; and lastly, by this common table where we sit together, and by these symbols of my salvation, which I consecrate with the same mouth that addresses to you this prayer—in the name, I say, of this sacred mystery which lifts us up to heaven!" He concluded by praying "that the prefect may find for himself such a judge as he should be for them, and that all meet with merciful judgment here and hereafter" (Orat. xvii. Op. i. 317 et seq.) Early in 374 the elder Gregory died, and the son delivered a discourse, at which his mother Nonna and his friend Basil were present, and which was an eulogy of both his parents and of his friend (Orat. xviii. Op. i. 327). Nonna survived her husband only a few months, and died as she knelt at the Holy Table (Epit. lxv.–c. Op. ii. 1133–1149). The brother and sister were already dead. Gregory was left alone. His first care was to devote his large fortune wholly to the poor, reserving only a small plot of land at Arianzus; and then to invite the bishops to elect a successor to the see. Fear lest the church should be rent by heresy induced him to exercise the office temporarily. Two reasons determined him not to preach at Nazianzus again—(1) that he may cause them to elect a bishop to succeed his father; (2) that his silence may check the mania for theological discussion which was spreading through the Eastern church and leading everybody to teach the things of the Spirit without the Spirit.
For two years after the bishop's death Gregory in vain pressed for the election of a successor. His love of retirement was now, as all through life, a powerful influence, and towards the end of 375 he disappeared suddenly, and found refuge for 3 years at Seleucia in Isauria, at a monastery devoted to the virgin Thecla (Carm. xi. 549, Op. ii. 701).
In the beginning of 379 Basil died, and Gregory wrote to comfort his brother
Gregory of Nyssa. He could neither visit Basil in illness nor be present at his
funeral, for he was himself then dangerously ill (Ep. lxxvi. Op. ii.
65), but he expressed his love in 12 epitaphs. A letter from Gregory to Eudocius
But the chief work of his life yet lay before him. At the Nicaean council, Alexander, then bp. of Constantinople, signed the decrees which condemned Arius. He was succeeded by Paul, who was devoted to the true faith, and suffered martyrdom in a.d. 351. For 30 years after the death of Paul, Constantinople was the battle-ground of a constant war with heresy. The followers of Manes and Novatus, Photinus and Marcellus, Sabellius and Apollinaris, were numerous there; and the adherents of the Nicene faith, few in number, humiliated, crushed, having neither church nor pastor, were obliged to conceal themselves in remote quarters of the city (Benoît, Greg. de Naz. p. 397). They applied to Gregory to help them, and many bishops urged their plea. For a long time he was unwilling to leave his retirement, but then came the conviction that he dared not refuse this summons. The date of his arrival at Constantinople is not certain, but was probably before Easter, 379 (Tillem. Mém. ix. 799). A prayer, in the form of a poem, indicates the spirit with which he entered upon his new work (Carm. iii. Op. ii. 667), and another poem shews what that work involved. New Rome "had passed through the death of infidelity; there was left but one last breath of life. He had come to this city to defend the faith. What they needed was solid teaching to deliver them from the spider-webs of subtleties in which they had been taken" (Carm. xi. 562–611, Op. ii. 705, 6). In a private house, where he himself was lodged by relations, his work was begun. It was to him "an Anastasia, the scene of the resurrection of the faith" (Orat. xlii. 26, Carm. xi. 1079, Op. ii. 731); the house was too small for the multitudes that flocked to it, and a church was built in its place. His fame, as a theologian, rests chiefly on the discourses delivered at the Anastasia. His first work was to gather the scattered members of the flock and instruct them in the practical duties of Christianity and the danger of empty theological discussions (Carm. xi. 1210–1231, Op. ii. 737–739). Again and again in the early discourses does he dwell on the truth that only through personal holiness can a man grasp any idea of the Holy One (Orat. xx. and Orat. xxii. Op. i. 376–384 and 597–603). Gregory was exposed to the attacks of all parties. His origin, person, clothing, were made objects of ridicule. They would have welcomed a polished orator with external graces; but his manner of life had made him prematurely old, and his gifts to the poor had made him in appearance and reality a poor man. One night, a mob, led by monks, broke into the place of meeting and profaned the altar and sacred elements. Gregory escaped, but was taken before the judges as a homicide; "but He Who knew how to save from the lions was present to deliver him" (Carm. xi. 665–678, Op. ii. 709). "He cared not that they attacked him—the stones were his delight; he cared only for the flock who were thus injured" (ib. 725 et seq.). His chief sorrow was to come from a division in the flock itself. This started from the schism of Antioch, which had spread through the whole church; but the immediate question was one of competition for the bishopric. Gregory had kept aloof from this quarrel, but some of his followers took an active part in it, and endeavoured to draw from him a decision for one or other of the rivals. Some seem to have favoured Paulinus, some Meletius. Gregory preached a sermon on Peace (Orat. xxii. Op. i. 414–425), dwelling "on its blessings, and the inconsistency of their faith, servants of the God of peace as they claimed to be, and their practice. Their duty was to remain united when the faith was not in question; to weaken the present struggle by keeping out of it, and thus to do the rivals a greater service than by fighting for them" (ib. 14, p. 423). Soon afterwards the news of the establishment of peace reached Constantinople, and was followed by peace in the little church of the Anastasia. Gregory, though ill, preached almost certainly on this occasion another sermon on Peace (Orat. xxiii. Op. i. 425–434) thankfully celebrating its return, and urging those present who were divided from them by heresy "to be at peace with them by acceptance of the true faith. It was the work of the sacred Trinity to give the faithful peace among themselves. The sacred Trinity would heal also this wider breach." At the close of this sermon he promises to deal more fully with the questions at issue between the followers of the Nicene faith and their opponents. This he did in the five theological discourses which soon followed (Orat. xxvii.-xxxi. Op. i. 487–577; vide infra). Other important discourses belong to the same period, of which the most remarkable are a second on the Divinity of the Holy Spirit, preached at Whitsuntide 381 (?) (Orat. xli. Op. ii. 731–744), and one on Moderation in Discussions—a frequent subject with Gregory—in which heresy is traced to its absence (Orat. xxxii. Op. ii. 579–601). He delivered also three (?) panegyrics, the subjects of which were Cyprian, whose name was held in deserved honour in Constantinople (Orat. xxiv. Op. i. 437–450); Athanasius, whose memory was specially dear to Gregory as the champion of Nicene orthodoxy, and who had died but a few years before (a.d. 373) (Orat. xxi. Op. i. 386–411); and the Maccabees (?), whose heroism might well have been specially intended for an example in the present struggle (Orat. xv. Op. i. 287–298). The last two, especially that on Athanasius, are counted by all judges, from Jerome downwards, among Gregory's noblest works (Script. Eccles. 117).
Jerome became about this time a disciple of Gregory and loved to tell how much he had learned from his teacher.
Another stranger who came to Constantinople professed himself a disciple of the
now famous theologian. He bore the name of Maximus, and represented himself as descended
from a line of martyrs, and as having suffered much through his adherence to the
Nicene faith. Professing himself an ardent admirer of Gregory's sermons, this man
was planning the overthrow of his teacher, and hoped even to establish himself in
the episcopal chair. He had an important ally in
In connexion with the story of Maximus, Gregory tells us that he one day uttered the words, "My beloved children, keep intact this Trinity which I, your most happy father, have delivered to you, and preserve some memorial of my labours." One of the hearers saw the hint, and people of all ages, conditions, and ranks vied with each other in cries of affection for him and hatred for his foes (Carm. xi. 1057–1113, Op. ii. 729–731), and one cried, "If you go, you will banish the doctrine of the Trinity as well as yourself" (ib. 1100). At this Gregory promised to remain until the arrival of some bishops who were expected at the council, but retired for a while to the country to recruit his shattered health.
On Nov. 24, 380, Theodosius made his formal entry into Constantinople. One of his first cares was to restore to the orthodox the churches of which they had been deprived by the Arians. Gregory was summoned, and early on the morning of Nov. 26, in the presence of an immense crowd, Theodosius and Gregory entered the church of the Holy Apostles. A thick fog enveloped the building, but at the first accents of the chants the rays of the sun fell upon the vestments of the priests and the swords of the soldiers, and brought to Gregory's mind the glory of the Tabernacle of old. At the same time there arose a cry like thunder demanding that he should be bishop. "Silence!—silence!" he cried. "This is the time to give thanks to God. It will be time enough, hereafter, to settle other things." The service was continued without further interruption. Only one sword was drawn, and that was put back unstained into its sheath (Carm. xi. 1325–1390). In no part of Gregory's life is his true excellence of character more clearly seen than here; to his spirit of moderation and forgiveness is it to be attributed that this great religious revolution was effected without shedding one drop of blood. He tells one incident which reveals his spirit towards his foes. While he was ill in bed an assassin who had attempted his life entered his room, and, stung by conscience, fell weeping and speechless at his feet. Gregory said to him, "May God preserve you! It is nothing wonderful that I whom He hath saved should be merciful to you. Your bold deed has made you mine. Take care to walk, henceforth, worthy of God and of me." Gregory adds that this deed softened the feeling of the citizens towards him.
Not long after the entry into the metropolitical church—perhaps the very next day—the enthusiasm of the multitude led them to attempt to place Gregory by force in the episcopal chair. Yet there were traces of jealousy, and false motives were freely attributed to him. Always sensitive, he delivered in the presence of Theodosius a sermon "concerning himself, and to those who said that he wished to be bp. of Constantinople, and concerning the favours which the people had shewn towards him" (Orat. xxxvi. Op. i. 633–643). It is a forcible Apologia pro Vitâ suâ." He would have been ashamed to seek that bishopric, bowed down as he was by old age and physical weakness. They said that he had sought another's bride (Constantinople): he had really refused his own (Sasima)" (ib. vi. 638, 639). The emperor and the court were present; questions greater than personal ones arose to Gregory's mind, and the discourse became an eloquent appeal to princes, sages, philosophers, professors, philologists, orators, to weigh their responsibilities and fulfil their duties.
Another discourse preached before Theodosius is the only one of Gregory's extant
discourses which is a homily in the narrower sense of a definite exposition and
application of a passage of Scripture (Orat. xxxvii. Op. i. 644–660).
The text was
Three other important discourses of Gregory, which belong also to the ministry at Constantinople, can only be mentioned. (1) On the Nativity [Dec. 25, 380?] (Orat. xxxviii. Op. i. 661–675; (2) On the Epiphany [Jan. 6, 381?] (Orat. xxxiv. ib. 676–691); (3) On Holy Baptism (Orat. xl. ib. 691–729).
Theodosius had long intended to summon a general council, and in May,
a.d. 381, the synod of the 190 bishops
who formed the second oecumenical council was held in the capital of the East. Socrates
tells us that the object of the council was to confirm the Nicene faith and to appoint
a bishop for Constantinople (Hist. Eccl. v. 8; cf. Soz. vii. 7; Theod. v.
7; Mansi, Collect. Concil. iii. 523). No Western bishop is mentioned as present,
and the attempt to shew that Damasus of Rome
But he felt that his constant illness unfitted him for his duties, and we find him writing to the archbp. of Tyana earnestly beseeching him to take steps to appoint another bishop. "If this letter did not affect its purpose, he would publicly proclaim the bishopric vacant rather than that the church should longer suffer from his own infirmity" (Ep. clii. Op. ii. 128). Eulalius, Gregory's colleague and relation, and the man of his choice, was elected in his stead. Gregory's satisfaction is expressed in a letter to Gregory of Nyssa (Ep. clxxxii. Op. ii. 149). Gregory withdrew to Arianzus, and spent in retirement the six remaining years of life. To this period belong certainly a large number of poems and letters; and probably two discourses, one on the Festival of St. Mamas, which was kept with special honour around Nazianzus on the first Sun. after Easter (καινὴ κυριακή) and one on the Holy Passover (Orat. xliv. and xlv. Op. i. 834–868).
Gregory at first retired to the little plot at Arianzus which he had retained when all his other property was given to the poor. Here a shady walk with a fountain was his favourite resort (Carm. xliv. 1–24, Op. ii. 915–917). But even this peaceful spot was denied him, and he was "driven forth without city, throne, or children, but always full of cares for them, as a wanderer upon the earth" (Carm. xliii. 1–12, Op. 913–915). He found a temporary resting-place at a tomb consecrated to martyrs at Carbala, a place of which nothing is known, and which the Bollandists suppose (Mai. ii. 424 F) to be another name for the plot at Arianzus. He was driven thence by a relative named Valentinian, who settled near with the female members of his family, as from another Paradise by another Eve. Οἰκαρχίαις δὴ γυναικῶν οὕτως ὑποχωρήσομεν, ὥσπερ ἐχιδναίοις ἐπιδρομαῖς (Ep. cciii. Op. ii. 169). The poems and letters of this period speak of constant illness and suffering, with but short intervals of relief. A frame never strong had given way under the severe asceticism of the earlier and the burden of the later life. "I suffer," he says in one of the letters, "and am content, not because I suffer, but because I am for others an example of patience. If I have no means to overcome any pain, I gain from it at least the power to bear it, and to be thankful as well in sorrowful circumstances as in joyous; for I am convinced that, although it seems to us the contrary, there is in the eyes of the Sovereign Reason nothing opposed to reason, in all which happens to us" (Ep. xxxvi. Op. ii. 32). Besides physical sufferings he had to bear intense spiritual agony, which at times took from him all hope either in this world or the next. In the thick of the spiritual combat he, like other great souls, learnt the lessons he was to teach to the world. His death must be assigned to about the 11th year of Theodosius, i.e. a.d. 389 or 390.
Gregory's extant works are contained in two fol. vols. of the Benedictine edition.
Vol. i. consists of 45 sermons, of which some have been noticed in this article.
Vol. ii. includes 243 letters—theological, pastoral, political, domestic; the will
of Gregory, taken from the archives of the church of Nazianzus, and the poems arranged
in two books. The dogmatic poems are 38 in number. No. 10 (74 iambics) is on the
Incarnation, against Apollinaris. No. 11 (16 hexameters and pentameters) is also
on the Incarnation. Nos. 12–29 are mnemonic verses on the facts of Holy Scripture,
apparently meant for school use. Nos. 29–38 are prayers or hymns addressed to God.
The moral poems are 40 in number. No. 1 (732 hexameters) is a eulogy of virginity.
Nos. 2–7 in various metres, deal with kindred subjects, exhortations and counsels
to virgins and monks, and the superiority of the single life. Nos. 8–11 are on the
secular and religious life, and exhortations to virtue; Nos. 12 and 13 on the frailty
of the human nature. No. 14 is a meditation on human nature in 132 hexameters and
pentameters. It ranks with No. 1 among the most beautiful of Gregory's poems. The
remainder of the poems in this section are on such subjects as the baseness of the
outer man; the blessedness of the Christian life; the sin of frequent oaths and
of anger; the loss of dear friends; the misery of false friends. Four are satires
against a bad-mannered nobleman (26 and 27); misers (28); feminine luxury (29).
There are 99 poems relating to his own life. One of them (No. 11, de Vitâ suâ)
is an autobiography extending to 1,949 lines, to which another (No. 12, de Seipso
et de Episcopis) adds 836 lines more. Among the historical poems is an epistle
to
In forming an estimate of Gregory's literary position, we have to consider (1) his poems, (2) his letters, and (3) his orations. Of each kind of writing there are abundant materials to form a judgment. (1) Two criticisms of the poems from very different standpoints may help us to arrive at the true mean. To Dr. Ullmann (Gregorius, ss. 200–202) they are "inferior to the letters, the product of old age, whereas the true vein of poetry must have shewn itself in earlier life; cramped by their subject-matters, which did not admit of originality; prosaic thoughts wrapped in poetic forms; involved and diffusive"; though he admits that some of the short pieces are poetry of a high order, and that the didactic aim of Gregory is to be taken into account. "Still they could never be more than a poor substitute for the older poetry of Greece." Villemain considers the poems the finest of all Gregory's works. He instances one especially (de Humanâ naturâ), "the severe charm of which seems to have anticipated the finest inspirations of our melancholy age, while it preserves the impress of a faith still fresh and honest, even in its trouble. . . . His funeral eulogies are hymns; his invectives against Julian have something of the malediction of the prophets. He has been called the 'Theologian of the East.' He ought to have been called rather 'the Poet of Eastern Christendom'" (Tableau de l᾿éloquence chrétienne au 4me siècle, p. 133). (2) Gregory's extant letters, though upon very various subjects, and often written under the pressure of immediate necessity, are almost invariably finished compositions. (3) A higher place has been claimed in this article for Gregory's orations than for his poems. He is now held to be greater than Basil, or even Chrysostom, and to have combined "the invincible logic of Bourdaloue; the unction, colour, and harmony of Massillon; the flexibility, poetic grace, and vivacity of Fénelon; the force, grandeur, and sublimity of Bossuet. . . . The Eagle of Meaux has been especially inspired by him in his funeral orations; the Swan of Cambrai has followed him in his treatise on The Existence of God" (Benoît, p. 721). He was an orator by training and profession. For this he studied at Caesarea, Alexandria, and Athens, and was the acknowledged chief in the schools of the rhetoricians. The oratory of the Christian pulpit was the creation of Gregory and Basil. It was based on the ancient models, and was akin, therefore, to the speeches of Demosthenes and Cicero, rather than to the modern sermon. It has been charged against the sermons of Gregory that they are not expositions of Scripture. As compared with the homilies of Chrysostom, for example, they certainly are not (except one: Orat. xxxvii. Op. i. 644–660); the nature of the case made it impossible that they should be. But the margin of every page abounds with references to Scripture, and no reader can fail to see with Bossuet that "Gregory's whole discourse is nothing but a judicious weaving of Scripture, and that he manifests everywhere a profound acquaintance with it " (Défense de la tradition, etc., iv. 2; Benoît, p. 723).
Great as was the position of Gregory as a writer, he left his chief mark upon history as a theologian. He alone beyond the apostolic circle has been thought worthy to bear the name "Theologus" which had been appropriated to St. John. Ullmann (Gregorius, etc., ss. 209–352), following Clemencet (Op. i. xlix.-lxxviii.), has arranged under their separate headings his views on the articles of faith. Within our present limits we can only refer to them as contained in the five famous theological discourses at Constantinople (Orat. xxvii.-xxxi. Op. i. 487–579).
(1) The first, Κατὰ Εὐνομιάνων, urges that "to discourse about God is a task of the greatest difficulty, not fitted for all times or all persons, nor to be undertaken in the presence of all persons. . . . The teacher of theology ought first to practise virtue. There is abundant scope for work to refute the older teaching of the pagan philosophers, or to discuss simpler questions of science and theology; but as to the nature of God our words should be few, for we can know but little in this life."
(2) Περὶ θεολογίας. Gregory reasserts here his favourite position, that "it is the pure mind only that can know God. . . . The theologian beholds part of God, but the divine nature he can neither express in words nor comprehend in thought. The higher intelligence of angels even cannot know Him as He is. That there is a creating and preserving cause, we can know, as the sound of an instrument bears witness to its maker and player; that God is, we know, but what He is, and of what nature He is, and where He is, and where He was before the foundation of the world, we cannot know. The Infinite cannot be defined. We can only predicate negative attributes, for the nature of the divine essence is beyond all human conception."
(3) Περὶ Υἱοῦ. The two previous discourses
were introductory. He now passes to the next subject. "The three earliest opinions
concerning God were anarchia, polyarchia, and monarchia. The two former could not
stand, as leading to confusion rather than the order of the universe. We hold that
there is a monarchia, but that God is not limited to one person. If unity is divided,
it becomes plurality. But if there is equal dignity of nature, and agreement of
will, and identity of movement, and convergence to unity of those things which are
of unity (and this cannot be the case in created things), there may be distinction
in number without by any means involving distinction in essence and nature.
(4) Περὶ Υἱοῦ. Another discourse on the same subject. Gregory has already answered the objection, that some passages of Scripture speak of the Son as human. He here exhaustively examines, under ten objections, the scriptural language applied to our Lord, and then passes to an exposition of the names (a) common to the Deity, (b) peculiar to the Son, (c) peculiar to the Son as man.
(5) Περὶ τοῦ Ἁγίου πνεύματος. Gregory commences this oration by referring to the difficulties arising because many who admitted the divinity of the Son regarded that of the Holy Ghost as a new doctrine not found in Holy Scripture. He expresses, in the strongest terms, his own belief in the divinity of the Third Person. "The Holy Spirit is holiness. Had the Spirit been wanting to the divine Trinity, the Father and the Son would have been imperfect." The most eminent pagan philosophers had had a glimpse of the truth, for they spoke of the "Mind of the Universe," the "Mind without," etc.
No conception of the subtlety of thought or beauty of expression in these discourses of Gregory can be given in an outline. Critics have rivalled each other in their praise, and many theologians have found in them their own best thoughts. A critic who cannot be accused of partiality towards Gregory has given perhaps the truest estimate of them. "A substance of thought, the concentration of all that is spread through the writings of Hilary, Basil, and Athanasius; a flow of softened eloquence which does not halt or lose itself for a moment; an argument nervous without dryness on the one hand, and without useless ornament on the other, gives these five discourses a place to themselves among the monuments of this fine genius, who was not always in the same degree free from grandiloquence and affectation. In a few pages and in a few hours Gregory has summed up and closed the controversy of a whole century." De Broglie, L᾿Eglise et l᾿empire, v. 385; Benoît, Grégoire, etc. 435, 436.
Little is needed for the study of Gregory's life and works beyond the admirable Benedictine ed. referred to above (Migne, Patr. Gk. xxxv.-xxxviii.), and the Lives by Ullmann (Greg. von Naz. der Theologe, 2. Aufl., Gotha, 1867; pt. i. of earlier ed. trans. by Cox, Oxf. 1855) and Benoît (St. Grég. de Naz., Paris, 1876). For a well-known comparison of Gregory and Basil see Newman's Church of the Fathers, pp. 116–145, 551. Gregory's Five Theol. Orations have been ed. by A. J. Mason (Camb. Univ. Press, 1899). See also Duchesne, Histoire de l᾿Egl. vol. ii. ch. xii. Some of his works are trans. into Eng. in the Post-Nic. Fathers.
Gregorius (15) Nyssenus, bp. of Nyssa in Cappadocia (372–395), younger brother of Basil the Great, and a leading theologian of the Eastern church. He and his brother and their common friend Gregory Nazianzen were the chief champions of the orthodox Nicene faith in the struggle against Arianism and Apollinarianism, and by their discreet zeal, independency of spirit, and moderation of temper, contributed chiefly to its victory in the East. He was one of ten children of Basil, an advocate and rhetorician of eminence, and his wife Emmelia (Greg. Nys. de Vit. S. Macr., Opp. ed. Morel. t. ii. pp. 182–186). We may place Gregory's birth c. 335 or 336, probably at Caesarea. He did not share his eldest brother's advantage of a university training, but was probably brought up in the schools of his native city. That no very special pains had been devoted to his education we may gather from the words of his sister Macidora on her deathbed, in which she ascribed the high reputation he had gained to the prayers of his parents, since "he had little or no assistance towards it from home" (ib. iii. 192). A feeble constitution and natural shyness disposed him to a literary retirement. His considerable intellectual powers had been improved by diligent private study; but he shrank from a public career, and appears after his father's death to have lived upon his inheritance, without any profession. That his religious instincts did not develop early appears from his account of his reluctant attendance at the ceremonial held by his mother Emmelia in honour of the "Forty Martyrs." A terrifying dream, which seemed to reproach him with neglect, led him to become a "lector" and as such read the Bible lections in the congregation (Greg. Naz. Ep. 43, t. i. p. 804). He would seem, however, to have soon deserted this vocation for that of a professor of rhetoric. This backsliding caused great pain to his friends and gave occasion to the enemies of religion to suspect his motives and bring unfounded accusations against him. Gregory Nazianzen, whose affection for him was warm and sincere, strongly remonstrated with him, expressing the grief felt by himself and others at his falling away from his first love. The date of this temporary desertion must be placed either before 361 or after 363, about the same time as his marriage. His wife was named Theosebeia, and her character answered to her name. She died some time after Gregory had become a bishop, and, according to Tillemont, subsequently to the council of Constantinople, a.d. 381. Expressions in Gregory Nazianzen's letter would lead us to believe that both himself and his friend were then somewhat advanced in life; and from Theosebeia being styled Gregory Nyssen's "sister" we may gather that they had ceased to cohabit, probably on his becoming a bishop (Greg. Naz. Ep. 95, t. i. p. 846; Niceph. H. E. xi. 19).
Gregory soon abandoned his profession of a teacher of rhetoric. The urgent remonstrances
of his friend Gregory Nazianzen would have an earnest supporter in his elder sister,
the holy recluse Macrina, who doubtless used the same powerful arguments which had
induced Basil to give up all prospect of worldly
In 372 (the year Gregory Nazianzen was consecrated to the see of Sasima) Gregory was forced by his brother Basil to accept reluctantly the see of Nyssa, an obscure town of Cappadocia Prima, about ten miles from the capital, Caesarea. Their common friend, Eusebius of Samosata, wrote to Basil to remonstrate on his burying so distinguished a man in so unworthy a see. Basil replied that his brother's merits made him worthy to govern the whole church gathered into one, but he desired that the see should be made famous by its bishop, not the bishop by his see (ib. 98 [259]). These words have proved prophetic.
Gregory's episcopate fell in troublous times. Valens, a zealous Arian, being
on the throne, lost no opportunity of forwarding his own tenets and vexing the orthodox.
The miserable Demosthenes [Basilius]
had been recently appointed vicar of Pontus to do all in his power to crush the
adherents of the Nicene faith. After petty acts of persecution, in which the semi-Arian
prelates joined with high satisfaction, as a means of retaliating on Basil, a synod
was summoned at Ancyra at the close of 375, to examine some alleged canonical irregularities
in Gregory's consecration, and to investigate a frivolous charge brought against
him by a certain Philocharis of having made away with church funds left by his predecessor.
A band of soldiers was sent to arrest Gregory and conduct him to the place of hearing.
A chill on his journey brought on a pleuritic seizure and aggravated a painful malady
to which he was subject. His entreaties to be allowed to halt for medical treatment
were disregarded, but he managed to elude the vigilance of the soldiers and to escape
to some place of concealment where his maladies could be cared for. Basil collected
a synod of orthodox Cappadocian bishops, in whose name he addressed a dignified
but courteous letter to Demosthenes, apologizing for his brother's non-appearance
at Ancyra, and stating that the charge of embezzlement could be shewn to be false
by the books of the treasurers of the church; while, if any canonical defect in
his ordination could be proved, the ordainers were those who should be called to
account, an account which they were ready to render (ib. 225 [385]). Basil
wrote also to a man of distinction named Aburgius, begging him to use his influence
to save Gregory from the misery of being dragged into court and implicated in judicial
business from which his peaceful disposition shrank (ib. 33 [358]). Another
synod was summoned at Nyssa by Demosthenes
A.D. 376, through the instrumentality of Eustathius of Sebaste. Still Gregory
refused to appear. He was pronounced contumacious and deposed by the assembled bishops,
of whom Anysius and Ecdicius of Parnasse were the leaders, and they consecrated
a successor, whom Basil spoke of with scorn as a miserable slave who could be bought
for a few oboli (ib. 237 [264], 239 [10]). Gregory's deposition was followed
by his banishment by Valens (Greg. Nys. de Vit. Macr. t. ii. p. 192). These
accumulated troubles utterly crushed his gentle spirit. In his letters he bewails
the cruel necessity which had compelled him to desert his spiritual children, and
driven him from his home and friends to dwell among malicious enemies who scrutinized
every look and gesture, nay his very dress, and made them grounds of accusation.
He dwells with tender recollection on the home he had lost—his fireside, his table,
his pantry, his bed, his bench, his sackcloth—and contrasts it with the stifling
hole in which he was forced to dwell, of which the only furniture was straitness,
darkness, and cold. His only consolation is in the assurance that his brethren would
remember him in their prayers (Greg. Nys. Epp. 18, 22). His letters to Gregory
Nazianzen have unfortunately perished, but his deep despondency is shewn by the
replies. After his expulsion from his see his namesake wrote that, though denied
his wish to accompany him in his banishment, he went with him in spirit, and trusted
in God that the storm would soon blow over, and he get the better of all his enemies,
as a recompense for his strict orthodoxy (Greg. Naz. Ep. 142, t. i. p. 866).
Driven from place to place to avoid his enemies, he had compared himself to a stick
carried aimlessly
Gregory Nyssen was a very copious writer, and the greater part of his recorded works have been preserved. They may be divided into five classes: (1) Exegetical; (2) Dogmatical; (3) Ascetic; (4) Funeral Orations and Panegyrical Discourses; (5) Letters.
(1) Exegetical.—What exegesis of Holy Scripture he has left is of no high
value, his system of interpretation being almost entirely allegorical. To this class
belong his works on the Creation, written chiefly to supplement and defend
the great work of his brother Basil on the Hexaemeron. These include (i)
περὶ τῆς ἑξαημέρου, dedicated to his youngest
brother Peter, bp. of Sebaste. It is also called Apologeticus, as it contains
a defence of the actions of Moses and of some points in Basil's work. (ii) A treatise
on the creation of man, written as a supplement to Basil's treatise (vol. i. p.
45; Socr. H. E. iv. 26), the fundamental idea of which is the unity of the
human race—that humanity before God is to be considered as one man. It is called
by Suidas τεῦχος θαυμάσιον. (iii) Also two
homilies on the same subject (
(2) Dogmatical.—These are deservedly regarded as among the most important
patristic contributions towards a true view of the mystery of the Trinity, hardly,
if at all, inferior to the writings of Basil. (i) Chief, both in size and importance,
is his great work Against Eunomius, written after Basil's death, to refute
the reply of Eunomius to Basil's attack upon his teaching, and to vindicate his
brother from the calumnious charges of his adversary. (ii) Almost equally important
are the replies to Apollinaris, especially the Antirrheticus adversus Apollinarem.
These are not only valuable as giving the most weighty answer on the orthodox side
to this heresy, but their numerous extracts from Apollinarian writings are really
the chief sources of our acquaintance with those doctrines. The same subjects are
treated with great accuracy of thought and spiritual insight in (iii) Sermo Catecheticus
Magnus, a work in 40 chapters, containing a systematized course of theological
teaching for catechists, proving, for the benefit of those who did not accept the
authority of Holy Scripture, the harmony of the chief doctrines of the faith with
the instincts of the human heart. This work contains passages asserting the annihilation
of evil, the restitution of all things, and the final restoration of evil men and
evil
(3) The class of his Ascetical Writings is small. To it belong his early work de Virginitate; his Canonical Epistles to Letoius, bp. of Melitene, classifying sins, and the penances due to each; etc.
(4) The chief Funereal Orations are those on his brother Basil, on Meletius, on the empress Flaccilla, and on the young princess Pulcheria. We have also several panegyrical discourses and some homilies.
(5) The extant Epistles are not numerous. The chief are that to Flavian, complaining of contumelious treatment by Helladius, and the two on Pilgrimages to Jerusalem.
All previous edd. of his collected works trans. into Latin were greatly surpassed in elegance and accuracy by that of Paris, 1603, under the superintendence of Front du Duc. The first ed. of the Greek text with a Latin trans. appeared from Morel's press at Paris in 1615 in two vols. fol., also ed. by Du Duc. Other complete reprints, including his epistles and other additamenta, are by Galland (Bibl. Vet. Patr. t. vi.) and Migne (Patr. Gk. xliv.-xlvi.). A good critical ed. of his works is, however, much wanted. Such an ed. was commenced by Forbes and Oehler in 1855, but very little has appeared. In the Journ. of Theol. Stud., 1902, is an art. by J. H. Srawley on the text of the Orat. Cat., and in 1903 the same writer ed. it for the Camb. Univ. Texts. Another useful ed. of it was pub. in 1909 in Gk. and French by Meridier in Textes et Documents of Hemmer and Lejay. An Eng. trans. is in the Post-Nic. Fathers. The familiar letters published by Zacagni and Caraccioli are very helpful towards forming an estimate of Gregory's character. They shew us a man of great refinement, with a love for natural beauty and a lively appreciation of the picturesque; in scenery and of elegance in architecture. Of the latter art the detailed description given in his letter to Amphilochius (Ep. 25) of an octagonal "martyrium" surmounted by a conical spire, rising from a clerestory supported on eight columns, proves him to have possessed considerable technical knowledge. It is perhaps the clearest and most detailed description of an ecclesiastical building of the 4th cent. remaining to us. His letter to Adelphius (Ep. 20) furnishes a charming description of a country villa, and its groves and ornamental buildings. Cave, Hist. Lit. vol. i. pp. 244 sqq.; Ceillier, Auteurs ecclés. t. vii. pp. 320 sqq.; Oudin, I. diss. iv.; Schröckh, Kirchengesch. Bk. xiv. 1–147; Tillem. Mém. ecclés. t. ix.; Dupin, cent. iv.; Fabric. Bibl. Graec. t. ix. pp. 98 sqq.
Gregorius (16), bp. of Merida from c. 402; known to us only from the decretal of Innocent I. addressed ad universos episcopos in Tolosa (should be qui in Toleto congregati sunt). Innocent's letter (which Jaffé dates 404) is concerned partly with the schism of those bishops of Baetica and Carthaginensis who refused to acknowledge the authority of the council held at Toledo a.d. 400, which readmitted to communion the once Priscillianist bishops, Symphosius and Dictinius, and partly with certain irregularities in the manner of ordination then prevalent in Spain. The pope lays down that although, strictly speaking, the illegal ordinations already made ought to be cancelled, yet, for the sake of peace and to avoid tumults, what is past is to be condoned. The number of canonically invalid ordinations recently, made is, he says, so great that otherwise the existing confusion would be made worse instead of better. "How many have been admitted to the priesthood who, like Rufinus and Gregory, have after baptism practised in the law courts ? How many soldiers who, in obedience to authority, have been obliged to execute harsh orders (severa praecepta)? How many curiales who, in obedience also, have done whatever was commanded them? How many who have given amusements and spectacles to the people (voluptates et editiones populo celebrarunt) have become bishops?" (See Gams's comments on Can. 2 of council of Eliberi. ii. 1, 53.) "Quorum omnium neminem ne ad societatem quidem ordinis clericorum, oportuerat pervenire" (see Decret. cap. iv. Tejada y Ramiro; Col. de Can. ii.). In cap. v. we have the second mention of Gregory. "Let the complaint, if any, of Gregory, bp. of Merida, ordained in place of Patruinus [who presided at C. Tol. I.] be heard, and if he has suffered injury contra meritum suum, let those who are envious of another's office be punished, lest in future the spirit of faction should again inconvenience good men."
From these notices it appears that Gregory succeeded Patruinus in the metropolitan
see of Merida shortly after the council of Toledo in 400, that in his youth and
after baptism he had practised as an advocate; that his election to the bishopric
was therefore, strictly speaking, illegal, and that his appointment had met with
great opposition. Innocent's letter would naturally confirm him in his see and discredit
the party of opposition. It was probably during Gregory's pontificate that the irruption
of Vandals, Alani, and Suevi into Spain took place (in the autumn of 409, Idat.
ap. Esp. Sagr. iv. 353), and those scenes of
Gregorius (31) Theopolitanus, bp. of Antioch a.d. 569–594. In his earliest youth he devoted himself to a monastic life, and became so celebrated for his austerities that when scarcely past boyhood he was chosen superior of the Syrian laura of Pharon or Pharan (Moschus), called by Evagrius the monastery of the Byzantines. Sergius the Armenian in the monastery of the Eunuchs near the Jordan was earnestly importuned by Gregory to conduct him to his venerable master, another Sergius, dwelling by the Dead Sea. When the latter saw Gregory approach, he cordially saluted him, brought water, washed his feet, and conversed with him upon spiritual subjects the whole day. Sergius the disciple afterwards reminded his master that he had never treated other visitors, although some had been bishops and presbyters, as he had treated father Gregory. "Who father Gregory may be," the old man replied, "I know not; but this I know, I have entertained a patriarch in my cave, and I have seen him carry the sacred pallium and the Gospels" (Joann. Mosch. Prat. Spirit. c. 139, 140, in Patr. Lat. lxxiv. 189. From Pharan Gregory was summoned by Justin II. to preside over the monastery of Mount Sinai (Evagr. H. E. v. 6). On the expulsion of Anastasius, bp. of Antioch, by Justin in 569, Gregory was appointed his successor. Theophanes (Chron. a.d. 562, p. 206) makes his promotion take place from the Syrian monastery. His administration is highly praised by Evagrius, who ascribes to him almost every possible excellence. When Chosroes I. invaded the Roman territory, a.d. 572, Gregory, who was kept informed of the real state of affairs by his friend the bp. of Nisibis, then besieged by the Roman forces, vainly endeavoured to rouse the feeble emperor by representations of the successes of the Persian forces and the incompetence of the imperial commanders. An earthquake compelled Gregory to flee with the treasures of the church, and he had the mortification of seeing Antioch occupied by the troops of Adaormanes, the general of Chosroes (Evagr. H. E. v. 9). The latter years of his episcopate were clouded by extreme unpopularity and embittered by grave accusations (ib. c. 18). In the reign of Maurice, a.d. 588, a quarrel with Asterius, the popular Count of the East, again aroused the passions of the excitable Antiochenes against their bishop. He was openly reviled by the mob, and turned into ridicule on the stage. On the removal of Asterius, his successor, John, was commissioned by the emperor to inquire into the charges against Gregory, who proceeded to Constantinople, accompanied by Evagrius as his legal adviser, c. 589, and received a triumphal acquittal (ib. vi. 7). He returned to Antioch to witness its almost total destruction by earthquake, a.d. 589, barely escaping with his life (ib. c. 8). In the wide spread discontent of the imperial forces, the troops in Syria on the Persian frontier broke out into open mutiny. Gregory, who by his largesses had made himself very popular with the troops, was dispatched to bring them back to their allegiance. He was suffering severely from gout, and had to be conveyed in a litter, from which he addressed the army so eloquently that they at once consented to accept the emperor's nominee, Philippicus, as their commander. His harangue is preserved by his grateful friend Evagrius (ib. c. 11–13). Soon after, his diplomatic skill caused him to be selected by Maurice as an ambassador to the younger Chosroes, when compelled by his disasters to take refuge in the imperial territory, a.d. 590 or 591, and Gregory's advice was instrumental in the recovery of his throne, for which the grateful monarch sent him some gold and jewelled crosses and other valuable presents (ib. c. 18–21). In spite of his age and infirmities, Gregory conducted a visitation of the remoter portions of his patriarchate, which were much infected with the doctrines of Severus, and succeeded in bringing back whole tribes, as well as many separate villages and monasteries, into union with the catholic church (ib. c. 22). After this he paid a visit to Simeon Stylites the younger, who was suffering from a mortal disease (ib. c. 23). Soon after he appears to have resigned his see into the hands of the deposed patriarch Anastasius, who resumed his patriarchal authority in 594, in which year Gregory died (ib. c. 24). His extant works consist of a homily in Mulieres unguentiferas found in Galland and Migne (Patr. Gk. lxxxviii. p. 1847), and two sermons on the Baptism of Christ, which have been erroneously ascribed to Chrysostom. Evagrius (vi. 24) also attributes to Gregory a volume of historical collections, now lost. Fabric. Bibl. Graec. xi. 102; Cave, Hist. Lat. i. 534. Cf. Huidacher in Zeitschr. für Kathol. Theol. 1901, xxv. 367.
Gregorius (32) Turonensis, bp. of Tours (c. 573–594). His life we know chiefly from his own writings. The Vita per Odonem Abbatem, generally pub. with his works, is almost entirely based upon what he says of himself.
Gregory himself gives a list of his works. At the end of his History he says,
"Decem libros historiarum, septem miraculorum, unum de vitis Patrum scripsi: in
Psalterii tractatum librum unum commentatus sum: de cursibus etiam ecclesiasticis
unum librum condidi" (bk. x. 31, sub fin.). Of these all are extant except
the commentary on the Psalms, of which only fragments exist, collected in vol. iii.
of Bordier's ed. pp. 401 sqq. His History is in vol. ii. of Bouquet, and in the
collections of La Bigne, Duchesne, and Migne. There are valuable edd. by the Société
de l᾿Histoire de France, with French trans. and notes, viz. the Hist. eccl. des
Francs, edited by MM.
Georgius Florentius (subsequently called Gregorius, after his great-grandfather) was born Nov. 30, 538. Previous authorities have generally given the year 543, from the passage in the Vita which states that he was 30 years old at the time of his consecration, i.e. in 573.
Members of both parents' families had held high office in church and state. His paternal grandfather Georgius and his maternal great-grandfather Florentius (V. P. 8, 1) had been senators at Clermont. Gallus, son of Georgius and uncle of Gregory, was bp. of Auvergne; another uncle, Nicetius or Nizier, bp. of Lyons (H. v. 5; V. P. 8) ; another, Gundulf, had risen to ducal rank (H. vi. 11). Gregory, bp. of Langres, and originally count of Autun, was his great-grandfather, and all the previous bishops of Tours, except five, had been of his family (v. 50). It is with justifiable pride, therefore, that he asserts (V. P. 6) that none in Gaul could boast of purer and nobler blood than himself. His father appears to have died early, and Gregory received most of his education from his uncle Gallus, bp. of Auvergne. Being sick of a fever in his youth, he found relief by visiting the shrine of St. Illidius, the patron saint of Clermont. The fever returned, and Gregory's life was despaired of. Being again carried to St. Illidius's shrine, he vowed to dedicate himself to the ministry if he recovered, nor would he quit the shrine till his prayer was granted (V. P. 2, 2).
Armentaria, Gregory's mother, returned to Burgundy, her native country, and Gregory apparently lived with Avitus, at first archdeacon, afterwards bp. of Auvergne, who carried on his education, directing his pupil rather to the study of ecclesiastical than of secular works. Gregory looked upon Avitus as in the fullest sense his spiritual father. "It was his teaching and preaching that, next to the Psalms of David, led me to recognize that Jesus Christ the Son of God had come into the world to save sinners, and caused me to reverence and honour those as the friends and disciples of Christ who take up His cross and follow in His steps " (V. P. 2, Intro.). By Avitus he was ordained deacon, probably c. 563 (Monod. 29).
Of Gregory's life before he became bp. of Tours few details are known. He appears to have been well known at Tours (Mir. Mart. i. 32, Vita, c. ii.), for it was in consequence of the expressed wish of the whole people of Tours, clergy and laity, that Sigebert appointed him, in 573, to the see. He was consecrated by Egidius of Rheims. He was known to and favoured by Radegund the widow of Clotaire I., foundress of St. Cross at Poictiers, who, according to Fortunatus, helped to procure his election (Carm. v. 3).
The elevation of Gregory was contemporary with the renewed outbreak of civil war between Sigebert and Chilperic, the former of whom had inherited the Austrasian, the latter the Neustrian, possessions of their father Clotaire I. (d. 561). The possession of Touraine and Poitou was in some sort the occasion of the war, and these countries suffered from the ravages of both parties. Gregory's sympathies were naturally with Sigebert (Vita S. Greg. § 11), and the people of Tours were generally (H. iv. 50), though not unanimously (iv. 46), on the same side. Chilperic, according to Gregory, was even more cruel and regardless of human life than the other Merovingian princes; he was the "Nero and Herod of his age" (vi. 46); he not only plundered and burned throughout the country, but specially destroyed churches and monasteries, slew priests and monks, and paid no regard to the possessions of St. Martin (iv. 48). Tours remained under Chilperic till his death in 584, and some of the best traits in Gregory's character appear in his resistance to the murderous violence of the king and the truculent treachery of Fredegund. Thus he braved their wrath, and refused to surrender their rebellious son Meroveus (v. 14), and their enemy Guntram Boso who had defeated and killed Theodebert (v. 4), both of whom had taken sanctuary at the shrine of St. Martin; and Gregory alone of the bishops dared to rebuke Chilperic for his unjust conduct towards Praetextatus, and to protect Praetextatus from the vengeance of Fredegund (v. 19); and when Chilperic wanted to force on his people his views of the doctrine of the Trinity, Gregory withstood him. Chilperic recited to Gregory what he had written on the subject, saying, "I will that such shall be your belief and that of all the other doctors of the church." "Do not deceive yourself, my lord king," Gregory replied; "you must follow in this matter the teaching of the apostles and doctors of the church, the teaching of Hilary and Eusebius, the confession that you made at baptism." "It appears then," angrily exclaimed the king, " that Hilary and Eusebius are my declared enemies in this matter." "No," said Gregory; "neither God nor His saints are your enemies," and he proceeded to expound the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. Chilperic was very angry. "I shall set forth my ideas to those who are wiser than you, and they will approve of them." "Never," was the answer, "it would be no wise man, but a lunatic, that would adopt such views as yours" (v. 45).
Gregory had a persistent enemy in Leudastes, count of Tours (v. 49). When removed
from office because of his misdeeds, he endeavoured to take revenge on Gregory by
maligning him to the king, that he was going to deliver over the city to Childebert,
Sigebert's son, and finally that Gregory had spread a report of Fredegund's adultery.
Chilperic summoned a council of the bishops of the kingdom at Braine, near Soissons,
to investigate the charge, and it was found that the accusation rested solely on
the evidence of Leudastes and Riculfus. All agreed that the witness of an
During the wars that followed the death of Chilperic in 584, Touraine and Poitou desired to be subject to Childebert, Sigebert's son, i.e. to resume their allegiance to the Austrasian king, but were compelled to submit to Guntram, king of Orleans and Burgundy (vii. 12, 13), and under his power they remained till restored to Childebert by the treaty of Andelot in 587, in concluding which Gregory was one of Childebert's commissioners (iv. 20). Guntram died in 593. Childebert succeeded him as the treaty had provided, and the latest notice in Gregory's writings is the visit of Childebert to Orleans after Guntram's death (Mir. S. Martin, iv. 37). Gregory himself died Nov. 17, 594.
His activity was not confined to the general affairs of the kingdom. He was even more zealous for the welfare of his own and neighbouring dioceses. His later years were much occupied with the disturbances caused by Chrodieldis in the nunnery at Poictiers which had been founded by Gregory's friend St. Radegund. His first interference was ineffectual (ix. 39 sqq.), but the disturbance having increased, Guntram and Childebert appointed a joint commission of bishops to inquire into the matter. Gregory was one of Childebert's commissioners, but refused to enter upon the work until the civil disturbance had been actually repressed (x. 15, 16). He had a great deal of trouble also with another rebellious nun, Berthegunda (ix. 33, x. 12).
Gregory magnifies the sanctity and power of Tours's great patron St. Martin. He maintained the rights of sanctuary of the shrine in favour of the most powerful offenders, and in spite of the wrath of Chilperic and Fredegund (e.g. Meroveus, Guntram Boso, Ebrulfus, vii. 22, 29). He was a builder of churches in the city and see, and especially a rebuilder of the great church of St. Martin (x. 31). He did his best to arbitrate in and appease the bloody feuds of private or political partisanship (vii. 47) and was a rigorous and effectual defender of the exemption of the city from increased taxation (ix. 20). Evidently a man of unselfish earnestness and energy, he was popular with all in the city.
Gregory began to write first as bishop, his subject being the Miracles of St. Martin. Venantius Fortunatus in 576 alludes to the work, probably to the first two books, which, however, were not completed till 583, the third book not before 587, and the fourth was still incomplete at Gregory's death. The Gloria Martyrum was composed c. 585. Gregory wrote also the Gloria Confessorum (completed 588) and the Vitae Patrum, the latter being continued till the time of his death.
The History appears to have been written contemporaneously with the Miracles
of the Saints, most probably in several divisions and at different times. Giesebrecht,
who has carefully investigated the internal evidence, comes to the following conclusions.
The History was originally written at three separate periods, and falls into three
separate divisions. Bks. i.–iv. and the first half of bk. v. were probably composed
c. 577; from the middle of bk. v. to the end of the 37th chapter of bk. viii,
in 584 and 585; the remainder in 590 and 591. The last chapter of the last book
is an epilogue, separately composed; for the history as a history is unfinished.
Gregory would probably have carried it on at least to the death of Guntram in
Gregory begins his History with the Creation, and his first book consists largely
of extracts from Eusebius, Jerome, and Orosius (Hist. i. Prol. sub
fin. cc. 34, 37). In bk. ii., which treats of the Frankish conquests, he still owes
much to Orosius and to the Lives of the Saints, and quotes from Renatus Frigiderius
and Sulpicius Alexander (ii. 9), two 5th-cent. writers, whose works are not extant.
Thereafter he writes directly from oral tradition and authorities. Bks. iii. and
iv., dealing with events down to 575, are, compared with those which follow, meagre
and unchronologically arranged, giving prominence to events in Auvergne and Burgundy
(Monod, p. 102). From 575 the narrative becomes fuller and more systematic, the
intervals of
Gregory apologizes more than once for the rudeness of his style. But rough though this might be, he was far from lacking learning or culture such as his age could afford. Though ignorant of Greek, he had a fair acquaintance with Latin authors, quoting or referring to Livy, Pliny, Cicero, Aulus Gellius, etc. (Monod, 112). He does not attempt to make his History a consistent and well-balanced whole, nor to subordinate local to general interests. The fullness of his recital of particular events depends not upon intrinsic importance but upon the amount of information he has at command. So too he follows the dramatic method, putting speeches into the mouths of individuals which are the composition of the author. Even where he depends upon written authorities he is, in detail, untrustworthy. Where he can be compared with writers now extant, as in the first two books of the History, his inaccuracy is seen to be considerable. He transcribes carelessly, and often cites from memory, giving the substance of that which he has read, and that not correctly (see instances ap. Monod, pp. 80 sqq.). Little confidence can be placed in his narrative of events outside of Gaul, and the less the farther the scene of action is removed from Gaul. His sincerity and impartiality have been attacked on various grounds: that he unduly favours the church, or that he traduces the church in his accounts of the wickedness of the bishops of the time, or that he traduces the character of the Franks (Kries, de Gregorii Turonensis episcopi vita et scriptis, Breslau, 1859), whether from motives of race-jealousy or any other. Gregory looks upon history as a struggle of the church against unbelief in heathen and heretics and worldly-mindedness in professing Christians. Hence he begins his History with a confession of the orthodox faith. The epithet ecclesiastica applied to the History from Ruinart's time is a misnomer in the modern sense, for Gregory specially defends his method of mixing things secular and religious. With a man so passionate and impressionable as Gregory, the fact of his being a priest and the bishop of the see of St. Martin, the ecclesiastical and religious centre of Gaul, does influence his feelings and actions towards individuals. But ecclesiastical prejudices did not prevent him recording events as related to him. He shews no rancour in treating of the Frankish conquerors, such as would be natural in the victim of an oppressed nationality. After the first days of the conquest there was no political subjection of Roman to Teuton as such; Romans were not excluded from offices and dignities because of their birth (pp. 101–118).
Gregory's work remains, despite all, as the great and in many respects the only authority for the history of the 6th cent., and his fresh and simple, though not unbiassed, narrative is of the greatest value. He tells us exactly what the Franks were like, and what life in Gaul was like; and he gives us the evidence upon which his judgment is founded.
Gregorius (51) I. (The Great), bp. of Rome from Sept. 3, 590, to
On Feb. 8, 590, Pelagius II. died, Rome being then in great straits. The Lombards
were ravaging the country and threatening the city, aid being craved in vain from
the
After his accession he continued in heart a monk, surrounding himself with ecclesiastics instead of laymen, and living with them according to monastic rule. In accordance with this plan a synodal decree was made under him in 595, substituting clergy or monks for the boys and secular persons who had formerly waited on the pope in his chamber (Ep. iv. 44). Yet he rose at once to his new position. The church shared in the distress and disorganization of the time. The fires of controversy of the last two centuries still raged in the East. In Istria and Gaul the schism on the question of the Three Chapters continued; in Africa the Donatists once more became aggressive against the Catholics. Spain had but just, and as yet imperfectly, recovered from Arianism. In Gaul the church was oppressed under its barbarian rulers; in Italy, under the Arian Lombards, the clergy were infected with the demoralization of the day. The monastic system was suffering declension and was now notoriously corrupt. Literature and learning had almost died with Boëthius; and all these causes combined with temporal calamities led to a prevalent belief, which Gregory shared, that the end of all things was at hand. Nor was the position of the papacy encouraging to one who, like Gregory, took a high view of the prerogatives of St. Peter's chair. Since the recovery of Italy by Justinian (after the capture of Rome by Belisarius in 536) the popes had been far less independent than even under the Gothic kings. Justinian regarded the bishops of Rome as his creatures, to be appointed, summoned to court, and deposed at his pleasure, and subject to the commands of his exarch at Ravenna. No reigns of popes had been so inglorious as those of Gregory's immediate predecessors, Vigilius, Pelagius I., Benedict, and Pelagius II. He himself describes the Roman church as "like an old and violently shattered ship, admitting the waters on all sides, its timbers rotten, shaken by daily storms, and sounding of wreck" (Ep i.).
Gregory may be regarded, first, as a spiritual ruler; secondly, as a temporal administrator and potentate; lastly, as to his personal character and as a doctor of the church.
Immediately after his accession he sent, according to custom, a confession of his faith to the patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, in which he declared his reception of the first four general councils, as of the four gospels, and his condemnation of the Three Chapters—i.e. the writings of three deceased prelates, Theodorus, Theodoret, and Ibas, supposed to savour of heresy, and already condemned by Justinian and by the fifth council called oecumenical. The strong language in which he exalts the authority of the four councils as "the square stone on which rests the structure of the faith, the rule of every man's actions and life, which foundation whoever does not hold is out of the building," is significant of his views on the authority of the church at large, while his recognition of the four patriarchs as co-ordinate potentates, to whom he sends an account of his own faith, expresses one aspect of the relation to the Eastern churches which then satisfied the Roman pontiffs. He lost no time in taking measures for the restoration of discipline, the reform of abuses, the repression of heresy, and the establishment of the authority of the Roman see, both in his own metropolitan province and wherever his influence extended. That jurisdiction was threefold—episcopal, metropolitan, and patriarchal. As bishop he had the oversight of the city; as metropolitan of the seven suffragan, afterwards called cardinal, bishops of the Roman territory, i.e. of Ostia, Portus, Silva Candida, Sabina, Praeneste, Tusculum, and Albanum; while his patriarchate seems to have originally extended (according to Rufinus, H. E. i. [x.] 6) over the suburban provinces under the civil jurisdiction of the vicarius urbis, including Upper Italy, Sicily, Sardinia, and Corsica. But being the only patriarch in the West, he had in fact claimed and exercised jurisdiction beyond these original limits, including the three other vicariates into which the prefecture of Italy was politically divided: N. Italy, with its centre at Milan, W. Illyricum, with its capital at Sirmium, and W. Africa, with its capital at Carthage. Before his accession a still wider authority had been claimed and in part acknowledged. As bishops of the old imperial city, with an acknowledged primacy of honour among the patriarchs, still more as occupants of St. Peter's chair and conservators of his doctrine, and as such consulted and appealed to by various Western churches, the popes had come to exercise a more or less defined jurisdiction over them all. The power of sending judges to hear the appeals of condemned bishops, which had been accorded to pope Julius by the Western council of Sardica in 343, had been claimed by his successors as perpetually belonging to the Roman see and extended so as to involve the summoning of cases to be heard at Rome; and a law had been obtained by Leo I. from Valentinian (445) by which the pope was made supreme head of the whole Western church, with the power of summoning prelates from all provinces to abide his judgment. On the assumption of such authority Gregory acted, being determined to abate none of the rights claimed by his predecessors.
In the year of his accession (590) he endeavoured, though without result, to
bring over the Istrian bishops, who still refused to condemn the Three Chapters.
With this view
In 591 his orthodox zeal was directed with more success against the African Donatists. It was the custom in Numidia for the senior bishop, whether Donatist or Catholic, to exercise metropolitan authority over the other bishops. Such senior now happened to be a Donatist, and he assumed the customary authority. Gregory wrote to the Catholic bishops of Numidia, and to Gennadius, exarch of Africa, urging them to resist such a claim (Ep. i. 74, 75), and the Donatist bishop was deposed, but the sect continued in Africa as long as Christianity did. This is not the only instance of Gregory, like others of his age, not being averse to persecution as a means of conversion. In Sicily he enjoined rigorous measures (summopere persequi) for the recovery of the Manicheans to the church (Ep. iv. 6); there, and in Corsica, Sardinia, and Campania, the heathen peasants and slaves on the papal estates were by his order compelled to conform, not only by exactions on such as refused, but also by the imprisonment of freemen, and the corporal castigation (verberibus et cruciatibus) of slaves (Ep. iii. 26; vii. ind. ii. 67), and in France he exhorted queen Brunichild to similar measures of coercion (Ep. vii. 5). On the other hand, there are three letters of his, written in the same year as those about the African Donatists, which evince a spirit of unusual toleration towards Jews. They are addressed to three bishops, Peter of Tarracina, Virgilius of Arles, and Theodorus of Marseilles. The first had driven the Jews from their synagogues, and the last two had converted a number by offering them the choice of baptism or exile. Gregory strongly condemns such proceedings, "because conversions wrought by force are never sincere, and those thus converted seldom fail to return to their vomit when the force is removed." (Ep. i. 34, i. 45; cf. Ep. vii. ind. i. 26, vii. ind. ii. 5, vii. 2, 59.) Yet he had no objection to luring them into the fold by the prospect of advantage, for in a letter to a deacon Cyprian, who was steward of the papal patrimony in Sicily, he directs him to offer the Jews a remission of one-third of the taxes due to the Roman church if they became Christians, saying, in justification, that though such conversions might be insincere, their children would be brought up in the bosom of the church (Ep. iv. 6, cf. Ep. xii. 30). In such apparent inconsistencies we may see his good sense and Christian benevolence in conflict with the impulses of zeal and the notions of his age.
Gregory was no less active in reforming the church itself. Great laxity was prevalent among the monks, of which the life of Benedict, the founder of the Benedictine order, affords ample evidence. Several of Gregory's letters are addressed to monks who had left their monasteries for the world and marriage. He issued the following regulations for the restoration of monastic discipline: no monk should be received under 18 years of age, nor any husband without his wife's consent (in one case he orders a husband who had entered a monastery to be restored to his wife [Ep. ix. 44]); two years of probation should always be required, and three in the case of soldiers; a professed monk leaving his order should be immured for life; no monk, though an abbat, should leave the precincts of his monastery, except on urgent occasions; under no pretext should any monk leave his monastery alone, on the ground that "Qui sine teste ambulat non rectè vivit." He provided for the more complete separation of the monastic and clerical orders, forbidding any monk to remain in his monastery after ordination, and any priest to enter a monastery except to exercise clerical functions, or to become a monk without giving up his clerical office; and further exempting some monasteries from the jurisdiction of bishops. This last important provision was extended to all monasteries by the Lateran synod, held under him in 601.
He was no less zealous in his correction of the clergy. Several bishops under his immediate metropolitan jurisdiction and elsewhere he rebuked or deposed for incontinency and other crimes. His own nuncio at Constantinople, Laurentius the archdeacon, he recalled and deposed. From the clergy generally he required strict chastity, forbidding them to retain in their houses any women but their mothers, sisters, or wives married before ordination, and with these last prohibiting conjugal intercourse (Ep. i. 50, ix. 64). Bishops he recommends to imitate St. Augustine in banishing from their houses even such female relatives as the canons allow (Ep. vii. ind. ii. 39; xi. 42, 43). In Sicily the obligation to celibacy had, in 588, been extended to subdeacons. This rule he upheld by directing the bishops to require a vow of celibacy from all who should in future be ordained subdeacons, but acknowledging its hardship on such as had made no such vow on their ordination, he contented himself with forbidding the advancement to the diaconate of existing subdeacons who had continued conjugal intercourse after the introduction of the rule (Ep. i. ind. ix. 42).
He also set himself resolutely against the prevalent simony, forbidding all bishops and clergy to exact or accept fee or reward for the functions of their office; and he set the example himself by refusing the annual presents which it had been customary for the bishops of Rome to receive from their suffragans, or payment for the pallium sent to metropolitans, which payment was forbidden to all future popes by a Roman synod in 595.
In 592 began a struggle in reference to discipline with certain bishops of Thessaly
and Dalmatia, in the province of Illyricum. Hadrianus of Thebes had been deposed
by a provincial synod under his metropolitan the bp. of Larissa, and the sentence
had been confirmed by John of Justiniana Prima, the primate of Illyricum. The deposed
prelate appealed to Gregory, who, after examining the whole case, ordered the primate
to reinstate Hadrianus (Ep. ii. ind. xi. 6, 7). He also ordered Natalis,
bp. of Salona in Dalmatia and metropolitan, under pain of excommunication,
Over the church in Ireland, then bound by no close tie of allegiance to the see of Rome, he endeavoured to extend his influence, writing in 592 a long letter to the bishops.
Not content with thus influencing, consolidating, and reforming the existing churches throughout the West, he was also a zealous missionary, and as such the founder of our English, as distinct from the more ancient British, Christianity. [AUGUSTINE.]
Of his relations with Constantinople and the Eastern church, the year 593 affords
the first example. Having heard of two presbyters, John of Chalcedon and Anastasius
of Isauria, being beaten with cudgels, after conviction on a charge of heresy, under
John the Faster, then patriarch of Constantinople, Gregory wrote twice to the patriarch,
remonstrating with him for introducing a new and uncanonical punishment, exhorting
him to restore the two presbyters or to judge them canonically, and expressing his
own readiness to receive them at Rome. Notwithstanding the patriarch's protest,
the presbyters thereupon withdrew to Rome and were received and absolved by Gregory
after examination (Ep. ii. 52, v. 64). In other letters we find him saying,
"With respect to the Constantinopolitan church, who doubts that it is subject to
the apostolical see?" and "I know not what bishop is not subject to it, if fault
is found in him" (Ep. vii. ind. ii. 64, 65). But the most memorable incidents
in this connexion are his remonstrances against the assumption by John the Faster
of the title of oecumenical or universal bishop. They began in 595, being provoked
by the repeated occurrence of the title in a judgment against an heretical presbyter
which had been sent to Rome. The title was not new. Patriarchs had been so styled
by the emperors Leo and Justinian, and it had been confirmed to John the Faster
and his successors by a general Eastern synod at Constantinople in 588, pope Pelagius
protesting against it. Gregory now wrote to Sabinianus, his apocrisiarius at Constantinople,
desiring him to use his utmost endeavours with the patriarch, the emperor, and the
empress, to procure the renunciation of the title; and when this failed, he himself
wrote to all these in peculiarly strong language. The title he called foolish, proud,
pestiferous, profane, wicked, a diabolical usurpation; the ambition of any who assumed
it was like that of Lucifer, and its assumption a sign of the approach of the king
of pride, i.e. Antichrist. His arguments are such as to preclude himself
as well as others from assuming the title, though he implies that if any could claim
it it would be St. Peter's successors. Peter, he says, was the first of the apostles,
yet neither he nor any of the others would assume the title universal, being all
members of the church under one head, Christ. He also states (probably in error)
that the title had been offered to the bp. of Rome at the council of Chalcedon,
and refused. Failing entirely to make an impression at Constantinople, he addressed
himself to the Eastern patriarchs. He wrote to Eulogius of Alexandria and Anastasius
of Antioch, representing the purpose of their
As a temporal administrator and potentate Gregory evinced equally great vigour, ability, and zeal, guided by address and judgment. The see of Rome had large possessions, constituting what was called the patrimony of St. Peter, in Italy, Sardinia, and Corsica, and also in more remote parts, e.g. Dalmatia, Illyricum, Gaul, and even Africa and the East. Over these estates Gregory exercised a vigilant superintendence by means of officers called "rectores patrimonii" and "defensores," to whom his letters remain, prescribing minute regulations for the management of the lands, and guarding especially against any oppression of the peasants. The revenues accruing to the see, thus carefully secured, though with every possible regard to humanity and justice, were expended according to the fourfold division then prevalent in the West—viz. in equal parts for the bishop, the clergy, the fabric and services of the church, and the poor. This distribution, publicly made four times a year, Gregory personally superintended. His own charities were immense, a large portion of the population of Rome being dependent on them: every day, before his own meal, a portion was sent to the poor at his door; the sick and infirm in every street were sought out; and a large volume was kept containing the names, ages, and dwellings of the objects of his bounty.
A field for the exercise of his political abilities was afforded by his position as virtual ruler of Rome at that critical time. His letters and homilies gave a lamentable account of the miseries of the country, and he endeavoured to conclude a peace between Agilulph, the Lombard king, who was himself disposed to come to terms, and the exarch Romanus. These endeavours were frustrated by the opposition of Romanus, who represented Gregory to the emperor as having been overreached by the crafty enemy. The emperor believed his exarch, and wrote to Gregory in condemnation of his conduct. In vain did Gregory remonstrate in letters both to the emperor and to the empress Constantina, complaining to the latter not so much of the ravages of the Lombards as of the cruelty and exactions of the imperial officers; but though small success crowned his efforts, whatever mitigation of distress was accomplished was due to him.
In 601 an event occurred which shews Gregory in a less favourable light, with
respect to his relations to the powers of the world than anything else during his
career. Phocas, a centurion, was made emperor by the army.
Gregory lived only 16 months after the accession of Phocas, dying after protracted
suffering from gout on
Immediately after his death a famine occurred, which the starving multitude attributed to his prodigal expenditure, and his library was only saved from destruction by the interposition of the archdeacon Peter.
The pontificate of Gregory the Great is rightly regarded as second to none in its influence on the future form of Western Christianity. He lived in the period of transition from Christendom under imperial rule to the medieval papacy, and he laid or consolidated the foundation of the latter. He advanced, indeed, no claims to authority beyond what had been asserted by his predecessors; yet the consistency, firmness, conscientious zeal, as well as address and judgment, with which he maintained it, and the waning of the power of the Eastern empire, left him virtual ruler of Rome and the sole power to whom the Western church turned for support, and whom the Christianized barbarians, founders of the new kingdom of Europe, regarded with reverence. Thus he paved the way for the system of papal absolutism that culminated under Gregory VII. and Innocent III.
As a writer he was intellectually eminent; and deserves his place among the doctors of the church, though his learning and mental attitude were those of his age. As a critic, an expositor, an original thinker, he may not stand high; he knew neither Greek nor Hebrew, and had no deep acquaintance with the Christian Fathers; literature for its own sake he set little store by; classical literature, as being heathen, he repudiated. Yet as a clear and powerful exponent of the received orthodox doctrine, especially in its practical aspect, as well as of the system of hagiology, demonology, and monastic asceticism, which then formed part of the religion of Christendom, he spoke with a loud and influential voice to many ages after his own, and contributed more than any one person to fix the form and tone of medieval religious thought.
He was also influential as a preacher, and no less famous for his influence on the music and liturgy of the church; whence he is called "magister caeremoniarum." To cultivate church singing he instituted a song-school in Rome, called Orphanotrophium, the name of which implies also a charitable purpose. Of it, John the deacon, after speaking of the cento of antiphons which Gregory had carefully compiled, says: "He founded a school of singers, endowed it with some farms, and built for it two habitations, one under the steps of the basilica of St. Peter the Apostle, the other under the houses of the Lateran Palace. There to the present day his couch on which he used to recline when singing, and his whip with which he menaced the boys, together with his original antiphonary, are preserved with fitting reverence" (Vit. Greg. ii. 6). It is generally alleged that, whereas St. Ambrose had in the latter part of the 4th cent. introduced at Milan the four authentic modes or scales, called, after those of the ancient Greek music, Dorian, Phrygian, Lydian, Mixo-Lydian, St. Gregory added to them the four plagal, or subsidiary, modes called Hypo-Dorian, Hypo-Phrygian, Hypo-Lydian, and Hypo-Mixo-Lydian, thus enlarging the allowed range of ecclesiastical melody.
His Septiform litany was so called from being appointed by him to be sung by the inhabitants of Rome divided into seven companies, viz. of clergy, laymen, monks, virgins, matrons, widows, and of poor people and children. These, starting from 7 different churches, were to chant through the streets of Rome, and meet for common supplication in the church of the Blessed Virgin. He also appointed "the stations"—churches at which were to be held solemn services in Lent and at the four great festivals; visiting the churches in person, and being received with stately ceremonial.
His extant works of undoubted genuineness are: (1) Expositio in beatum Job,
seu Moralium lib. xxxv. In this celebrated work (begun at Constantinople before
he was pope and finished afterwards) "the book of Job is expounded in a threefold
manner, according to its historic, its moral, and its allegorical meaning. The moral
interpretation may still be read with profit, though rather for the loftiness and
purity of its tone than for the justness of the exposition." As to the allegorical
interpretation, "names of persons, numbers, words, even syllables, are made pregnant
with all kinds of mysterious meanings" (Milman, Hist. of Latin Christianity).
(2) Libri duo in Exechielem: viz. 22 homilies on Ezekiel, delivered at Rome
during its siege by Agilulph. (3) Libri duo in Evangelia: viz. 40 homilies
on the gospels for the day, preached at various times. (4) Liber Regulae Pastoralis,
in 4 parts; a treatise on the pastoral office, addressed to a bp. John to explain
and justify the writer's former reluctance to undertake the burden of the popedom.
This work was long held in the highest esteem. Leander of Seville circulated it
in Spain; the emperor Mauricius had it translated into Greek; Alfred the Great translated
it into English; a succession of synods in Gaul enjoined a knowledge of it on all
bishops; and Hincmar, archbp. of Rheims in the 9th cent.,
Of the following works attributed to Gregory, the genuineness is doubtful: (1) Liber Benedictionum; (2) Liber Responsalis seu Antiphonarius; (3) Expositiones in librum I. Regum; (4) Expositiones super Canticum Canticorum; (5) Expositio in vii. Pss. Paenitentiales; (6) Concordia quorundam testimoniorum sacrae Scripturae. There are also 9 hymns attributed to him with probability.
Of his personal appearance an idea may be formed from a description given by John the deacon of a portrait preserved to his own day (9th cent.) in St. Andrew's monastery, "in absidicula post fratrum cellarium"; which he concludes to have been painted during the pope's life and by his order. That this was the case is inferred from the head being surmounted, not by a corona, but by a tabula ("tabulae similitudinem"), which John says is the mark of a living person, and by the appended inscription:
The figure is of ordinary size, and well formed; the face "most becomingly prolonged with a certain rotundity"; the beard of moderate size and somewhat tawny; in the middle of his otherwise bald forehead are two neat little curls twisting towards the right; the crown of the head is round and large; dark hair, decently curled, hangs under the middle of the ear; he has a fine forehead; his eyebrows are long and elevated, but slender; the pupils of the eyes are of a yellow tinge, not large, but open, and the under-eyelids are full; the nose is slender as it curves down from the eyebrows, broader about the middle, then slightly curved, and expanding at the nostrils; the mouth is ruddy; the lips thick and subdivided; the cheeks regular ("compositae"); the chin rather prominent from the confines of the jaws; the complexion was "aquilinus et lividus" (al. "vividus"), not "cardiacus," as it became afterwards, i.e. he had in the picture a dark but fresh complexion, though in later life it acquired an unhealthy hue. (See Du Cange for the probable meaning of the words.) His countenance is mild; his hands good, with taper fingers, well adapted for writing. The dress he wears is of interest—a chestnut-coloured planeta over a dalmatica, which is precisely the same dress as that in which his father is depicted, and therefore not then a peculiarly sacerdotal costume. [GORDIANUS.] He is distinguished from his father by the pallium, the then form and mode of wearing which are intimated by the description. It is brought from the left shoulder so as to hang carelessly under the breast, and, passing over the right shoulder, is deposited behind the back, the other end being carried straight behind the neck also to the right shoulder, from which it hangs down the side. In the left hand is a book of the Gospels; the right is in the attitude of making the sign of the cross (Joann. Diac. in Vit. Greg. 1. 4, c. 83). John describes also his pallium, woven of white linen and with no marks of the needle in it; his phylactery (or case for relics), of thin silver, and hung from the neck by crimson cloth, and his belt ("baltheus"), only a thumb's breadth wide—which, he says, were preserved and venerated on the saint's anniversary, and which he refers to as shewing the monastic simplicity of Gregory's attire (ib. c. 8).
Our chief authorities for the Life of Gregory are his own writings, especially
his letters, of which a trans. (Selecta Epp.) is in Lib. of Post.-Nic.
Fathers. Among ancient writers Gregory of Tours (his contemporary), Bede, Paul
Warnefried (730), Ado Trevirensis (1070), Simeon Metaphrastes (1300), Isidorus Hispalensis,
have detailed notices of him.
Gundobald, 4th king of the Burgundians (Greg. Tur. Hist. Franc. ii. 28). The kingdom of the Burgundians, which extended from the Vosges to the Durance and from the Alps to the Loire, was divided between Gundobald and his surviving brother Godegiselus, the former having Lyons for his capital, the latter Geneva (Greg. Tur. Hist. Franc. ii. 32; Ennodius, Vita S. Epiphanii, 50–54; Boll. Jan. ii. 374–375; cf. Mascou, Hist. of the Ancient Germans, xi. 10, 31, and Annotation iv.). In 500 Clovis, who had married Gundobald's niece, defeated Gundobald at Dijon, with the aid of Godegiselus who fought against his brother, and imposed a tribute. But on Clovis's departure he renounced his allegiance, and besieged and killed his brother, who had triumphantly entered Vienne. Henceforth till his death he ruled the whole Burgundian territory (Marius Avent. Chron., Migne, Patr. Lat. lxxii. 795, 796; Greg. Tur. ii. 32, 33; Epitomata, xxii.-xxiv.; Richter, Annalen, 37, 38). About this time was held under his presidency at Lyons a conference between the Catholics, led by Avitus, and the Arians, led by Boniface. According to the Catholic account of it which survives, the heretics were utterly confounded. The narrative is in the Spicilegium, iii. 304 (Paris, 1723), Mansi, viii. 242, and excerpta from it in Patr. Lat. lxxi. 1154. Gundobald died in 516, leaving his son, the Catholic Sigismund, as his successor.
In spite of the unfavourable testimony of Catholic writers, there are many indications that Gundobald was for his time an enlightened and humane king. The wisdom and equity of his government are evidenced by the Loi Gombette, the Burgundian code, called after him, which, though probably not taking its present shape entirely till his son's reign, was enacted by him. Its provisions in favour of the Roman, or old Gallic inhabitants, whom in most respects it put on an equality with the conquerors, entitles it to be called the best barbarian code which had yet appeared (Greg. Tur. ii. 33; Hist. lit. de la France, iii. 83 sqq.; L᾿Art de vérifier les dates, x. 365, Paris, 1818). For the code see Bouquet, iv. 257 seq., and Pertz, Leges, iii. 497 seq.
Though he professed Arianism, Gundobald did not persecute, but secured the Catholics
in the possession of their endowments, as Avitus testifies (Ep. xxxix.
Patr. Lat. lix. 256). The circumstances relied on by Revillout (De l᾿Arianisme
des peoples germaniques, 180, 181), who takes the opposite view, are trivial,
compared with the testimony of Avitus and the silence of Gregory. Gundobald's whole
correspondence with Avitus and the conference of Lyons demonstrate the interest
he took in religious subjects and his tolerance of orthodoxy. Several of the bishop's
letters survive, answering inquiries on various points of doctrine, e.g.
the Eutychian heresy (Epp. 3 and 4), repentance in articulo mortis,
and justification by faith or works (Ep. 5). One only of Gundobald's remains
(Ep. 19), asking an explanation of
Guntramnus (2) (Guntchramnus, Gunthrannus, Gontran), St., king
of Burgundy, son of Clotaire I. and Ingundis (Greg. Tur. Hist. Franc. iv.
3). Upon his father's death in 561, the kingdom was divided by lot between the
three sons. Guntram had the kingdom of Burgundy, which then extended from the
Vosges to the Durance, and from the Alps to the Loire. Orleans was his nominal
capital, but his ordinary residence was at Châlon-sur-Saône (iv. 21, 22). His
pacific and unenterprising disposition made his reign uneventful. He died in 593
in the 33rd year of his reign, on
Though the church has canonized Guntram, it is perhaps doubtful whether his virtues
would stand out brightly on any other background than the utter darkness of Merovingian
times. His chief merit seems to have been the avoidance of the terrible excesses
which characterized some of his family, and this was perhaps as much due to the
feebleness of his nature as to any positive inclination towards well-doing. Even
his clerical eulogists admit that as regards women his morals were by no means scrupulous
(Aimoin, iii. 3, Patr. Lat. cxxxix. 693). When provocation or panic was absent
he was mild, and even merciful, but on occasion he readily committed the barbarities
of his age. The merest suspicion or accusation connected with his personal safety
sufficed to throw him into a panic, when torture was freely applied to obtain confessions.
Assassination was the haunting fear of his life, and he always wore arms and continually
strengthened the escort which attended him everywhere, except in church (vii. 8,
18, viii. 11, 44). His apprehension at times was almost comic. Gregory tells us
that one Sunday at church in Paris, when the deacon had enjoined silence for the
mass, Guntram turned to the people and said, "I beseech you, men and women who are
present, do not break your
On the other hand, mere abstinence from wanton wrong-doing and aggression must be counted for a virtue in his family and age. For the crowning evil of the time, the incessant civil wars which devastated France, he was in no way responsible. Though frequently in combat, it was always to repel the aggression of others, except in his Gothic wars, which he probably regarded as crusades against heretics. The profuse almsgiving which he practised (e.g. vii. 40) shewed a real, if mistaken, desire for the good of his subjects.
But it was his warm friendship to the church and clergy which procured him the
rank of a saint. St. Benignus of Dijon, St. Symphorian of Autun, and St. Marcellus
of Châlon-sur-Saône were founded or enriched by him, and in the last he established
and provided for perpetual psalmody after the model of St. Sigismund's foundation
at St. Maurice (Fredegar. Chron. xv.; Aimoin, Hist. Franc. iii. 81,
Patr. Lat. cxxxix. 751). Bishops were his constant advisers, and his favourite
solution of all complications was an episcopal council (Greg. Tur. v. 28; vii. 16;
viii. 13, 20, 27). He commended himself to them also by his respect for church ceremonies
and his frequent and regular attendance at religious services, and especially by
his freedom and condescension in eating, drinking, and conversing with them (vii.
29; viii. 1–7, 9, 10; ix. 3, 20, 21; x. 28). Gregory says, "You would have thought
him a priest as well as a king" (ix. 21). "With priests he was like a priest," says
Fredegarius (Chron. i.), and "he shewed himself humble to the priests of
Christ," says Aimoin (u.s.). Chilperic once intercepted the letter of a bishop,
in which it was written that the transition from Guntram's sway to his was like
passing from paradise to hell (Greg. Tur. vi. 22). In estimating Guntram's character,
therefore, we must always remember that our information comes from this favoured
class. Especially does this apply to Gregory of Tours, who was on very friendly
terms with him (viii. 2–7, 13; ix. 20, 21), and who ascribes miracles to his sanctity
during his lifetime (ix. 21; cf. too Paulus Diaconus, de Gest. Langob. iii.
33, Migne, Patr. Lat. xcv. 535, and Aimoin. iii. 3, Patr. Lat. cxxxix.
693). There is extant an edict of Guntram addressed to the bishops and judges commanding
the observance of the Sabbath and holy days, in conformity with the canon of the
2nd council of Mâcon. It is dated Nov. 10, 585, and is in Mansi, ix. 962, and Boll.
Acta SS.
H
Habibus (2) (Abibus), deacon, martyr at Edessa in the reign of Licinius; mentioned in the Basilian Menologium, Nov. 15, with the martyrs Gurias and Samonas, in whose tomb he was laid; at Dec. 2 he has a separate notice. Simeon Metaphrastes in his lengthened account of those two martyrs (the Lat. in Surius, de Prob. Hist. SS. Nov. 15, p. 342, the Lat. and Gk. in Patr. Gk. cxvi. 141) similarly embodies the history of Habib. Assemani notices him in his Bibl. Orient. (i. 330, 331) from Metaphrastes, but not in his Acta Martyrum. The original Syriac account of Habib which Metaphrastes abridged has been discovered, and was ed. in 1864 by Dr. Wright with a trans. by Dr. Cureton (Ancient Syriac Documents, p. 72, notes p. 187). The Syrian author, whose name was Theophilus, professes to have been an eyewitness of the martyrdom (which he places on Sept. 2) and a convert. The ancient Syrian Martyrology, another discovery trans. by Dr. Wright (Journ. Sac. Lit. 1866, p. 429), likewise commemorates Habib on Sept. 2. Theophilus says that in the month Ab (i.e. Aug.) in the year 620 of the kingdom of Alexander of Macedon, in the consulate of Licinius and Constantine, in the days of Conon, bp. of Edessa, the emperor commanded the altars of the gods to be everywhere repaired, sacrifices and libations offered and incense burnt to Jupiter. Habib, a deacon of the village of Telzeha, went privately among the churches and villages encouraging the Christians not to comply. The Christians were more numerous than their persecutors, and word reached Edessa that even Constantine "in Gaul and Spain" had become Christian and did not sacrifice. Habib's proceedings were reported to Licinius, who sentenced him to die by fire. When this news reached Edessa, Habib was some 50 miles off at Zeugma, secretly encouraging the Christians there, and his family and friends at Telzeha were arrested. Hereupon, Habib went to Edessa and presented himself privately to Theotecnus, the head of the governor's household. This official desired to save Habib and pressed him to depart secretly, assuring him that his friends would soon be released. Habib, believing that cowardice would endanger his eternal salvation, persisted in surrender, and was led before the governor. On refusing to sacrifice, he was imprisoned, tortured, and then burned, after he had at great length uncompromisingly exposed the sin and folly of idolatry. The day of his imprisonment was the emperor's festival, and on the 2nd of Ilul (Sept.) he suffered. His dying prayer was, "O king Christ, for Thine is this world and Thine is the world to come, behold and see that while I might have been able to flee from these afflictions I did not flee, in order that I might not fall into the hands of Thy justice. Let therefore this fire in which I am to be burned be for a recompense before Thee, so that I may be delivered from that fire which is not quenched; and receive Thou my spirit into Thy presence through the Spirit of Thy Godhead, O glorious Son of the adorable Father."
The year is given by Baronius, who had only Metaphrastes to guide him, as
a.d. 316 (A. E. ann. 316, xlviii.).
Assemani (Bibl. Or. i. 331) with the same materials decides for 323. The
details of Theophilus might seem to settle the
Hadrianus (1), Publius Aelius, emperor 117–137. Born in 76, and placed,
at the age of ten, on his father's death, under the guardianship of his cousin,
Ulpius Trajanus, afterwards emperor, Hadrian was in his youth a diligent student
of Greek literature, and entered on his career as military tribune in Lower Moesia
in 95. On the death of Nerva in 97, Trajan became emperor, and Hadrian, on whom
he bestowed such favours that men looked for a formal adoption, served in the
wars with the Dacians, Pannonians, Sarmatians, and Parthians. During the campaign
against the last-named, Trajan, leaving Hadrian in command of the army and of
the province of Syria, started for Rome, but died at Selinus in Cilicia in 117.
Hadrian had himself proclaimed emperor by the army, communicated the election
to the senate, and received their formal sanction. His external policy was marked
by the abandonment of any idea of extending the eastern frontier of the empire
beyond the Euphrates. Having gained popular favour by gladiatorial games, large
donations, and the remission of arrears of taxes, Hadrian devoted himself for
several years from 120 to a personal inspection of the provinces. In 120–121 he
visited Gaul, Germany, and Britain, erecting fortresses and strengthening the
frontier defences, of which an example is his Roman wall from the Solway to the
mouth of the Tyne. We may find traces, perhaps, of the eclectic tendency of his
mind in the altars dedicated to Mithras and to an otherwise unknown goddess named
Coventina or Conventina, found near the wall not far from Hexham.
In his general treatment of Christians, Hadrian followed in the footsteps of
Trajan. The more cultivated members of the church felt that in addressing the tolerant,
eclectic emperor, "curiositatum omnium explorator," as Tertullian calls him (Apol.
c. 5), they had a chance of a favourable hearing, and the age of apologists began.
QUADRATUS presented his
Apologia, laying stress on the publicity of the works of Christ, and appealing to
still surviving eye-witnesses. ARISTIDES
addressed to the emperor (a.d. 133)
a treatise, extant and admired in the time of Jerome, in defence of the Christians,
and was said even to have been admitted to a personal hearing. Early in his reign,
but probably a little later, an Asiatic official of high character, Serenius Granianus,
applied to Hadrian for instructions
shew a like dilettanteism in him to the last.
A reign like that of Hadrian naturally, on the whole, favoured the growth of the church. The popular cry, "Christianos ad loenes," was hushed. Apologetic literature was an appeal to the intellect and judgment of mankind. The frivolous eclecticism of the emperor and yet more his deification of Antinous were enough to shake the allegiance of serious minds to the older system. Tolerance was, however, equally favourable to the growth of heresy; and to this reign we trace the rise and growth of the chief Gnostic sects of the 2nd cent., the followers of SATURNINUS in Syria, of BASILIDES, CARPOCRATES, and VALENTINUS in Egypt, of MARCION in Pontus (Eus. H. E. iv. 7, 8). Cf., besides the authorities cited, Gibbon, Decline and Fall, c. iii.; Milman, Hist. of Christ. bk. ii. c. vi.; Lardner, Jewish and Heathen Testimonies; c. xi.
Hecebolius or Hecebolus, a rhetor at Constantinople in the reign
of Constantius, who professed himself a "fervent" Christian, and was therefore
selected by that emperor as one of the teachers of Julian (Socr. iii. 1, 13).
After the death of Constantius, however, Hecebolius followed the example of his
former pupil and became a "fierce pagan" (γοργὸς
Ἕλλην; Socr. u.s. 13). He was in great favour with Julian, and appears
to have been one of his familiar correspondents (Julian, Ep. 19, ed. Heyler,
p. 23; Ἑκηβὸλῳ), and seems to have had some
civil office at Edessa. The Arians of that city, "in the insolence of wealth,"
had violently attacked the Valentinians. Julian wrote to Hecebolius to say that,
"since they had done what could not be allowed in any well-governed city," "in
order to help the men the more easily to enter the kingdom of heaven as it was
prescribed" by their "most wonderful law, he had commanded all moneys to be taken
away from the church of the Edessenes, that they might be distributed among the
soldiers, and that its property should be confiscated to his private treasury;
that being poor they might become wise and not lose the kingdom of heaven which
they hoped for" (Julian, Ep. 43, ed. Heyler, p. 82; Baron. s.a.
362, xiii.; Soz. vi. 1). Such appropriation of church property was one of the
crimes of which Julian was accused after his death (Greg. Naz. adv. Jul. Orat.
iii.). The emperor adds that he had charged the inhabitants of Edessa to abstain
from "riot and strife," lest "they themselves" should suffer "the sword, exile,
and fire." The last sentence in the letter appears to intimate that he would hold
Hecebolius personally responsible for the future good conduct of the city. After
the death of Julian and the reversal of the imperial policy, Hecebolius ostentatiously
professed extreme penitence for his apostasy and prostrated himself at the church
door, crying to all that entered, "Trample upon me—the salt that has lost its
savour" (Socr. iii. 13; Baron. u.s. =
Hedibia (EDIBIA), a lady
in Gaul, who corresponded with St. Jerome (then at Bethlehem) c. 405. She
was descended from the Druids, and held the hereditary office of priests of Belen
(= Apollo) at Bayeux. Her grandfather and father (if majores is to be taken
strictly) Patera and Delphidius (the names being in each case derived from their
office) were remarkable men. Of Patera, Jerome says in his Chronicle, under
a.d. 339, "Patera rhetor Romae gloriosissime
docet."
Hegesippus (1), commonly known as the father of church history, although his works, except a few fragments which will be found in Routh (Rel. Sacr. i. pp. 207–219) and in Grabe (Spicil. ii. 203–214), have perished. Nothing positive is known of his birth or early circumstances. From his use of the Gospel according to the Hebrews, written in the Syro-Chaldaic language of Palestine, his insertion in his history of words in the Hebrew dialect, and his mention of unwritten traditions of the Jews, Eusebius infers that he was a Hebrew (H. E. iv. 22), but possibly, as conjectured by Weizsäcker (Herzog, Encyc. v. 647), Eusebius knew this as a fact from other sources also. We owe our only information as to his date to a statement of his own, preserved by Eusebius (iv. 22), which is understood to mean that at Rome he compiled a succession of the bishops of the Roman see to the time of Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. After this statement Hegesippus is represented as adding, "and to Anicetus succeeds Soter, after whom Eleutherus." Much as the interpretation of these words has been disputed, it does not seem difficult to gather that Hegesippus means that the list of bishops compiled by him at Rome was drawn from the authentic records of the church there. That list closed with Anicetus. He was afterwards able to add the names of Soter and Eleutherus. It thus appears that he was at Rome in the days of Anicetus and made his inquiries then, but did not publish them till considerably later. But Anicetus, according to Lipsius (Chronologie der römischen Bischöfe), was bp. of Rome 156–167, and Eleutherus 175–189. Hegesippus had thus written much of his history previous to a.d. 167, and published it in the time of Eleutherus, perhaps early in his episcopate. Any difficulty in accepting these dates has been occasioned by the rendering given to another passage of Eusebius (iv. 8), where he quotes Hegesippus as speaking of certain games (ἀγών) instituted in honour of Antinous, a slave of Hadrian, of which he says ἐφ᾿ ἡμῶν γενόμενος (a better established reading than γινόμενος). But these words seem simply to mean that the games had been instituted in his own time, thus illustrating the μέχρι νῦν of the preceding sentence. Hadrian reigned 117–138, so that if Hegesippus published c. 180, being then well advanced in life, he might well remember the times of that emperor. This derives confirmation from a statement of Jerome, generally regarded as somewhat extravagant, that the life of Hegesippus had bordered on the apostolic age ("vicinus apostolicorum temporum," de Vir. Ill. c. 22). But there is no extravagance in the remark. If Hegesippus was born c. 120 or earlier, he may well be described as having lived near the times of St. John. We may, therefore, fix the bloom of Hegesippus's life about the middle of the 2nd cent.
His history embraced, so far as we may judge from its fragments, numerous miscellaneous observations, recollections, and traditions, jotted down without regard to order, as they occurred to the author or came under his notice during his travels. Jerome tells us that the work contained the events of the church from Palestine to Rome, and from the death of Christ to the writer's own day. It is not a regular history of the church, Weizsäcker well remarking that, in that case, the story of James the Just ought to have been found in the first book, not in the last.
Its general style was thought plain and unpretending, says Jerome, and with this description what remains sufficiently agrees. The question of its trustworthiness is of greater moment. The account given in it of James the head of the church in Jerusalem has led to many charges against Hegesippus of not having been careful enough to prove what he relates. He has been thought to be contradicted by Josephus, who tells us that "Ananus, the high-priest, assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus Who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others. And, when he had formed an accusation against them, he delivered them to be stoned" (Ant. xx. 9, 2). We may be permitted to doubt, however, whether the sentence thus referred to was carried out, for not only was it unlawful for the Sanhedrin to punish by death without consent of the Roman authorities, but Josephus informs us immediately after that the charge of the citizens against Ananus was, that it was not lawful for him to assemble a Sanhedrin without the procurator's assent, nothing being said of the stoning to death. Further, Eusebius, who has preserved the narrative of Hegesippus, and the early Fathers who allude to it, appear to have placed in it implicit confidence; and there is nothing improbable in most, if not even in all, of the particulars mentioned. Eusebius speaks of him in the most commendatory terms, and quotes him on numerous occasions (see H. E. ii. 23; iii. 11, 16, 20, 32; iv. 8, 11, 22), illustrating his own words in iv. 8, πλείσταις κεχρήμεθα φωναῖς. Such confidence appears to have been deserved. Hegesippus had an inquiring mind, and had travelled much; he endeavoured to learn all he could of the past and present state of the churches that he visited: at Corinth the first epistle of Clement excited his curiosity; at Rome the history of its early bishops. All this, and his unpretending and unexaggerated style, shows him as very far from being either a hasty observer or a credulous chronicler.
An important question remains: Was Hegesippus of the Judaizing Christian party?
Baur looks upon him as representing the
In the light of these considerations, Hegesippus appears to have been not a Judaizing but a Catholic Christian; and, if so, he becomes a witness not only for the catholicity in the main of the Christian church of the 2nd cent., but for the extent to which Catholic truth prevailed in it, for his evidence, whatever its purport, has reference to the condition of the church upon a large scale. Either, therefore, over this wide extent the church was as a whole marked by a narrow Judaic spirit, or over the same wide extent it was catholic in spirit, with heretical sects struggling to corrupt its faith. If our verdict be in favour of the latter view, it becomes impossible to look at Hegesippus in the light in which he has been presented by the Tübingen school. We must regard him as a Catholic, not as a Judaizing Christian, and his statements as to the condition of the church in his day become a powerful argument against, rather than in favour of, the conclusions of that school. Cf. Zahn, Forschungen, 1900, vi. 228–273.
Hegesippus (2) (Egesippus), the alleged author of a work of which a translation from Greek into Latin, or what purported to be such, appeared c. 400, and is commonly referred to as de Bello Judaico or as de Excidio Urbis Hierosolymitanae. It is mainly taken from the Wars of Josephus. The translator freely adds to his author, sometimes from the later books of the Antiquities of Josephus, sometimes from Roman historians and other sources, and also freely composes speeches for the actors.
The work is that of an earnest defender of the Christian faith. An approximation to his date is supplied by several passages; as when he speaks of Constantinople having long become the second city of the Roman empire (iii. 5, p. 179), and of Antioch, once the metropolis of the Persians, being in his time the defence of the Byzantines against that people. He also speaks of the triumphs of the Romans in "Scotia" and in "Saxonia," using language strikingly similar to that of Claudian (c. 398) (v. 18, p. 299; Claud. de iv. Cons. Honor. 31–34). The work early acquired a considerable reputation. Some have ascribed the translation to Ambrose. The Benedictines, however, strongly reject the Ambrosian authorship, asserting that it contains nothing whatever in Ambrose's style; while Galland earnestly contends for it, and reprints an elaborate dissertation of Mazochius which he regards as conclusive (Galland. Biblioth. Patr. vii. prolegom. p. xxix.). The editors of the Patrologia incline to reject the Ambrosias authorship, though they print it among his writings (xv. 1962). The most correct edition (Marburg, 1858, 1864, 4to) was commenced by Prof. C. F. Weber of Marburg, and completed after his death by Prof. Julius Caesar, who elaborately discussed the authorship and date (pp. 389–399). Cf. G. Landgraf, "Die Hegesippus Frage" in Archiv. f. Latin Lexicogr. (1902), xii. 465·472, who decides in favour of the Ambrosian authorship.
Helena (1), said to have been the companion of SIMON
Magus. According to Justin Martyr (Apol. i. 26) and Irenaeus (i. 23, p.
99), who possibly makes use of a lost work of Justin's, she was a prostitute whom
Simon had purchased from a brothel at Tyre and led about, holding her up to the
veneration of his disciples. Giving himself out to be the Supreme Power and the
Father above all, he taught, says Irenaeus, that "she was the first conception
of his mind, the mother of all things, by whom in the beginning he conceived the
thought of making the angels and archangels; for that this Conception proceeded
forth from him and, knowing her father's wishes, descended to the lower world,
and produced the angels and powers, by whom also he said that this world was made.
But after she had produced them, she was detained by them through envy . . . and
. . . confined in a human body, and for ages passed into other female bodies,
as if from one vessel into another. He said, also, that she was that Helen on
account of whom the Trojan war was fought; . . . that after passing from one body
to another, and constantly meeting with insult, at last she became a public prostitute,
and that she was 'the lost sheep.' On this account he had come that he might first
of all reclaim her and free her from her chains, and then give salvation to men
through the knowledge
The honour paid to Helena by the followers of Simon was known to Celsus, who says (v. 62) that certain Simonians were also called Heleniani, from Helena, or else from a teacher Helenus. We are told also by Irenaeus and Hippolytus that the Simonians had images of Simon as Jupiter and of Helen as Minerva, which they honoured, calling the former lord, the latter lady. This adaptation of the myth of Athene springing from the head of Zeus to the alleged relation of Ennoea to the first Father is of a piece with the appropriation of other Grecian myths by these heretics.
The doctrine thus attributed to Simon has close amity with that of other Gnostic systems, more especially that of the Ophites, described at the end of bk. i. of Irenaeus, except that in the Simonian system one female personage fills parts which in other systems are distributed among more than one. But in several systems we have the association with the First Cause of a female principle, his thought or conception; and we have the myth of the descent of a Sophia into the lower material regions, her sufferings from the hostility of the powers who rule there, her struggles with them, and her ultimate redemption. Peculiar to Simon is his doctrine of the transmigration of souls and his identification, by means of it, of himself and his female companion with the two principal personages of the Gnostic mythology. Simon, moreover, persuaded his followers not only to condone his connexion with a degraded person, but to accept the fact of her degradation fully admitted as only a greater proof of his redemptive power. We find it easier to believe, therefore, that the story had a foundation in fact than that it was imagined without any. On the other hand, it does not seem likely that Simon could have been the first Gnostic, it being more credible that he turned to his account a mythology already current than that he could have obtained acceptance for his tale of Ennoea, if invented for the first time for his own justification.
Baur has suggested (Christliche Gnosis, p. 308) that Justin in his account of the honours paid at Samaria to Simon and Helena may have been misled by the honours there paid to Phoenician sun and moon divinities of similar names. On this and other cognate questions see SIMON. Suffice it here to say that one strong fact in support of his theory, viz. that in the Clementine Recognitions (ii. 14, preserved in the Latin of Rufinus) the companion of Simon is called Luna, may have originated in an early error of transcription. She is Helena in the corresponding passage of the Clementine Homilies, ii. 23; and we find elsewhere the false reading Selene for Helene, e.g. in Augustine (de Haer. 1).
Helena (2), St., or Flavia Julia Helena Augusta, first wife of Constantius Chlorus, and mother of Constantine the Great, born c. 248, died c. 327.
Little is known for certain of her life, except that she was mother of Constantine the Great and when about 80 years old undertook a remarkable pilgrimage to Palestine, which resulted in the adornment and increased veneration of the holy places.
She was doubtless of humble parentage, being, according to one story, the daughter of an innkeeper (Anon. Valesii 2, 2, "matre vilissima," Ambrose, de Obitu Theodosii, § 42, p. 295). Constantius when he made her acquaintance was a young officer in the army, of good family and position, nearly related, by the female line, to the emperor Claudius, and appears to have at first united her to himself by the looser tie then customary between persons of such different conditions (Hieron. Chron. anno. 2322; Orosius, vii. 25; Chron. Pasch. a.d. 304, vol. i. p. 516, ed. Bonn; Zos. ii. 8). The relation of "concubinatus" might be a lifelong one and did not necessarily imply immorality. In outward appearance it differed nothing from the ordinary civil marriage by mutual consent, and was sometimes called "conjugium inaequale." Her son Constantine, apparently her only child, was born probably in 274, at Naissus in Dardania, the country where his father's family had for some time been settled. After his birth Constantius probably advanced Helena to the position of a lawful wife. That she had this position is expressly stated by some of our authorities, but the very emphasis of their assertion implies that there was something peculiar about the case (Eus. H. E. viii. 13, 12, παῖδα γνήσιον . . . καταλιπών and the inscription from Salerno given below). Respect for Constantine would naturally prevent writers in his reign from stating the circumstances in detail. It may be, however, that his law to legitimatize the children of a concubine "per subsequens matrimonium" was suggested by his mother's experience.
After living with Constantius some 20 years Helena was divorced on the occasion
of his elevation to the dignity of Caesar in 292; the Augustus Maximian, in choosing
him for his colleague, requiring this, as a matter of policy, in order that Constanius
might marry his own step-daughter, Theodora (Eutrop. Brev. ix. 22; Victor,
de Caesaribus, 39; Epitome, 54)—a proceeding which has parallels in
Roman history. The looseness of the marriage tie among the Romans is a quite sufficient
Eusebius also tells us that through Constantine she became a Christian (V. C. iii. 57), and is supported (whatever the support may be worth) by the probably spurious letters preserved in the Acts of St. Silvester. [CONSTANTINE.] We must therefore reject the story which ascribes his conversion to his mother's influence (Theod. i. 18, and the late and fabulous Eutychius Alexandrinus, pp. 408, 456, ed. Oxon.).
The following inscription from Salerno marks the power of Helena in her son's court: "To our sovereign lady Flavia Augusta Helena, the most chaste wife of the divine Constantius, the mother of our Lord Constantine, the greatest, most pious and victorious Augustus, the grandmother of our Lords Crispus and Constantine and Constantius, the most blessed and fortunate Caesars, this is erected by Alpinius Magnus, vir clarissimus, corrector of Lucania and Bruttii, devoted to her excellence and piety" (Mommsen, u.s. Orell. 1074, Wilmanns 1079).
In 326 Crispus was put to death on an obscure charge by his father's orders. Tradition attributes this dark act to Fausta; and Helena's bitter complaints about her grandson's death are said to have irritated Constantine to execute his wife by way of retribution (Vict. Epit. 41, Fausta conjuge ut putant suggerente Crispum filium necari jussit. Dehine uxorem suam Faustam in balneas ardentes conjectam interemit, cum eum mater Helena dolore nimie nepotis increparet).
Eusebius speaks strongly of her youthful spirit when she, in fulfilment of a vow, made her pilgrimage to the Holy Land, notwithstanding her great age, nearly 80 years (V. C. iii. 42, cf. 46). She received almost unlimited supplies of money from her son and spent it in royal charities to the poor and bounties to the soldiery; as well as using her power to free prisoners and criminals condemned to the mines and to recall persons from exile (ib. 44). She was a frequent attendant at the church services, and adorned the buildings with costly offerings (ib. 45). Her death cannot have been earlier than 327, because she did not make her pilgrimage until after the death of Crispus. Tillemont puts it in 328, and it may leave been later. (See further, Clinton, F. R. ii. 80, 81.) Her body was carried with great pomp to "the imperial city," i.e. probably, Constantinople (Eus. V. C. iii. 47; Socr. i. 17, thus glosses the phrase—εἰς τὴν βασιλεύουσαν νέαν Ρώμην). It was believed, however, in the West that she was buried at Rome, and there is a tradition that in 480 her body was stolen thence by a monk Theogisus and brought to Hautvilliers in the diocese of Rheims. Others say that it is still in the porphyry vase in the church of Ara Coeli (Tillem. Mém. t. vii. n. 7). The place too of her death is strangely uncertain. Eusebius's silence would imply that she died in Palestine; but if the traditions of her bounty to the people and church of Cyprus on her way home are of any value, it must have been somewhere nearer Rome or Constantinople. These traditions may be seen in M. de Mas Letrie's Hist. de l᾿Ile de Chypre sous les Lusignan (Paris, 1852–1861); Church Qtly. Rev. vol. vii. pp. 186 f.
Invention of the Cross.—It is in connexion with this famous story that the name of Helena is especially interesting to the student of church history. Its truth has been much discussed, and we will briefly summarize the evidence of the ancient authorities.
(1) In the very interesting itinerary of the anonymous Pilgrim from Bordeaux to Jerusalem, generally referred to a.d. 333, seven years after the date assigned to the finding of the cross (Migne, Patr. Lat. xiii. 771), we have a description of the city, and many traditional sites of events both in O. and N. T. are mentioned. Among these are the house of Caiaphas with the pillar at which our Lord was scourged, the praetorium of Pontius Pilate, the little hill (monticulus) of Golgotha, and, a stone's throw from it, the cave of the resurrection. On the latter spot a beautiful basilica erected by Constantine is noticed, as also on Mount Olivet and at Bethlehem. Yet there is no allusion to the cross, nor is the name of Helena mentioned.
(2) The Life of Constantine by Eusebius was written probably in 338, five years
after the visit of the Bordeaux Pilgrim. He records the visit of Helena to Jerusalem,
but does not connect her name with the place of Crucifixion nor with the Holy Sepulchre.
He tells us that Constantine built a house of prayer on the site of the Resurrection
and beautified the caves connected with our Lord's Birth and Ascension, and that
he did so in memory of his mother, who had built two churches, one at Bethlehem,
the other on the Mount of Ascension. Thus of the three famous caves, Eusebius connects
Helena not with that of the Resurrection, but only with the other two. He indeed
says that these were not the only churches she built, but it is hardly conceivable
that he should have left the one on the site of the Resurrection unspecified. The
original motive of her journey, he says, was to return thanks to God for His peculiar
(3) Cyril of Jerusalem, whose catechetical lectures were delivered, he says, upon the very spot where our Lord was crucified, and, as we know from other sources, not more than 20 years after the alleged discovery (viz. in 346), has three allusions to the wood of the cross (iv. 10, x. 19, xiii. 4). The most definite is in x. 19, where he describes it as "until to-day visible amongst us" (μεχρὶ σήμερον παῤ ἡμῖν φαινόμενον), "and now filling nearly the whole world by means of those who in faith take from it." In his letter to Constantius, which, however, is of doubtful authenticity [CYRIL], it is distinctly stated that the cross was discovered in the reign of Constantine (c. 3). The first quotations prove that it was believed in his day that the real wood of our Lord's cross had been discovered, but do not give the grounds of the belief. Nor, though he speaks of the cross, does he connect it with St. Helena. Thus none of our three earliest authorities speak of her as the discoverer.
(4) St. Chrysostom, writing probably before 387, speaks of the wood of the true cross (Patr. Gk. xlviii. 826).
(5) Sulpicius Severus (c. 395) tells us that Helena built three basilicas (not two, as in Eusebius), one on each of the sites of the Passion, Resurrection, and Ascension. The site of the Passion, he says, was discovered by Helena, but he does not add that it was by supernatural help. Three crosses were discovered, and the right one ascertained by the miraculous restoration to life of a dead body (Hist. Sacr. i. 33, Patr. Gk. xx. 148).
(6) St. Ambrose, writing in 395, says that Helena was inspired by the Spirit with the desire to search for the cross, that she distinguished the true cross by its title (thus differing from Sulpicius and all later writers), that two of the nails were used by the emperor, one being fixed in his crown and the other employed as a bit for his bridle (de Obitu Theodosii c. 41 ff., Patr. Gk. xvi. 1399).
(7) Rufinus (writing in 400, according to the Life in Migne's ed.) tells us further that not only was the journey inspired by God, but that the place of the Passion was miraculously revealed; that the three crosses were found "confuso ordine," and the title separately; that the true cross was discovered by the miraculous healing of a sick lady (not the revival of a corpse, as above); that part of the wood was sent to Constantine, and part left at Jerusalem in a silver casket (cf. μεχρὶ σήμερον φαινόμενον in Cyril's description above). (H. E. i. 7, 8, Patr. Gk. xxi. 475.)
(8) Paulinus of Nola, writing (c. 403) to Sulpicius Severus, and sending him a piece, as he says, of the true cross brought from Jerusalem by Benedicta Melanius, adds an account of its original discovery, because, as he says, it is so difficult to credit. He says that Helena went to rescue the holy places, adorned the site of our Lord's Birth in addition to the other three sites, and discovered the place of the Passion by the concurrent testimony of many Jews and Christians in the city. He adds that, though pieces were frequently taken from the cross, its original bulk was miraculously preserved (Ep. xxxi. 4, Patr. Gk. lxi. 325).
(9) St. Jerome, in his Comm. on Zech. xiv. 20 (Patr. Lat. xxv. 1540), probably written a.d. 406, mentions the nail from the cross which was used for the emperor's bridle, as related in many other writers, and in Ep. lviii. (ib. xxii. 581) speaks of the images of Jove and Venus which stood until the time of Constantine on the sites of the Resurrection and of the Passion respectively.
(10) St. Cyril of Alexandria (c. 420) mentions as a report (φασί) that the wood of the cross had been found at different times (κατὰ καιρούς) with the nails still fixed in it (Comm. on Zech. xiv. 20, Patr. Gk. lxxii. 271).
(11) Socrates (c. 430) informs us that Helena was told in a night vision to go to Jerusalem; that she found the site of the Passion with difficulty, though he alludes to no supernatural aid; that Macarius suggested the means of distinguishing the true cross, viz. by applying it to a woman on the point of death; that the empress erected "new Jerusalem" on the site (a phrase evidently taken from Eusebius); and that the emperor put one of the nails on his statue at Constantinople, as many inhabitants testified (H. E. i. 17, Patr. Gk. lxvii. 118).
(12) Sozomen (c. 430) claims good authority for his account, and states
that Constantine, in gratitude for the council of Nicaea, wished to build a church
on Golgotha; that Helena about the same time went to Palestine to pray and to look
for the sacred sites. He does not, however, mention any divine impulse. The
(13) Theodoret (c. 448) inserts the letter of Constantine to Macarius, and follows the order of Eusebius, representing, however, Helena's journey, more definitely than Eusebius does, as consequent upon the finding of the Sepulchre by Constantine. But his account seems inconsistent. The crosses, he says, were found near the Lord's tomb—παρὰ τὸ μνῆμα τὸ Δεσποτικόν (H. E. i. 16, 17, Patr. Gk. lxxxii. 955).
(14) St. Leo (454), in writing to Juvenal, bp. of Jerusalem, speaks of the constant witness borne at Jerusalem to the reality of Christ's Passion by the existence of the cross (Ep. cxxxix. 2, Patr. liv. 1106).
(15) St. Gregory of Tours (d. 595) adds that discovery was made on May 3, 326; that, during a great storm which occurred soon after, Helena put one of the nails into the sea, which was at once calmed; that two more were used for the emperor's bridle, and the fourth placed on the head of his statue; that the lance, crown of thorns, and pillar of scourging were preserved and worked miracles (Lib. Mirac. i. 5, Patr. Lat. lxxi. 709), and the cross found by the aid of a Jew, afterwards baptized as Quiriacus (Hist. Franc. i. 34, Patr. Lat. lxxi. 179).
Thus no detailed story is found until nearly 70 years after the event, and then in the West only. The vagueness of St. Cyril of Alexandria is particularly observable. Small differences of detail occur; the last author cited adds several particulars not included in the other accounts, and there are features in the story which look like invention or exaggeration. On the whole, considering that our earliest authorities do not represent Helena as the discoverer and that the story gradually develops, it seems probable that she had no part in the discovery of the cross, even if it took place, which itself seems exceedingly doubtful. That the site of the Holy Sepulchre was discovered, or supposed to be discovered, in the reign of Constantine, there seems every reason to believe; and it is easy to understand how marvels would grow up around it.
Heliodorus (7), bp. of Altinum near Aquileia, c. 400, had served originally as a soldier, but had been ordained before we first hear of him. He belonged to a band of friends drawn together at Aquileia, c. 372, for the study of Scripture and the practice of asceticism, which included St. Jerome, Evagrius afterwards bp. of Antioch, Rufinus, Bonosus, and Chromatius afterwards bp. of Aquileia. The passion for asceticism and the troubles which arose about Jerome made the companions resolve, under the guidance of Evagrius, to go to Syria and Antioch. Heliodorus went on to Jerusalem, where he enjoyed the hospitality of Florentius, who, having devoted himself to the ascetic life, employed his wealth in the entertainment of pilgrims (Hieron. Ep. iv. ed. Vall.). Returning to Antioch, he found Jerome resolved to go into the solitude of the desert of Chalcis. Heliodorus felt that he himself had a call to the pastoral life, having a sister and a nephew dependent on him (Hieron. Ep. lx. 9, ed. Vall.). He therefore returned to his native Aquileia, holding out to his friend some hopes that he might rejoin him one day in the desert (ib.). Jerome wrote to him on his return to Italy a letter, reproaching him for turning back from the more perfect service, which afterwards had a great effect in furthering asceticism and became so celebrated that a Roman lady, Fabiola, knew it by heart (Hieron. Ep. lxxvii. 9, ed. Vall.; Ep. xiv. 11). But their friendship was never broken. Heliodorus continued in the pastoral office, and not long afterwards became bp. of Altinum. He was present in 381 as a bishop at the council of Aquileia. In after-years he was closely allied with Chromatius, bp. of Aquileia, and they both kept up communications with Jerome, then residing at Bethlehem. They took a warm interest in Jerome's translation of the Scriptures, and frequently wrote to him, exhorting him to complete the long-delayed work. They supported amanuenses to assist him; and by the grateful mention of their aid in the prefaces to the books last translated, their names are for ever associated with the great work of the Vulgate ("Preface to the Books of Solomon and to Tobit," Jerome's Works, vol. ix. 1305, x. 26; Migne's ed. of Vallarsi's Jerome). Cappelletti (Le Chiese d᾿Italia, v. 516, 610) reckons his successor in the see of Altinum to have been Ambrosius, a.d. 407.
Helladius (4), bp. of Tarsus c. 430, a disciple of St. Theodosius
of Antioch, after whose death (c. 412) he presided over the monastery he
had founded near Rhosus in Cilicia. Having spent 60 years in monastic life, he
succeeded Marianus, bp. of the metropolitan see of Tarsus (Theod. Vit. Patr.
c. 10). His episcopate illustrates the stormy period of the council of Ephesus.
He was one of those who protested against commencing the council before the arrival
of John of Antioch and the Oriental bishops (Baluz. Nov. Concil. Coll.
p. 697), and he joined the opposition council (conciliabulum) presided
over by John upon his arrival. He supported the counter-remonstrances addressed
to the emperors by Nestorius (ib. 703), and his name is appended to the
synodal letter to the clergy and laity of Hierapolis (ib. 705) and to that
to John of Antioch and Theodoret and the other members of the Oriental deputation
to Theodosius (ib. 725). Helladius steadily ignored the deposition of Nestorius
and withheld all recognition of Maximian as his successor. John of Antioch wrote,
commending his action (ib. 752, c. 48). When the rival leaders sought peace,
Helladius kept aloof, and on the receipt of the six articles drawn up by John
at a council at Antioch, which ultimately opened the way for reconcilation, he
and Alexander of Hierapolis rejected the terms and all communion
Helvidius, a Western writer who, like Novatian and Pelagius, Jovinian
and Vigilantius, put forward opinions on anthropological subjects opposed to the
generally received teaching of the church in their day. The only extant contemporary
notice of him is the short tract against him by St. Jerome (Opp. ii. p.
203–230, ed. Vall.), written when they were both at Rome, while pope Damasus was
alive. It appeared, according to Vallarsius,
a.d. 383. St. Jerome says he had
put off answering him for some time: "Ne respondendo dignus fieret, qui vinceretur";
and he describes him throughout as "hominem rusticanum, et vix primis quoque imbutum
literis" (§ 1); besides being wholly unknown to him: "Ego ipse, qui contra te
scribo, quum in eadem urbe consistam, albus, ut aiunt, aterve sis, nescio." St.
Jerome speaks of his own work in writing to Pammachius as "librum contra Helvidium
de beatae Mariae virginitate perpetuâ" (Ep. xlviii. § 17), this
being what his opponent had denied in the first instance, though the outcome of
his opinions had been to rank virginity below matrimony. Helvidius sought countenance
for his first point in the writings of Tertullian and Victorinus. St. Jerome shews
(§ 17) he had misrepresented the latter; of Tertullian, whose writings may still
speak for themselves, he merely says, "Ecclesiae hominem non fuisse." But, in
any case, he retorts with much force: What avail straggling opinions against primitive
truth? "Numquid non possum tibi totam veterum scriptorum seriem commovere: Ignatium,
Polycarpum, Irenaeum, Justinum Martyrem, multosque alios apostolicos et eloquentes
viros, qui adversus Ebionem, et Theodotum Byzantium, Valentinum, haec eadem sentientes,
plena sapientiae volumina conscripserunt. Quae si legisses aliquando, plus saperes."
This argument is just as suitable to our own as it was to patristic times, never
losing anything by repetition. What had Helvidius to oppose to it in this case?
Nothing, unless his adversary misrepresents him, but novel interpretations of
Scripture by himself. St. Jerome therefore refutes him only so far as to point
out that there is no necessity for understanding any of the passages adduced by
him otherwise than the church had understood them hitherto; but that, in any case,
the interpretations of them offered by Helvidius were delusive. For the application
of the views of Helvidius to the question of the perpetual virginity of the Lord's
mother see Lightfoot, Galatians, pp. 247–282, and Murray's
Henoticon, The, or Instrument of Union, a document owing its existence to Acacius, the patriarch of Constantinople, and probably the production of his pen, put forth by the emperor Zeno, a.d. 482, on his restoration to the throne, after the discomfiture of the usurper Basiliscus, with the view of putting an end to the dissensions caused by what Gibbon calls "the obstinate and sanguinary zeal of the Monophysites." Like every endeavour, however well meant, to cover radical differences by a vague comprehensiveness, it not only failed to secure union but aggravated the divisions it was intended to cure, and created a schism which divided the East and West for nearly 40 years, lasting down to the reign of Justinian and the popedom of Hormisdas.
The immediate cause of its issue was the dissension between the rival occupants of the patriarchal see of Alexandria. On the death of Timotheus Salofaciolus in 482, John Talaia, the oeconomus of the Alexandrian church, was elected by the orthodox party. He at once, according to custom, dispatched synodical letters to the chief bishops of Christendom, to notify his election. Those addressed to Simplicius of Rome and Calandion of Antioch were duly received; but the letters for Acacius and Zeno were delayed, and Acacius heard of John's appointment from another quarter. Thinking the seeming neglect a studied insult, Acacius and Gennadius, bp. of Hermopolis Minor, a relation of Timotheus Salofaciolus, and "apocrisiarius" or legate of the see of Alexandria, who conceived that he too had been slighted by the new patriarch, determined to compass his overthrow. They represented to Zeno that Talaia was unworthy of the patriarchate, both as having replaced the name of Dioscorus on the diptychs, and as having perjured himself by accepting the see of Alexandria, after having, as was asserted, taken an oath that he would not seek for it. Zeno readily gave credence to these charges, and when it was further represented that, if he recognized Peter Mongus, the deposed patriarch, peace would be restored, he wrote to Simplicius, stating his grounds for hesitating to sanction the appointment of John, and urging the restoration of Peter Mongus to put an end to the distractions of the church. Simplicius replied, June 482, that he would delay recognizing John as patriarch until the grave charges brought by Zeno could be investigated; but he utterly refused to allow the elevation of a convicted heretic such as Peter Mongus to the patriarchal see. His return to the true faith might restore him to communion, but could not render him worthy to be a chief ruler of the church ( Liberat. Diac. Breviar. cc. 16, 17; Evagr. H. E. iii. 12). This opposition roused the indignation of Zeno, who issued imperative commands to Pergamius, the new prefect of Egypt, then about to sail for Alexandria, and to Apollonius the governor, to expel John Talaia and seat Peter Mongus in his place. Acacius persuaded Zeno to present himself to the world in the novel character of an expounder of the faith of the Catholic church. The "Henoticon" was drawn up, and as it did not directly mention the council of Chalcedon and a hypothetical allusion in it was capable of being construed in a depreciatory sense, it could be accepted by those who, like Mongus, had hitherto rejected that council's decrees. The friends of Mongus undertook that he would adopt it, and on this he was recognized by Zeno and Acacius as the canonical patriarch and his name inserted in the diptychs.
The "Henoticon" was directed to the bishops and people in Alexandria, Egypt,
Libya, and Pentapolis; but, as Tillemont has remarked (Mém. eccl. xvi. 327),
it was really addressed only to those who had separated themselves from the church,
i.e. to the Monophysites or semi-Eutychians. The original document is given
by Evagrius (H. E. iii. 14) and in a not very clear Latin translation by
Liberatus (Breviar. c. 18; Labbe, Concil. v. 767). It commences by
stating that "certain abbats, hermits, and other reverend persons had presented
to the emperor a petition, supplicating him to restore the unity of the churches,
and enlarging on the lamentable results of the late divisions." On this account,
and knowing also that the strength and shield of the empire rested in the one true
faith declared by the holy Fathers gathered at Nicaea, confirmed by those who met
at Constantinople and followed by those who had condemned Nestorius at the council
of Ephesus, the emperor declares that "the creed so made and confirmed is the one
only symbol of faith, and that he has held, holds, and will hold no other, and will
regard all who hold another as aliens, and that in this alone those who desire saving
baptism must be baptized." All who hold other views he anathematizes, and recognizes
the twelve chapters of Cyril as a symbolical book. The document then proceeds to
declare the orthodox faith, viz. "that our Lord Jesus Christ is the only-begotten
Son of God, and Himself God, incarnate, consubstantial with the Father according
to His Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to His manhood, that He came
down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, Mother
of God, and that He is One Son, not two." That "it was this one and the same Son
of God Who wrought miracles, and endured the sufferings which He underwent voluntarily
in His flesh." Those "who divide or confound the natures, or admit only a phantastical
incarnation," are to be rejected, "since the incarnation without sin of the Mother
of God did not cause the addition of a Son, for the Trinity remained even when one
Person of the Trinity, God the Word, became incarnate." It asserts that this is
no new form of faith,
Such was the document which was to "combine all the churches in one harmonious
confederacy." It was "a work of some skill, of some adroitness, in attempting to
reconcile, in eluding, evading difficulties; it is subtle to escape subtleties"
(Milman, Hist. of Lat. Christ. bk. iii. c. i. vol. i. p. 248). The crucial
test of the unity or duality of the natures of the Incarnate Word is left an open
question, on which a difference of opinion might be lawfully permitted. Gibbon's
verdict is by no means an unfair one, that "it accurately represents the Catholic
faith of the incarnation without adopting or disclaiming the peculiar terms of the
hostile sects" (vol. vi. p. 44, c. xlvii.). But its fatal error was its feebleness,
and that it endeavoured to substitute for real unity of doctrine a fictitious cohesion
of discordant elements. The Monophysites who subscribed were to be admitted into
communion without being required to give up their distinctive doctrines; while their
opponents were left free to maintain the authority of the decrees of Chalcedon and
the tome of Leo. The resulting peace was naturally more apparent than real and satisfied
no one. The Catholic party, zealous in their advocacy of the council of Chalcedon,
had no liking for a document which disparaged its authority and suggested the possible
erroneousness of its decisions. The Monophysites, on the other hand, clamoured for
a more definite condemnation of a council which they regarded as heretical. The
high Chalcedonian party, chiefly consisting of the monastic orders, condemned the
"Henoticon" as tainted with Eutychianism, and, on the other hand, the Eutychians
or Monophysites, indignant with Mongus for turning traitor to their cause, separated
themselves, and, forming a distinct body without any chief leader and not holding
communion with the patriarch, were designated "the headless sect," "Acephali." A
third body of dissidents was formed by the high ecclesiastical party, who were offended
at the presumption of the emperor in assuming a right to issue decrees on spiritual
matters, "a right," writes Milman, (u.s. p. 235), "complacently admitted
when ratifying or compulsorily enforcing ecclesiastical decrees, and usually adopted
without scruple on other occasions by the party with which the court happened to
side." A fourth party was that of the centre or moderates, who were weary of strife,
or too loyal or too cowardly to resist the imperial power. This party of the centre
was in communion with Peter Mongus, who had at once signed the "Henoticon," and
had had it read in church at a public festival and openly commended it to the adoption
of the faithful. Violence and falsehood characterized the conduct of Mongus. As
soon as he felt himself safe in his seat, his overbearing temper knew no bounds.
He removed from the diptychs the names of Proterius and Timotheus Salofaciolus,
disinterring the remains of the latter and casting them out of the church; inserted
the names of Dioscorus and Timotheus Aelurus; and anathematized the council of Chalcedon
and the tome of Leo. When called to account by Acacius, he coolly denied the anathemas,
and, professed his acceptance of the faith as declared at Chalcedon. He wrote to
the same effect to Simplicius, expressing a desire to be received into communion
by him (Evagr. H. E. iii. 17; Liberat. Breviar. c. 18). Such double-dealing
estranged many of his own party, and the discussions of which the unhappy "instrument
of union" was the parent were still further aggravated by the cruel persecution
of the orthodox throughout the whole of Egypt by the new patriarch. In bold defiance
of the prohibitions of the emperor, all, whether clerics, monks, or laymen, who
refused to accept the "Henoticon" were subjected to expulsion and serious maltreatment.
(Evagr. H. E. iii. 22). At this crisis Simplicius died,
a.d. 483. The first act of his successor,
Felix II., was an indignant rejection of the "Henoticon," as an insult to the council
of Chalcedon, as an audacious act of the emperor Zeno, who dared to dictate articles
of faith, and as a seed-plot of impiety (Theod. Lect. ap. Milman, u.s.
p. 236). He also anathematized all bishops who had subscribed this edict. This anathema
included nearly all the bishops of the East. A strong admonitory letter was addressed
by Felix to Acacius, and another in milder terms to Zeno, the authors of the "Henoticon."
All remonstrance proving vain, Felix fulminated an anathema against Acacius, deposing
and excommunicating him, July 28, a.d.
484 (Liberat. c. 18; Labbe, Concil. iv. 1072). This anathema severed the
whole of the Eastern church from the West for nearly 40 years. [ACACIUS.]
Neither emperor nor patriarch took much heed of the condemnation of the Roman see,
and continued to press the "Henoticon" everywhere, ejecting bishops who withheld
their signatures and refused to communicate with Peter Mongus (Theoph. p. 114; Liberat.
c. 18; Viet. Tunun.Chron.; Tillem. Mém. eccl. xvi. p. 168; Aece,
Art. xcv.). Calandion, patriarch of Antioch, was deposed, and Peter the Fuller
reinstated. Thus the three chief sees of the East were in constrained communion
and nearly all the suffragan bishops had been silenced or deposed. Zeno and Acacius
had "made a solitude and called it peace." It would be tedious to narrate in detail
the subsequent issues of this unhappy attempt to force discordant elements into
external union which continued under Acacius's successors and under the emperor
Anastasius. Anastasius required toleration of the bishops who were forbidden to
force the decrees of Chalcedon on a reluctant diocese or to compel one which had
accepted that council to abandon it. Those who violated this law of toleration were
deposed with impartial severity (Evagr. H. E. iii. 30). Euphemius was deposed
from Constantinople a.d. 495. Macedonius,
his successor, began by subscribing the "Henoticon," but overawed by the obstinate
orthodoxy of the "Acoemetae" and other monastic bodies of Constantinople, whom he
The "Henoticon," so fruitful a source of dissension in the East, became also the watchword of rival parties in the West. Gelasius, succeeding Anastasius II., sought to re-unite the churches by the proposal, couched in the very spirit of the "Henoticon," that Acacius's name should be quietly left on the diptychs. On his death in 498 a contested election ensued, exasperated by differences of opinion on the "Henoticon" and the schisms in the East. Two rival pontiffs were consecrated on Dec. 22, a.d. 499—Laurentius an advocate of union, and Symmachus its uncompromising opponent. Theodoric decided in favour of Symmachus, who had received the largest number of votes. This choice was fatal to the restoration of peace in the East on the terms of the "Henoticon." Pope and emperor hurled at one another charges of heresy and messages of defiance. The turbulent orthodox party at Constantinople was supported in its obstinate resistance to the emperor by the Roman see. The rebellion of Vitalian, characterized by Gibbon as "the first of the religious wars," whose battle-cry was the council of Chalcedon, was countenanced by Symmachus's still more haughty successor, Hormisdas, who reaped the fruits of the humiliation of the aged Anastasius and became "the dictator of the religion of the world." The demand of Hormisdas for the public anathematization of the authors and maintainers of the "Henoticon" was indignantly rejected by Anastasius. The conflict only ended with the life of Anastasius, who died worn out by strife at the age of nearly 90 years, a.d. 518. His successor, Justin, was an unlettered soldier of unbending orthodoxy. The new patriarch, John of Cappadocia, "a man of servile mind though unmeasured ambition," was prepared to adopt any course which would secure his power. He had seconded all the measures of Anastasius, but at the demand of the mob he now hastily assembled a synod of 40 bishops, which anathematized all upholders of the "Henoticon," recalled the banished bishops, and deposed the so-called usurpers. All heretics, i.e. those who refused the council of Chalcedon, were made incapable of civil or military office. Hormisdas profited by the favourable opportunity to press his demands, which were admitted without question. The names of the patriarchs Acacius, Fravitta, Euphemius, and Macedonius, together with those of the emperor Zeno and Anastasius, were erased from the diptychs, and Acacius was branded with a special anathema. Fresh disturbances were created when it was found that Hormisdas demanded the condemnation of all who had communicated with Acacius, and turned a deaf ear to the repeated applications of both emperor and patriarch for some relaxation of these terms (Evagr. H. E. iv. 4; Labbe, Concil. iv. 1542; Natal. Alexand. Hist. Eccl. t. ii. p. 448). Hormisdas at last consented that Epiphanius, John's successor, should act for him in receiving churches into communion. Some honoured names were allowed to remain on the diptychs, and eventually Euphemius, Macedonius, Flavian of Antioch, Elias of Jerusalem and some others who had died during the separation, were admitted to the Roman Calendars (Tillem. Mém. eccl. t. xvi. p. 697; Bolland. Apr. 25, p. 373).
Thus ended the unhappy schism. The "Henoticon," without being formally repealed, was allowed to sink into oblivion. The four oecumenical councils, including Chalcedon, were everywhere received, save m Egypt, and one common creed expressed the religious faith of the Christian world. Gibbon, Decline and Fall, c. xlvii.; Tillem. Mém. eccl. vol. xvi. "Acace"; Schröckh, Kirchengesch. vol. xviii.; Migne, Patr. t. lviii.; Evagr. H. E. libb. iii. iv.; Liberat. Breviar.; Walch, Ketzerhist. vol. vi.; Fleury, Hist. eccl. t. vi. vii.; Neander, Ch. Hist. vol. iv. pp. 253 ff. (Clarke's trans.); Dorner, Person, div. ii. vol. i. pp. 123 ff.; Milman, Hist. of Lat. Christ. vol. i. bk. iii. cc. i. iii.
Heraclas, patriarch of Alexandria, a.d. 233–249; brother of the martyr Plutarch, one of Origen's converts (Eus. H. E. vi. 3). From being a pupil he became an assistant in teaching to Origen, who left the school to him when he retired from Alexandria to Caesarea (ib. 15, 26). Heraclas retained the school but a short time, for on the death of Demetrius he was elected to the archiepiscopal throne. Heraclas did not adopt any of his teacher's peculiar views, but voted for his deprivation both from his office as teacher and from his orders and for his excommunication at the two synods held by Demetrius, nor when elected bishop did he attempt to rescind these sentences. Eusebius (ib. 31) narrates a visit paid to Heraclas by Africanus the annalist on hearing of his great learning, and (ib. vii. 7), on the authority of his successor Dionysius, gives his rule respecting the treatment of heretics. Le Quien, Oriens Christ. ii. 392; Phot. Cod. 118; Acta SS. Boll. Jul. 3. 645–647.
Heracleon (1), a Gnostic described by Clement of Alexandria (Strom.
iv. 9, p. 595) as the most esteemed (δοκιμώτατος)
of the school of Valentinus; and, according to Origen (Comm. in S. Joann.
t. ii. § 8, Opp. t. iv. p. 66), said to have been in personal contact (γνώριμος)
with Valentinus himself. He is barely mentioned by Irenaeus (ii. 41) and by Tertullian
(adv. Valent. 4). The common source of Philaster and Pseudo-Tertullian
(i.e. probably
The chief interest that now attaches to Heracleon is that he is the earliest
commentator on the N.T. of whom we have knowledge. Origen, in the still extant portion
of his commentary on St. John, quotes Heracleon nearly 50 times, usually controverting,
occasionally accepting his expositions. We thus recover large sections of Heracleon's
commentary on cc. i. ii. iv. and viii. of St John. There is reason to think that
he wrote commentaries on St. Luke also. Clement of Alexandria (Strom. iv.
9) expressly quotes from Heracleon's exposition of
The first passage quoted by Clement bears on an accusation brought against some of the Gnostic sects, that they taught that it was no sin to avoid martyrdom by denying the faith. No exception can be taken to what Heracleon says on this subject. "Men mistake in thinking that the only confession is that made with the voice before the magistrates; there is another confession made in the life and conversation, by faith and works corresponding to the faith. The first confession may be made by a hypocrite: and it is one not required of all; there are many who have never been called on to make it, as for instance Matthew, Philip, Thomas, Levi [Lebbaeus]; the other confession must be made by all. He who has first confessed in his disposition of heart will confess with the voice also when need shall arise and reason require. Well did Christ use concerning confession the phrase 'in Me' (ἐὰν ὁμολογήσῃ ἐν ἐμοί), concerning denial the phrase 'Me.' A man may confess 'Him' with the voice who really denies Him, if he does not confess Him also in action; but those only confess 'in Him' who live in the confession and in corresponding actions. Nay, it is He Whom they embrace and Who dwells in them Who makes confession 'in them'; for 'He cannot deny Himself.' But concerning denial, He did not say whosoever shall deny 'in Me,' but whosoever shall deny 'Me'; for no one that is 'in Him' can deny Him. And the words 'before men' do not mean before unbelievers only, but before Christians and unbelievers alike; before the one by their life and conversation, before the others in words." In this exposition every word in the sacred text assumes significance; and this characteristic runs equally through the fragments of Heracleon's commentary on St. John, whether the words commented on be our Lord's own. or only those of the Evangelist. Thus he calls attention to the facts that in the statement "all things were made by Him," the preposition used is διά; that Jesus is said to have gone down to Capernaum and gone up to Jerusalem; that He found the buyers and sellers ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ, not ἐν τῷ ναῷ; that He said salvation is of the Jews not in them, and again (iv. 40) that our Lord tarried with the Samaritans, not in them; notice is taken of the point in our Lord's discourse with the woman of Samaria, where He first emphasizes His assertion with "Woman, believe Me"; and though Origen occasionally accuses Heracleon of deficient accuracy, for instance in taking the prophet (i. 21) as meaning no more than a prophet; "in three days" (ii. 19) as meaning no more than "on the third day"; yet on the whole Heracleon's examination of the words is exceedingly minute. He attempts to reconcile differences between the Evangelists, e.g. our Lord's ascription to the Baptist of the titles "Elias" and "prophet" with John's own disclaimer of these titles. He finds mysteries in the numbers in the narrative—in the 46 years which the temple was in building, the 6 husbands of the woman of Samaria (for such was his reading), the 2 days our Lord abode with the people of the city, the 7th hour at which the nobleman's son was healed. He thinks it necessary to reconcile his own doctrine with that of the sacred writer, even at the cost of some violence of interpretation. Thus he declares that the Evangelist's assertion that all things were made by the Logos must be understood only of the things of the visible creation, his own doctrine being that the higher aeon world was not so made, but that the lower creation was made by the Logos through the instrumentality of the Demiurge. Instances of this kind where the interpreter is forced to reject the most obvious meaning of the text are sufficiently numerous to shew that the gospel was not written in the interests of Valentinianism; but it is a book which Heracleon evidently recognized as of such authority that he must perforce have it on his side.
He strives to find Valentinianism in the Gospel by a method of spiritual interpretation.
Thus the nobleman (βασιλικός, iv. 47) is the
Demiurge, a petty prince, his kingdom being limited and temporary, the servants
are his angels, the son is the man who belongs to the Demiurge. As he finds the
ψυχικοί represented in the nobleman's son,
so again he finds the πνευματικοί in the woman
of Samaria. The water of Jacob's well which she rejected is Judaism; the husband
whom she is to call is no earthly husband, but her spiritual bridegroom from the
Pleroma; the other husbands with whom she previously had committed fornication represent
the matter with which the spiritual have been entangled; that she is no longer to
worship either in "this mountain" or in "Jerusalem" means that she is not, like
the heathen, to worship the visible creation, the Hyle, or kingdom of the devil,
nor like the Jews to worship the creator or Demiurge; her watering-pot is her good
disposition for receiving life from the Saviour. Though the results of Heracleon's
method are heretical, the method itself is one commonly used by orthodox Fathers,
especially by Origen. Many orthodox parallels to Heracleon's exposition could be
adduced, e.g. that the cords with which our Lord drove the traffickers from
the temple represent the power of the Holy Spirit; the wood to which He assumes
they
One other of his interpretations deserves mention. The meaning which the Greek
of
To judge from the fragments we have, Heracleon's bent was rather practical than
speculative. He says nothing of the Gnostic theories as to stages in the origin
of the universe; the prologue of St. John does not tempt him into mention of the
Valentinian Aeonology. In fact he does not use the word aeon in the sense employed
by other Valentinian writers, but rather where according to their use we should
expect the word Pleroma; and this last word he uses in a special sense, describing
the spiritual husband of the Samaritan woman as her Pleroma—that is, the complement
which supplies what was lacking to perfection. We find in his system only two beings
unknown to orthodox theology, the Demiurge, and apparently a second Son of Man;
for on
Besides the passages on which he comments Heracleon refers to
The date of Heracleon is of interest on account of his use of St. John's Gospel, which clearly had attained high authority when he wrote. The mere fact, however, that a book was held in equal honour by the Valentinians and the orthodox seems to prove that it must have attained its position before the separation of the Valentinians from the church; and, if so, it is of less importance to determine the exact date of Heracleon. The decade 170–180 may probably be fixed for the centre of his activity. This would not be inconsistent with his having been personally instructed by Valentinus, who continued to teach as late as 160, and would allow time for Heracleon to have gained celebrity before Clement wrote, one of whose references to Heracleon is in what was probably one of his earliest works. He had evidently long passed from the scene when Origen wrote. (Neander, Gen. Entwick. 143, and Ch. Hist. ii. 135; Heinrici, Val. Gnosis, 127; Westcott, N. T. Canon. 299.) The Gk. text of The Fragments of Heracleon has been ed. with intro. and notes by A. E. Brooke (Camb. Univ. Press).
Heraclides (5) Cyprius, bp. of Ephesus; a native of Cyprus, who had
received a liberal education, was versed in the Scriptures, and had passed some
years in ascetic training in the desert of Scetis under Evagrius. He then became
deacon to Chrysostom, and was in immediate attendance on him. On the deprivation
of Antoninus, bp. of Ephesus, a.d.
401, there being a deadlock in the election through the number of rival candidates
and the violence of the opposing factions, Chrysostom brought Heraclides forward,
and he was elected by the votes of seventy bishops to the vacant see. The election
at first only increased the disturbance, and loud complaints were made of the
unfitness of Heraclides for the office, which detained Chrysostom in Asia
Hermas (2). In the latter half of the 2nd cent. there was in circulation
a book of visions and allegories, purporting to be written by one Hermas and commonly
known as The Shepherd. This book was treated with respect bordering on
that paid to the canonical Scriptures of N.T., and was publicly read in some churches.
A passage from it is quoted by Irenaeus (iv. 20, p. 253) with the words, "Well
said the Scripture," a fact which Eusebius notes (H. E. v. 8). Probably
n the time of Irenaeus the work was publicly read in the Gallican churches. The
mutilated commencement of the Stromateis of Clement of Alexandria opens
in the middle of a quotation from The Shepherd, and about ten times elsewhere
he cites the book, always with a complete acceptance of the reality and divine
character of the revelations made to Hermas, but without suggesting who Hermas
was or when he lived. Origen, who frequently cites the book (in Rom. xvi.
14, vol. iv. p. 683), considered it divinely inspired. He suggests, as do others
after him, but apparently on no earlier authority, that it was written by the
Hermas mentioned in
The Western tradition deserves more attention, as internal evidence shews the
book to have been composed at Rome. The MURATORIAN
FRAGMENT on the Canon tells us
that it had been written during the episcopate of Pius by his brother Hernias, a
period which the writer speaks of as within then living memory. He concludes that
the book ought to be read but not publicly in the church among the prophetic writings,
the number of which was complete, nor among the apostolic. The statement that the
book not only might but ought to be read is a high recognition of the value attributed
to it by the writer, and we gather that at least in some places its use in church
was then such as to lead some to regard it as on a level with the canonical Scriptures.
Tertullian, in one of his earliest treatises, de Oratione, has a reference
to its influence on the practice of churches which shews it to have enjoyed high
authority at the time, an authority which Tertullian's argument does not dispute.
It had probably been used in church reading and translated into Latin, since Tertullian
describes it by the Latin title Pastor, and not by a Greek title, as he usually
does in the case of Greek writings. Some ten years later, after Tertullian had become
a Montanist, and the authority of The Shepherd is urged in behalf of readmitting
adulterers to communion, he rejects the book as not counted worthy of inclusion
in the canon, but placed by every council, even those of the Catholic party, among
false and apocryphal writings (de Pudic. c. 10). Quoting Hebrews,
he says that this is at least more received than that apocryphal Shepherd
of the adulterers (c. 20). The phrase "more received" warns us to take cum grano
Tertullian's assertion as to the universal rejection of The Shepherd;
but doubtless the distinction between apostolic and later writings was then drawn
more sharply, and in the interval between Tertullian's two writings The Shepherd
may have been excluded from public reading in many churches which before had admitted
it. The Liberian papal catalogue (probably here, as elsewhere, following the catalogue
of Hippolytus) states that under the episcopate of Pius his brother Ermas wrote
a book in which the commands and precepts were contained which the angel gave him
when he came to him in the habit of a shepherd. Yet, while refusing to assign the
book to apostolic times, it makes no doubt of the reality of the angelic appearance
to Hermas. Later biographical notices of popes state that the message given to Hermas
was that Easter should always be celebrated on a Sunday. These clearly shew that
by then all knowledge of the book had been lost; and further notices shew a confusion
between the name of Hermas and that of his book, which imply that the book was no
longer in use. Jerome, when quoting Eusebius about the book (de Vir. Ill.
10, vol. ii. 845), adds that among the Latins it was almost unknown. He speaks contemptuously
of it (in Habac. i. 14, vol. vi. 604), for it seems certain that the book
of Hermas
The book is in three parts. The first part consists of visions. Hermas tells that he who had brought him up had sold him to Rome to a lady named Rhoda; that after a considerable time he renewed his acquaintance with her and began to love her as a sister; that he saw her one day bathing in the Tiber and assisted her out of the water ; that admiring her beauty he thought how happy he should be if he had a wife like her in person and disposition. Further than this his thought did not go. But a little time after he had a vision. He fell asleep, and in his dream was walking and struggling on ground so rugged and broken that it was impossible to pass. At length he succeeded in crossing the water by which his path had been washed away, and coming into smooth ground knelt to confess his sins to God. Then the heavens were opened and he saw Rhoda saluting him from the sky. On his asking her what she did there, she told him that she had been taken up to accuse him, because God was angry with him for having sinned in thought against her. Then Hermas was overwhelmed with horror and fear, not knowing how he could abide the severity of God's judgment, if such a thought as his was marked as sin. Rhoda now passes out of his dream and he sees a venerable aged lady clad in shining garments sitting on a great white chair and holding a book in her hand. She asks why he, usually so cheerful, is now so sad. On telling her, she owns what a sin any impure thought would be in one so chaste, so singleminded and so innocent as he; but tells him that this is not why God is displeased with him, but because of the sins of his children, whom he, through false indulgence, had allowed to corrupt themselves, but to whom repentance was open if he would warn them. Then she reads to him out of her book, but of all she reads he can remember nothing save the last comforting sentence, and that all which preceded was terrible and threatening. She parted from him with the words, "Play the man, Hermas." Hermas was an elderly man with a grown-up family, and Rhoda must have been at least as old as himself. If the tale is an invented one, this is certainly an incongruity; but if it be a true story, it is quite conceivable that the thought may have occurred to Hermas, who seems to have been not happy in his family relations, how much happier it would have been for him if Rhoda had been his wife; and that afterwards, in a dream, this thought may have recurred to his memory as a sin to be repented of. The vision presents all the characteristics of a real dream; the want of logical connexion between the parts, the changes of scene, the fading out of Rhoda as principal figure and the appearance of the aged lady in her room; the substitution of quite a different offence for the sinful thought which weighed on his conscience at the beginning; the physical distress in his sleep at first presenting the idea of walking on and on without being able to find an outlet, afterwards of mental grief at words spoken to him; the long reading of which only the words spoken immediately before awaking are remembered,—all these indicate that we are reading not a literary invention like the dream of the Pilgrim's Progress, but the recital, a little dressed up it may be, of a dream which the narrator really had. In another vision, a year after, he saw again the lady and her book, and received the book to copy, but still it conveyed no idea to his mind. He then set himself by fasting and prayer to learn its meaning, and after about a fortnight was gratified. He learns, too, that the lady is not, as he had imagined, the sibyl, but the church, and that she appeared as old because she was created first of all, and for her sake the world was made. Ephesians, which probably suggested this doctrine of the pre-existence of the church, is one of the N.T. books of whose use by Hermas there are clear traces. In subsequent visions we have a different account of the matter; he sees in each a woman more and more youthful in appearance, whom he is taught to identify with the church of his former vision; and it is explained that he saw her old at first because the spirit of Christians had been broken by infirmity and doubt, and afterwards more youthful as by the revelations made him their spirit had been renewed. After his first two visions Hermas watched eagerly for new revelations, and set himself to obtain them by fasting and prayer. In those later visions, while the pictures presented to his mind are such as we can well believe to have been dream representations, the explanations given of them have a coherence only to be found in the thoughts of a waking man. This is still more true of the second and third parts of the work. At the end of the first part he has the vision in which he sees a man dressed like a shepherd, who tells him that he is the angel of repentance and the guardian to whose care he had been entrusted. >From this shepherd he receives, for his instruction and that of the church, the "Commandments," which form the second, and the "Similitudes," which form the third part of the work. The Similitudes were probably suggested by N.T. parables, though the frigid compositions of Hermas fall infinitely below these.
The literary merits of the work of Herman are of little importance compared with
the fundamental question as to the date of the book and whether it claims to be
an inspired document, the writer of which aspires to no literary merit, save that
of faithfully recording the revelations made him. Are we to suppose that Hernias
in relating his visions intended no more than to present edifying lessons in an
allegorical form, and that it was merely as
Date and Authorship.—Antiquity furnishes authority for three suppositions:
(a) the author was the Hermas to whom a salutation is sent in
But if, as we think, the Hermas of The Shepherd is not a fictitious character, but a real person known in the church of Rome in the 2nd cent., we incline to follow Zahn in relying more on his connexion with Clement than with Pius. Zahn places The Shepherd c. 97; but if we assign that date to the epistle of Clement we ought to allow a few years for that letter to have obtained the celebrity and success which the notice in Hermas implies. That notice need not necessarily have been published in the lifetime of Clement, for Hermas is not instructed to deliver his message immediately, but only after the completion of his revelations, and this may have been after Clement's death.
Are, then, any indications of date in the book inconsistent with such an early date?
There is much affinity between the leading ideas of Montanism and of the book of Hermas, especially as to the fall of many in the church from the ideal of holiness. The question was asked, Was it possible to renew such again to repentance? In both our Lord's second coming was eagerly looked forward to, and a knowledge of God's coming dealings with His church sought for from visions and revelations. But the teaching of Hermas is less rigorous than the Montanistic, and all that is special to Montanism is unknown to him.
Hermas directs his efforts almost exclusively to combating the relaxation of morality in the church; he scarcely notices doctrinal errors, and no reference to Gnostic doctrines can be found in his book, unless it be a statement (Sim. v. 7) that there were some who took licence to misuse the flesh on account of a denial of the resurrection of the body. But these false teachers seem to have been all in the church, not separate from it. In the passage which seems most distinctly to refer to Gnostics (ib. ix. 22), they are described as "wishing to know everything and knowing nothing," as "praising themselves that they have understanding, and wishing to be teachers, though they were really fools." Yet, he adds, "to these repentance is open, for they were not wicked, but rather silly and without understanding." The seeds of Gnosticism had begun to spring up even in apostolic times; but we cannot think that Hermas would have written thus after Gnosticism had become dangerous to the Roman church.
Hermas rebukes the strifes for precedence among Christians (Vis. iii.
9; Mand. ix.; Sim. viii. 7), and it is difficult to find in his book
The church had at the time of this writing enjoyed a good deal of quiet, but this had evidently been broken by many harassing persecutions, in which some had apostatized. Usually their danger is described as no more than of loss of goods and of injury to worldly business; but there had been (though perhaps not recently) martyrs who had given their lives and endured crosses and wild beasts for the Name of the Son of God. They could have saved themselves by denial or by committing idolatry. Thus they suffered as Christians, and it has been inferred that the date must be later than the well-known letter of Trajan to Pliny which first made the profession of Christianity unlawful. Yet it seems possible to assign an earlier date to The Shepherd, and to I. Peter which is affected by the same argument, when we remember that Trajan only gave imperial sanction to the rule on which Pliny had been acting already, and on which others had probably been acting previously; or Pliny implies that trials of Christians were then well known. And it may be argued that after the edict of Trajan obstinate profession of Christianity was liable to be punished with death, whereas in the time of Hermas it seems to have been punished only by fine or imprisonment. Hermas lost his business in the persecution, having been betrayed, it seems, by his children. At the time of the visions he was apparently farming. Zahn, who places the persecution under Domitian, ingeniously conjectures (p. 133) that Hermas was one of those to whom, as Dion Cassius tells (68, 2), Nerva made restitution by giving land instead of the goods of which they had been despoiled by Domitian.
It is disappointing to have to add that an ordinary Christian of to-day would
find in the book neither much interest nor edification, and that the historical
student finds in it much less help than he might expect. Hermas is absorbed in trying
to bring about a practical reform; he shews much less interest in doctrine, in which
possibly as a layman he was perhaps not accurately instructed; he never quotes either
O. or N. T., nor is his language much influenced by Scripture phraseology, and some
would describe him as having preached not the Gospel, but merely a dry morality.
The inference was natural, if Pauline Christianity is so much in the background
in Hermas, that he must have been an anti-Pauline Jewish Christian; and this may
seem confirmed by the fact that the N.T. book which has most stamped itself on his
mind is the Ep. of St. James. Yet a closer examination finds no real trace of Judaism
in him. It is scarcely credible that one brought up a Jew should seem so unfamiliar
with O.T.
The only express quotation is from the lost apocryphal book of Eldad and Modad. His use of either O. or N. T, not being indicated by formal quotation, but only by coincidences of language or thought, there is room for difference of opinion as to his use of particular books. The proofs of the use of the Epp. of James and of Ephesians seem decisive, and only a little less strong in the case of I. Peter and I. Cor. Of his use of the Gospel and Revelation of St. John we are persuaded, though we admit that the evidence is not conclusive. We believe also that the knowledge of sayings of our Lord which Hermas unmistakably exhibits was obtained from our Synoptic Gospels, the coincidences with St. Mark (see Zahn, p. 457) being most striking.
Where Hermas had lived before he was sold to Rome we can only conjecture. According to a reading which there seems no good ground to question, he supposes himself in one of his visions to have been transported to Arcadia, and Mahaffy says (Rambles in Greece, p. 330, 2nd ed.) that the scenery he describes suits that in Arcadia, and does not suit the neighbourhood of Rome. Zahn conjectures that Hermas was born in Egypt because the architecture of the tower of Hermas's visions resembles the description in Josephus of the Jewish temple in the Egyptian Heliopolis.
The Shepherd has been edited by Hilgenfeld (Nov. Test. ext. Can. Rec.
1866) and Gebhardt and Harnack (Patres Apostolici, 1877). The latter ed.
is indispensable, and contains a full list of editions, and of works treating of
Hermas. Some interesting discussion is to be found in the reviews of Gebhardt's
ed. by Overbeck (Schurer, Theol. Literaturzeitung, 1878), Donaldson in
Theological Review (1878), and Zahn, Göttingen gelehrte Anzeigen (1878).
Zahn, Der Hirt des Hermas (1868), is the work from which we have learned
most. Another ed. is by Funk (Pat. Apost. Tübingen, 1878). A Collation
of the Athos Codex of the Shepherd with intro. by Dr. Lambros, trans. and ed.
with preface and appendices by Dr. J. A. Robinson, has been pub. by Camb. Univ.
Press; a cheap Eng. trans. of The Shepherd by Dr. C. Taylor (2 vols.) by
S. P.C. K.; and in
Hermenigild (Ermenigild), St., Visigoth Catholic prince in Spain, son of the Arian king Leovigild. Hermenigild and Reccared were sons of Leovigild's first wife (Joh. Bicl. apud Esp. Sagr. vi. 378), who was dead in 569. The dates of their births are unknown (? 560–562), but Hermenigild was the elder. In 573 both sons were made "consortes regni" (ib.). Most probably between 573 and 575 (cf. Greg. Tur. iv. 38) Hermenigild was betrothed to the Catholic Frankish princess Ingunthis, the daughter of Sigibert of Rheims. In 579 (Joh. Bicl. l.c. 381) Ingunthis, then 12 years old, reached Spain, and, owing to dissensions between her and her Arian grandmother, Leovigild sent the newly married pair to a distance, assigning to Hermenigild the government of Baetica, or part of it, with Seville for a capital (ib.). Here later in 579 (cf. Görres, Kritische Untersuch. über den Aufstand und das Martyrium des Westgoth. Königsohnes Hermenigild, in Zeitschrift für Hist Theol. 1873, i. n. 83; Dahn, Kön. der Germ. v. 137, gives 580 as the year) Hermenigild renounced Arianism, was confirmed in the Catholic faith by Leander the Catholic metropolitan of Seville, and took the name of Joannes (Greg. Tur. v. 39; Greg. Magn. Dial. iii. 31; Paul. Diac. iii. 21). This was immediately followed by the rebellion of Hermenigild (Joh. Bicl. l.c.), who shortly afterwards formed a close alliance with the Byzantines in the south, and with the recently catholicized Suevi in the north, i.e. with the two most formidable enemies of his father's state and power (cf. Dahn, v. 138). Thus the struggle shaped itself as a conflict of confessions and nationalities, of Arianism and Catholicism, of Goth and Roman, although Leovigild had adherents among the provincials, and Hermenigild counted some Gothic partisans (ib. 140).
It was not till the end of 582 that Leovigild felt himself strong enough to attack his son. Seville fell in 584 (Joh. Bicl. l.c. 383), and shortly afterwards Hermenigild was captured in or near Cordova (ib.; Greg. Tur. v. 39, vi. 43), deprived of the government of Baetica, and exiled to Valencia. In 585 Hermenigild was put to death (Joh. Bicl. 384). Isidore does not mention her death at all. Gregory of Tours mentions it in passing (Hist. Fr. viii. 28). Upon the account given by Gregory the Great alone (Dial. iii. 31) rests the claim of Hermenigild to be considered not as a rebel suffering the penalty of a political crime, but as a martyr for the Catholic faith. According to the pope, Hermenigild, after a painful imprisonment, was beheaded on the night of Easter Sunday, by his father's apparitores, because he had refused to receive the sacrament from the hands of an Arian bishop. After the execution, miracles were not wanting to substantiate his claim to veneration. In his grave, according to Gregory, were laid the foundations of Visigothic Catholicism; for, after Leovigild's death, his son Reccared was converted by Leander and led the whole people of the Visigoths to the true faith.
Hermes (1) Trismegistus. Under this title we have a variety of writings of uncertain date and unknown authorship originating in Egypt. The name "Hermes Trismegistus" never belonged to any single writer. Jamblichus, at the beginning of his treatise de Mysteries, tells us that "Hermes, who presides over speech, is, according to ancient tradition, common to all priests; he it is who exists in all of them. That is why our ancestors attributed all discoveries to him, and issued their works under the name of Hermes." There was, in fact, a long-continued series of books called "hermetic," extending over several centuries. Tertullian, however (cont. Valent. c. 15), speaks of Hermes Trismegistus as a master in philosophy; and the extant hermetic books have, whatever their date, philosophical and spiritual relations of a very interesting kind. They belong, as is now generally agreed, to the neo-Platonic school; and gather up in a synthesis, the artificiality of which is not at first sight apparent, large elements of all the different factors of religious belief in the Roman world or the 2nd and 3rd cents. The two principal are the Ποιμάνδρης (the "Shepherd of Men"), and the Λόγος τέλειος (or "Discourse of Initiation"), otherwise called "Asclepius." These two works, together with a variety of fragments, have been translated into French by M. Louis Ménard (Paris, 1867), and accompanied with a preliminary essay of much interest on the hermetic writings and their affinities generally. His most important fragments are from a work entitled Κόρη κόσμου (the "Virgin of the World"), a dialogue between Isis and her son Horus on the origin of nature and of animated beings, including man. Other less noticeable works attributed to Hermes Trismegistus are named in D. of G. and R. Biogr. (s.v.).
It is not to be assumed that these, the Ποιμάνδρης, and Λόγος τέλειος, are by the same author; but from their great similarity of tone and thought, this is possible. Both works are quoted by Lactantius (who ascribed to them the fabulous antiquity and high authority which the early Fathers were wont to attribute to the Sibylline books); and must have been written before c. 330, when Lactantius died. The historical allusions in the Asclepius distinctly point to a time when heathenism was about to perish before the increasing power of Christianity. Hence both these works were probably written towards the close of the 3rd cent.
Three motives are discernible in them. First, the endeavour to take an intellectual
survey of the whole spiritual universe, without marking any points where the understanding
of man fails and has to retire unsatisfied; this is a disposition which, under different
forms and at different times, has been called Pantheism or Gnosticism (though the
Gnostic idea of an evil element in creation nowhere appears in these treatises).
The ideas of the author are presented with a gorgeous material imagery; and, speaking
generally, he regards the material world as interpenetrated by the spiritual, and
almost identified with it. The power and divine character which he attributes to
the sun and other heavenly bodies are peculiarly Egyptian, though this also brings
him into affinity with Stoic, and even with Platonic, views. Secondly, this Pantheism
or Gnosticism is modified by moral and
Hermias (5), a Christian philosopher, author of the Irrisio Gentilium Philosophorum, annexed in all Bibliothecae Patrum to the works of Athenagoras (Migne, Patr. Gk. vi. 1167). It was published in Greek and Latin at Basle in 1553. It consists of satirical reflections on the opinions of the philosophers, shewing how Anaxagoras, Empedocles, Pythagoras, Epicurus, etc. agree only in repelling and refuting one another. Who the author was seems to have baffled all inquiries. Some identify him with Hermias Sozomen the ecclesiastical historian. Even the martyr of May 31 has been suggested (Ceillier, vi. 332). Cave (i. 81) attributes the work to the 2nd cent. As it was plainly written when heathenism was triumphant, Ceillier (u.s.) places it under Julian. Neander (H. E. ii. 429, ed. Bohn) regards Hermias as "one of those bitter enemies of the Greek philosophy whom Clement of Alexandria thought it necessary to censure, and who, following the idle Jewish legend, pretended that the Greek philosophy had been derived from fallen angels. In the title of his book he is called the philosopher; perhaps he wore the philosopher's mantle before his conversion, and after it passed at once from an enthusiastic admiration of the Greek pilosophy to extreme abhorrence of it" (Du Pin H. E. t. i. p. 69, ed. 1723). The latest ed. is by H. Diels, in Doxographi Graeci (Berlin, 1879).
Hermogenes (1), a teacher of heretical doctrine towards the close of 2nd cent., the chief error ascribed to him being the doctrine that God had formed the world, not out of nothing, but out of previously existing uncreated matter. Tertullian wrote two tracts in answer, one of which is extant, and is our chief source of information about Hermogenes. The minuteness with which his arguments are answered indicates that Tertullian is replying to a published work of Hermogenes, apparently written in Latin. Another doctrine of Hermogenes preserved by Clement of Alexandria (Eclog. ex Script. Proph. 56 p. 1002, being unlike anything told of him by Tertullian, was conjectured by Mosheim (de Rebus Christ. ante Const. p. 435) to belong to some different Hermogenes. But the since recovered treatise on heresies by Hippolytus combines in its account of Hermogenes (viii. 17, p. 273) the doctrines attributed to him by Clement and by Tertullian. Probably Clement and Hippolytus drew from a common source, namely, the work "against the heresy of Hermogenes," which, Eusebius tells us (H. E, iv. 24), was written by Theophilus of Antioch, and which is mentioned also by Theodoret (Haer. Fab. i. 19), who probably drew from it his account of Hermogenes, in which he clearly employs some authority different from the tenth book, or summary, of Hippolytus, of which he makes large use of elsewhere. Theodoret adds that Hermogenes was also answered by Origen, from which it has been supposed that he refers under this name to the summary now ascribed to Hippolytus; but there is no evidence that Theodoret regarded this work as Origen's (see Volkmar, Hippolytus und die römischen Zeitgenossen, p. 54), so that some lost work of Origen's must be presumed. The passages cited are all our primary authorities about Hermogenes, except some statements of Philaster (see below).
A considerable distance of time and place separates the notices by Theophilus
and Tertullian. THEOPHILUS
survived the accession of Commodus in 180, but probably not more than two years.
Hence 180 would be our latest date for the teaching of Hermogenes, which may have
been earlier. He probably had disciples at Antioch, and therefore must have taught
at or near there, and any writing of his answered by Theophilus must have been written
in Greek. Tertullian's tract against Hermogenes is assigned by Uhlhorn (Fundamenta
Chron. Tert. p. 60) to a.d. 206
or 207. In it Hermogenes is spoken of as still living ("ad hodiernum homo in saeculo")
and coupled with one Nigidius in the work on Prescription, c. 30, as among the heretics
"who still walk perverting the ways of God." There are indications that the work
to which Tertullian replies was in Latin, and every reason to think that Hermogenes
(though probably, as his name indicates, of Greek descent) was then living in Carthage,
for Tertullian assails his private character, entering into details in a way which
would not be intelligible unless both were inhabitants of the same city. The same
inference may be drawn from the frequency of Tertullian's references to Hermogenes
in works of which his errors are not the subject (de Monog. 16; de Praescrip.
30, 33 adv. Valent. 16; de Animâ, 1, 11, 21, 22, 24); for apparently
proximity gave this heretic an importance in his eyes greater than was otherwise
warranted. Tertullian describes him as a turbulent man, who took loquacity for eloquence
and impudence for firmness. Two things in particular are shocking to his then Montanist
principles, that Hermogenes was a painter, and that he had married frequently. Neander
and others have supposed that the offence of Hermogenes was that he painted mythological
subjects. But there is no trace
With regard to the doctrines of Hermogenes, the language of Hippolytus suggests that he denied the physical possibility of creation from nothing; but in the representation of Tertullian no stress is laid on the philosophic maxim, "Nihil ex nihilo," and the eternal existence of matter seems only assumed to account for the origin of evil. The argument of Hermogenes was, either God made the world out of His own substance, or out of nothing, or out of previously existing matter. The first or emanation hypothesis is rejected, since He Who is indivisible and immutable could not separate Himself into parts, or make Himself other than He had ever been. The second is disproved by the existence of evil, for if God made all things out of nothing unrestrained by any condition, His work would have been all good and perfect like Himself. It remained, therefore, that God must have formed the world out of previously existent matter, through the fault of which evil was possible. Further, God must have been always God and Lord, therefore there must always have existed something of which He was God and Lord. Tertullian replies that God was always God but not always Lord, and appeals to Genesis, where the title God is given to the Creator from the first, but the title Lord not till after the creation of man. Concerning Tertullian's assertion that God was not always Father, see Bull, Del. Fid. Nic. iii. 10. From the assertion of Hermogenes that God was always Lord of matter, Neander inferred that he must have denied any creation in time, and held that God had been from eternity operating in a formative manner on matter. Tertullian does not appear to have drawn this consequence, and (c. 44) assumes as undisputed some definite epoch of creation. But the account of Hippolytus shews Neander to have been right. With regard to the general argument, Tertullian shews that the hypothesis of the eternity of matter relieves none of the difficulties of reconciling the existence of evil with the attributes of God. If God exercised lordship over matter, why did He not clear it of evil before He employed it in the work of creation? Or why did He employ in His work that which He knew to be evil? It would really, he says, be more honourable to God to make Him the free and voluntary author of evil than to make him the slave of matter, compelled to use it in His work, though knowing it to be evil. He contends that the hypothesis of Hermogenes amounts to Ditheism, since, though he does not give to matter the name of God, he ascribes to it God's essential attribute of eternity. He asks what just claim of lordship God could have over matter as eternal as Himself; nay, which might claim to be the superior; for matter could do without God, but God, it would seem, could not carry out His work without coming to matter for assistance. In the discussion every word in the Mosaic account of creation receives minute examination and there is a good deal of strained verbal interpretation on both sides. But the authority, and apparently the canon, of Scripture were subjects on which both were agreed. Tertullian holds Scripture so exclusive an authority that its mere silence is decisive, and, since it does not mention pre-existent matter, that those who assert its existence incur the woe denounced against those who add to that which is written.
Though the word "materialist" is first heard of in this controversy, the views of Hermogenes were very unlike those now known by that name, and it is doubtful whether our word matter exactly corresponds to the hyle of Hermogenes. This apparently included the ideas of shapelessness and disorderly motion, so that all the sensible world could not, as in our modern language, be described as material. That which became κόσμος ceased to be hyle, and, in fact, Tertullian does not admit the existence of matter in the sense of Hermogenes. Hermogenes held matter to be infinite and refused to apply to it any predicate. It is without form, and is described as in a perpetual state of turbulent restless motion, like water boiling in a pot. It is not to be called good, since it needed the Deity to fashion it; nor bad, since it was capable of being reduced to order. It is not to be called corporeal, because motion, one of its essential attributes, is incorporeal, nor incorporeal because out of it bodies are made. Hermogenes repudiated the Stoic notion that God pervades matter, or is in it like honey in a honeycomb; his idea was that the Deity, without intermixing with matter, operated on it by His mere approach and by shewing Himself, just as beauty affects the mind by the mere sight of it (a very appropriate illustration for a painter) or as a magnet causes motion without contact merely on being brought near. By this approach part of matter was reduced to order and became the κόσμος, but part remains unsubdued; and this, it is to be supposed, was in the theory of Hermogenes the source of evil. Tertullian acutely remarks that this language about God's drawing near to matter as well as the use of the words above and below with reference to the relative position of God and matter cannot be reconciled with the doctrine of Hermogenes as to the infinity of matter.
The lost tract of Tertullian against Hermogenes discussed the origin of the soul,
which Hermogenes ascribed to matter, Tertullian to the breath of life inspired by
God at the formation of man (
The opinion of Hermogenes (not mentioned by Tertullian, but recorded by Clement,
Hippolytus, and Theodoret) is that our Lord on His ascension left His body in the
sun and Himself ascended to the Father, a doctrine which he derived or confirmed
from
It remains to notice Philaster's confused account of Hermogenes. It would not cause much difficulty that he counts (Haer. 53) the Hermogenians as a school of Sabellians, called after Hermogenes as the Praxeani were after Praxeas. Though the silence of Tertullian leads us to believe that Hermogenes himself was orthodox on this point, his followers may very possibly have allied themselves with those of Praxeas against their common opponent. But in the next section Philaster tells of Galatian heretics, Seleucus and Hermias, and attributes to them the very doctrines of Hermogenes that matter was co-eternal with God, that man's soul was from matter, and that our Lord deposited His body in the sun in accordance with the Psalm already quoted. It is beyond all probability that such a combination of doctrines could have been taught independently by two heretics and it is not likely that Hermogenes had disciples in Galatia; we may therefore reasonably believe that Philaster's Hermias is Hermogenes. Philaster, however, attributes to his heretics other doctrines which we have no reason to think were held by Hermogenes: that evil proceeded sometimes from God, sometimes from matter; that there was no visible Paradise; that water-baptism was not to be used, seeing that souls had been formed from wind and fire, and that the Baptist had said that Christ should baptize with the Holy Ghost and with fire; that angels, not Christ, had created men's souls; that this world was the only "infernum," and that the only resurrection is that of the human race occurring daily in the procreation of children. Philaster may have read tracts not now extant, in which Tertullian made mention of Hermogenes, and possibly if we had the lost tract de Paradiso it might throw light on Philaster's statements. But we may safely reject his account as untrustworthy, even though we cannot now trace the origin of his confusion.
The tract against Hermogenes has been analysed by writers on Tertullian; e.g. Neander, Antignosticus, p. 448, Bohn's trans.; Kaye, Tertullian, p. 532; Hauck, Tertullian, p. 240. Consult also arts. s.v. in Tillemont, iii. and Walch, Hist. der Ketz. i. 576; and E. Heintzel Hermogenes (Berlin, 1902).
Hesychius (3) (Hesechius), bp. of an Egyptian see, mentioned as the author, with Phileas, Theodorus, and Pachumius, of a letter to Meletius, schismatic bp. of Lycopolis in Egypt. The letter, given in a Latin version in Gallandius, Bibl. Patrum, iv. 67, is a remonstrance to Meletius on his irregular ordinations in other dioceses, and was written (c. 296) when the authors were in prison and Peter of Alexandria alive. The martyrdom of Hesychius under Galerius, with Phileas, Pachumius, and Theodorus, is recorded in Eus. Hist. Eccl. viii. 13. This Hesychius has been usually identified with the reviser of the text of the LXX, and of N.T., or at least of the Gospels, which obtained extensive currency in Egypt. There are no grounds for questioning the truth of this conjecture. This Hesychian recension is mentioned more than once by Jerome, who states that it was generally accepted in Egypt, as that of his fellow-martyr, Lucian of Antioch, was in Asia Minor and the East (Hieron. Praef. in Paralipom. ad Chromat. Ep. 107, repeated in Apologia II. adv. Rufin. vol. i. p. 763, Paris, 1609). Jerome also refers to it as "exemplaria Alexandrina" (in Esai. lviii. 11). We know little or nothing more of this edition of the LXX. It was doubtless an attempt, like that of Lucian, to purify the text in use in Egypt, by collating various manuscripts and by recourse to other means of assistance at hand. Jerome speaks with some contempt of his labours in the field of O.T. recension, and still more of his and Lucian's recension of the Gospels. If we interpret his words strictly, Hesychius, as well as Lucian, added so much to the text as to lay them open to the charge of falsifying the Gospels and rendering their work "apocryphal" (Hieron. Praef. in Evang. cad Damasum). The words of the famous Decretal of Gelasius (c. 500) "on ecclesiastical books," which are, however, regarded by Credner (Zur Gesch. d. K. p. 216) as additions to the original decree "made at the time it was republished in Spain under the name of Hormisdas, c. 700–800" (Westcott, Hist. of Can. p. 448, n. 1), are equally condemnatory: "Evangelia quae falsavit Isicius [Hesychius]—Apocrypha" (Labbe, Conc. iv. 126). Westcott pronounces Hug's speculations as to the influence of this recension, "of which nothing is certainly known," "quite unsatisfactory" (ib.).
Hesychius (25), presbyter of Jerusalem in the first half of 5th cent.,
a copious and learned writer whose comments on Holy Scripture and other works
gained a great reputation. Considerable confusion exists as to the authorship
of several of the treatises ascribed to him—a confusion which it is hopeless entirely
to remove. It is possible that some were written by the bp. of Salona. [HESYCHIUS
(6).] It is altogether a mistake
Of several of the numerous works attributed to this author, all we can say is that they bear the name of Hesychius in one of its forms, but whether actually the composition of the presbyter of Jerusalem or of some other Hesychius it is difficult, if not impossible, to determine. Tillemont feels no insuperable difficulty in assigning them all to the same author, but confesses that fuller light might lead to a different conclusion.
(1) In Leviticum Libri VII. Explanationum Allegoricarum sive Commentarius, dedicated to the deacon Eutychianus, is the most extensive work extant under the name of Hesychius. It has frequently been printed. The earliest editions are those of Basle (1527, fol.) and Paris (1581, 8vo). It is in the various Bibliothecae Patrum, as that of Lyons, t. xii. p. 52, and the Vet. Patr. Bibl. of Galland, t. xi.
(2) Commentaries on the Psalms.—Harles and Fabricius, Bibl. Graec. vol. vii. p. 549, speak of many portions of this work existing in MS., especially one in the University Library of Cambridge containing Pss. lxxvii.–cvii. The only portions printed are the Fragmenta in Psalmos, extracted from the Greek Catena in Psalmos, with a Latin trans. by Balthazar Corderius. These are very sensible and useful, and lead us to wish for the publication of the whole. See Faulhaber, Hesych. Hierosol. Interpr. Is. Proph. 1900 sqq.; att. to Faulhaber in Theol. Quartalschr. 1901. The Commentary on the Psalms att. to Athanasius (Migne, Patr. Gk. xxvii.) is by Hesychius.
(3) Στιχηρὸν sive κεφάλαια in XII. Prophetas et Esaiam, an epitome of the 12 Minor Prophets and Isaiah, section by section.
(4) Fragments of Commentaries on Ezk., Dan., Acts, James, I. Peter, and Jude.
(5) Difficultatum et Solutionum Collectio.—A harmonizing of 61 discrepant passages in the Gospel history, generally characterized by sound common sense and a reluctance to force an unreal agreement.
(6) Eight Sermons, or Fragments of Sermons.
(7) Ἀντιρρητικὰ καὶ Εὐτικά. Two Centuries of Moral Maxims on Temperance and Virtue and Instructions on Prayer, addressed to one Theodotus.
(8) The Martyrdom of Longinus the Centurion.—The author, according to Fabricius, belonged to a much later period than the one who wrote the works previously enumerated.
(9) An Ecclesiastical History, of which a fragment is given in the Acts of the council of Constantinople, a.d. 353, Collat. Quinta, condemnatory of Theodore of Mopsuestia.
Cave, Hist. Lit. t. i. p. 570; Fabricius, Bibl. Graec. ed. Harles, t. vii. pp. 548–551; Galland, Vet. Patr. Bibl. t. xi.; Migne, Patr. Gk, vol. xciii. pp. 781–1560.
Hesychius (27) Illustris, a copious historical and biographical writer,
the son of an advocate and born at Miletus. His distinctive name (Ἰλλούστριος)
was the official title conferred by Constantine the Great on the highest rank
of state officers. Nothing is known of him except that he lived in the reigns
of Anastasius, Justin, and Justinian, and that his literary labours were cut short
by grief at the premature death of a son named John. Suidas doubts whether he
was a Christian on the somewhat precarious ground of his omission of all ecclesiastical
writers in his work on men of learning. But very substantial reasons have been
produced on the other side by Cave (Hist. Lit. t. i. p. 518) and accepted
by Fabricius. His chief work was a Universal History in six books and in
a synoptical form through a period of 1920 years, reaching from Belus, the reputed
founder of the Assyrian empire, to the death of Anastasius I.,
a.d. 518. The whole has perished
except the initial portion of bk. vi., which has been several times printed under
the title of Constantinopolis Origines, or Antiquitates. It was
published by George Dousa, and ascribed to Georgius Codinus (Heidelberg, 1596),
and subsequently by Meursius, under the name of its real author, appended to his
de Viris Claris (Lugd. Bat. 1613). It was followed by a supplement, recording
the reign of Justin, and the early years of Justinian. This, as the work of a
contemporary whose official position enabled him to obtain accurate information,
must have been of great historical value, and its loss is very much to be regretted.
Hesychius also wrote a series of biographical notices of learned men, which, going
over very much the same ground as the work of Diogenes Laertius, has been supposed
to be an epitome of the Vitae Philosophorum. A comparison of the two will
shew that the differences are too great to admit this idea. This work has been
printed by Meursius (Lugd. Bat. 1613). Without sufficient grounds Hesychius Illustris
has been identified with the lexicographer of
Hieracas (Hierax), an Egyptian teacher, from whom the sect of
Hieracitae took their name. Our knowledge of him is almost entirely derived from
Epiphanius (Haer. 67, p. 709), who states that he was contemporary with
the Egyptian bp. Meletius and Peter of Alexandria, and lived under Diocletian's
persecution. This agrees very well with the notice of him by Arius (vide infra),
so that he may be placed at the very beginning of the 4th cent. Epiphanius treats
him with more respect than other founders of heretical sects, and is willing to
believe that he practised asceticism bond fide, which, in the case of his
followers, he counts but as hypocrisy. According to Epiphanius, Hieracas lived
at Leontopolis, in Egypt, abstaining from wine and animal food; and by his severity
of life and the weight of his personal character did much to gain reception for
his doctrines, especially among other Egyptian ascetics. He had great ability
and learning, being well trained in Greek and Egyptian literature and science,
and wrote several works in both languages. Epiphanius ascribes to him a good
knowledge of medicine, and, with more hesitation, of astronomy and magic. He practised
the art of calligraphy, and is said to have lived to 90 years of age, and to have
retained such perfect eyesight as to be able to continue the practice of his art
to the time of his death. Besides composing hymns, he wrote several expository
works on Scripture, of which one on the Hexaemeron is particularly mentioned.
It was, doubtless, in this work that he put forward a doctrine censured by Epiphanius,
viz. the denial of a material Paradise. Mosheim connects this with his reprobation
of marriage, imagining that it arose from the necessity of replying to the objection
that marriage was a state ordained by God in Paradise. Neander, with more probability,
conceives that the notion of the essential evil of matter was at the bottom of
this as well as of other doctrines of Hieracas. This would lead him to allegorize
the Paradise of Genesis, interpreting it of that higher spiritual world from which
the heavenly spirit fell by an inclination to earthly matter. This notion would
also account for a second doctrine, which, according to Epiphanius, he held in
common with Origen, viz. that the future resurrection would be of the soul only,
not of the material body; for all who counted it a gain to the soul to be liberated
by death from the bonds of matter found it hard to believe that it could be again
imprisoned in a body at the resurrection. The same notion would explain the prominence
which the mortification of the body held in his practical teaching; so that, according
to this view, Hieracas would be referred to the class of Gnostic ENCRATITES.
The most salient point in his practical teaching was, that he absolutely condemned
marriage, holding that, though permitted under the old dispensation, since the
coming of Christ no married person could inherit the kingdom of heaven. If it
was objected that the apostle had said, "marriage is honourable in all," he appealed
to what the same apostle had said "a little further on" (
His doctrine concerning the Holy Spirit is more questionable. He was influenced by the book of the Ascension of Isaiah, which he received as authoritative. In it Isaiah is represented as seeing in the seventh Heaven, on the right and left hand of God respectively, two Beings like each other, one being the Son, the other the angel of the Holy Spirit Who spake by the prophets. Hieracas inferred that the latter Being, Who makes priestly intercession with groanings that cannot be uttered, must be the same as Melchisedek, who also was "made like unto the Son of God," and "who remaineth a priest for ever." These tenets are ascribed to Hieracas by Epiphanius, whose account is abridged by Augustine (Haer. 47), by Joannes Damascenus (66), and by "Praedestinatus" (47). The continued existence of the sect is assumed in a story told by Rufinus (Hist. Mon. 28, p. 196) of Macarius, who, when he had failed to confute the cunning arguments of a Hieracite heretic to the satisfaction of his hearers, vanquished him by successfully challenging him to a contest as to which could raise a dead body. Rufinus does not make the story turn on the fact that Hieracas denied the resurrection of the flesh.
Hierocles (1), a native of a small town in Caria, born at latest
c. 275. He was a Neoplatonic philosopher, to be distinguished from the 5th-cent.
philosopher HIEROCLES (2).
Lactantius supposed him to have been in early life a Christian, as he displayed
in his writings such intimate knowledge of Scripture and Christian teaching. He
must have been an active and able administrator, as he seems to have risen rapidly
by his own exertions. In an inscription at Palmyra (Corp. Inscript. Lat.
t. iii. no. 133) his name occurs as ruler of that city under Diocletian and Maximian,
Galerius and Constantius being Caesars. Here he probably
Hierocles (2), a philosopher, generally classed among the neo-Platonists, who lived at Alexandria in the first half of 5th cent., and delivered lectures of considerable merit. His character is spoken of by Damascius (quoted by Suidas) in high terms. When sojourning at Constantinople he came into collision with the government (or, as Kuster interprets it, with the Christian authorities) and was severely beaten in the court of justice, possibly (as Zeller conjectures) for his adherence to the old religion. He was then banished, and retired to Alexandria. His teacher in philosophy was Plutarch the neo-Platonist; Theosebius is mentioned as his disciple.
His principal extant work is a commentary on the Golden Verses attributed to Pythagoras. His entire remains have been ed. by bp. Pearson, P. Needham (Camb. 1709), Gaisford (1850), and Mullach (1853). See the last vol. of Zeller's Greek Philosophy, pp. 681–687.
Hierocles appears to have been a reconciler between the old and the new. Doubtless a sincere adherent of the heathen religion, its distinctive features melt away in his hands and his soft and tender tone recalls the accents of Christian piety, e.g. in the following passages from his commentary on the Golden Verses: "No proper cause is assignable for God to have created the world but His essential goodness. He is good by nature; and the good envies none in anything" (p. 20, ed. Needham). "What offering can you make to God, out of material things, that shall be likened unto or suitable to Him? . . . For, as the Pythagoreans say, God has no place in the world more fitted for Him than a pure soul" (p. 24). "'Strength dwells near necessity.' Our author adds this to shew that we must not measure our ability to tolerate our friend by mere choice, but by our real strength, which is discovered only by actual necessity. We have all in time of need more strength than we commonly think" (p. 52). "We must love the unworthy for the sake of their partnership in the same nature with us" (p. 56). "We must be gentle to those who speak falsely, knowing from what evils we ourselves have been cleansed. . . . And gentleness is much aided by the confidence which comes from real knowledge" (p. 110). "Let us unite prayer with work. We must pray for the end for which we work, and work for the end for which we pray; to teach us this our author says, 'Go to your work, having prayed the gods to accomplish it'" (p. 172).
The reasons adduced by Hierocles for belief in a future state are strictly moral, and quite remote from subtlety: "Except some part of us subsists after death, capable of receiving the ornaments of truth and goodness (and the rational soul has beyond doubt this capability), there cannot exist in us the pure desire for honourable actions. The suspicion that we may suffer annihilation destroys our concern for such matters" (p. 76).
Not less noteworthy are his views respecting Providence. God, he says, is the sole eternal author of all things; those Platonists who say that God could only make the universe by the aid of eternal matter are in error (p. 246, from the treatise περὶ προνοίας). Man has free will; but since the thoughts of man vacillate and sometimes forget God, man is liable to sin: what we call fate is the just and necessary retribution made by God, or by those powers who do God's will, for man's actions, whether for merit or demerit (p. 256; cf. p. 92). Hence the inequality in the lots of men. Pain is the result of antecedent sin; those who know this know the remedy, for they will henceforward avoid wrongdoing and will not accuse God as if He were the essential cause of their suffering (pp. 92, 94).
The approximation of heathen philosophy to Christianity is the most interesting
point to be noticed in connexion with Hierocles. He never, in his extant works,
directly mentions Christianity; what degree of tacit opposition is implied in his
philosophy is a difficult question. His philosophy has points more specially characteristic
of Platonism and neo-Platonism, e.g. his belief in the pre-existence of man
and in the transmigration
We conclude by quoting a passage on Marriage; shewing the singularly modern and Christian type of his mind. "Marriage is expedient, first, because it produces a truly divine fruit, namely children, our helpers alike when we are young and strong, and when we are old and worn. . . . But even apart from this, wedded life is a happy lot. A wife by her tender offices refreshes those who are wearied with external toil; she makes her husband forget those troubles which are never so active and aggressive as in the midst of a solitary and unfriended life; sometimes questioning him on his business pursuits, or referring some domestic matter to his judgment, and taking counsel with him upon it: giving a savour and pleasure to life by her unstrained cheerfulness and alacrity. Then again in the united exercise of religious sacrifice, in her conduct as mistress of the house in the absence of her husband, when the family has to be held in order not without a certain ruling spirit, in her care for her servants, in her careful tending of the sick, in these and other things too many to be; recounted, her influence is notable. . . . Splendid dwellings, marbles and precious stones and myrtle groves are but poor ornaments to a family. But the heaven-blessed union of a husband and wife, who have all, even their bodies and souls, in common, who rule their house and bring up their children well, is a more noble and excellent ornament; as indeed Homer said. . . . Nothing is so burdensome but that a husband and wife can easily bear it when they are in harmony together, and willing to give their common strength to the task."
Hieronymus (4) (Jerome), St. The full name is Eusebius Hieronymus.
Among the best accounts of St. Jerome are: Saint Jérôme, la Société chrétienne à Rome et l᾿emigration romaine en Terre Sainte, par M. Amédée Thierry (Paris, 1867), and Hieronymus sein Leben und Werken von Dr. Otto Zöckler (Gotha, 1865); the former gives a vivid, artistic, and, on the whole, accurate picture of his life, with large extracts in the original from his writings, the latter a critical and comprehensive view of both. These contain all that is best in previous biographers, such as the Benedictine Martianay (Paris, 1706), Sebastian Dolci (Ancona, 1750), Engelstoft (Copenhagen, 1797); to which may be added notices of Jerome in the Acta Sanctorum, Biblia Sacra, Du Pin's and Ceillier's Histories of Ecclesiastical Writers, the excellent article in the D. of G. and R. Biogr., the Life of Jerome prefixed to Vallarsi's ed. of his works, which has a singular value from its succinct narrative and careful investigation of dates.
He was born c. 346 at Stridon, a town near Aquileia, of Catholic Christian parents (Pref. to Job), who, according to the custom then common, did not have him baptized in infancy. They were not very wealthy, but possessed houses (Ep. lxvi. 4) and slaves (cont. Ruf. i. c. 30), and lived in close intimacy with the richer family of Bonosus, Jerome's foster-brother (Ep. iii. 5). They were living in 373, when Jerome first went to the East (xxii. 30), but, since he never mentions them later, they probably died in the Gothic invasion (377) when Stridon was destroyed. He had a brother Paulinian, some 20 years younger (lxxxii. 8), who from 385 lived constantly with him. He was brought up in comfort, if not in luxury (xxii. 30) and received a good education. He was in a grammar school, probably at Rome, and about 17 years old, when the death of the emperor Julian (363) was announced (Comm. on Habakkuk, i. 10). Certainly it was not much later than this that he was sent with his friend Bonosus to complete his education at Rome, and they probably lived together there. The chief study of those days was rhetoric, to which Jerome applied himself diligently, attending the law courts and hearing the best pleaders (Comm. on Gal. ii. 13). Early in his stay at Rome he lived irregularly and fell into sin (Ep. vi. 4, xiv. 6, xlviii. 20). But he was drawn back, and finally cast in his lot with the Christian church. He describes how on Sundays he used to visit, with other young men of like age and mind, the tombs of the martyrs in the Catacombs (Comm. in. Ezek. c. 40, p. 468); and this indicates a serious bent, which culminated in his baptism at Rome while Liberius was pope, i.e. before 366. While there, he acquired a considerable library (Ep. xxii. 30) which he afterwards carried wherever he went. On the termination of his studies in Rome he determined to go with Bonosus into Gaul, for what purpose is unknown. They probably first returned home and lived together for a time in Aquileia, or some other town in N. Italy. Certainly they at this time made the acquaintance of Rufinus (iii. 3) and that friendship began between him and Jerome which afterwards turned out so disastrously to both (see Augustine to Jerome, Ep. cx.). Hearing that they were going into Gaul, the country of Hilary, Rufinus begged Jerome to copy for him Hilary's commentary on the Psalms and his book upon the Councils (Ep. v. 2); and this may have fostered Jerome's tendency towards ecclesiastical literature, which was henceforward the main pursuit of his life. This vocation declared itself during his stay in Gaul. He went with his friend to several parts of Gaul, staying longest at Trèves, then the seat of government. But his mind was occupied with scriptural studies, and he made his first attempt at a commentary. It was on the prophet Obadiah, which he interpreted mystically (pref. to Comm. on Obadiah).
The friends returned to Italy. Eusebius, bp. of Vercellae, had a few years before
returned from banishment in the East, bringing with him Evagrius, a presbyter (afterwards
bp.) of Antioch, who during his stay in Italy had played a considerable part in
church affairs (Ep. i. 15). He seems to have had a great influence over Jerome
at this time; and either with him or about the same time he settled at Aquileia,
and from 370 to 373 the chief scene of interest lies there, where a company of young
men devoted themselves to sacred studies and the ascetic life. It included the presbyter
Chromatius (afterwards bp. of Aquileia), his brother Eusebius, with Jovinus
The friends went (probably early in 373) in different directions. Bonosus retired to an island in the Adriatic and lived as a hermit (vii. 3). Rufinus went to the East in the train of Melania. Jerome, with Heliodorus, Innocentius, and Hylas, accompanied Evagrius to Palestine. Leaving his parents, sister, relations and home comforts (xxii. 30), but taking his library, he travelled through Thrace, Pontus, Bithynia, Galatia, Cappadocia and Cilicia, to Antioch. The journey was exhausting, and Jerome had a long period of ill-health, culminating in a fever. Innocentius and Hylas died from the same fever. Heliodorus went to Jerusalem. During his illness (ib.) Jerome had his bent towards scriptural studies and asceticism confirmed. While his friends stood by his bed expecting his death, he felt himself, in a trance, carried before the throne of God, and condemned as being no Christian but a Ciceronian, who preferred worldly literature to Christ. From this time, though he continued to quote the classics profusely, his literary interest was wholly with the Bible and church writings. It seems likely that, as soon as his health was restored, he determined to embrace the solitary life. He wrote to Theodosius (ii.), who was apparently a kind of chief of the hermits in the desert of Chalcis, asking to be received among them, and thither he proceeded about the autumn of 374.
He was now about 28 years old. The desert of Chalcis, where he lived for 4 or
5 years (374–379), was in the country of the Saracens, in the E. of Syria (v.).
It was peopled by hermits, who lived mainly in solitude, but had frequent intercourse
among themselves and a little with the world. They lived under some kind of discipline,
with a ruling presbyter named Marcus (xvii.). Jerome lived in a cell, and gained
his own living (xvii. 3); probably, according to the recommendation he gives later
to Rusticus (cxxv.), cultivating a garden, and making baskets of rushes, or, more
congenially, copying books. He describes his life in writing to Eustochium (xxii.
7), 9 or 10 years later, as one of spiritual struggles. "I sat alone; I was filled
with bitterness: my limbs were uncomely and rough with sackcloth, and my squalid
skin became as black as an Ethiopian's. Every day I was in tears and groans; and
if ever the sleep which hung upon my eyelids overcame my resistance, I knocked against
the ground my bare bones, which scarce clung together. I say nothing of my meat
and drink, since the monks even when sick use cold water, and it is thought a luxury
if they ever partake of cooked food. Through fear of hell, I had condemned myself
to prison; I had scorpions and wild beasts for my only companions." His literary
talent was by no means idle during this period. He wrote letters to his friends
in Italy, to Florentius at Jerusalem (v.–xvii.), and to Heliodorus (xiv.) on the
Praises of the Desert, chiding him for not having embraced the perfect life of solitude.
A Jew who had become a Christian was his instructor in Hebrew (xviii. 10), and Jerome
obtained from one of the sect of the Nazarenes at Beroea the Gospel according to
the Hebrews, which he copied, and afterwards translated into Greek and Latin (de
Vir. Ill. 2, 3). He was frequently visited by Evagrius (Ep. vii. 1),
who also acted as the intermediary of his communication with his friends in Aquileia,
and later with Damasus at Rome (xv. 5). But again, owing chiefly to his vehement
feelings and expressions, he made enemies. He was driven away by the ill-will of
his brother-monks. At first, as we see from his letter to Heliodorus, he was satisfied
with his condition; but his last years in the desert were embittered by theological
strife, relating to the conflicts in the church at Antioch, from which he was glad
to escape. The see of Antioch was claimed by three bishops, Vitalis the Arian, Meletius,
acknowledged by Basil and the orthodox bishops of the East (Basil, Ep. 156,
to Evagrius), and Paulinus, supported by pope Damasus and the stronger anti-Arian
party of Rome. Between Meletius and Paulinus the dispute was mainly verbal, but
none the less bitter. Jerome complains that the Meletians, not content with his
holding the truth, treated him as a heretic if he did not do so in their words (Ep.
xv. 3). He appealed to Damasus, strongly protesting his submission to Rome (xv.
xvi.). Finding his position more and more difficult, he wrote to Marcus, the chief
presbyter of the monks of Chalcis (xvii.), in the winter of 378, professing his
soundness in the faith, declaring that he was ready, but for illness, to depart,
and begging the hospitality of the desert till the winter was past. Proceeding in
the spring of 379 to Antioch, he stayed there till 380, uniting himself to the party
of Paulinus, and and by him was ordained presbyter against his will. He never celebrated
the Eucharist or officiated as presbyter, as appears from many passages in his works.
There are extant no letters and only one work of this period, the dialogue of an
orthodox man with a Luciferian. Lucifer of Cagliari having taken part in the appointment
of Paulinus, a corrective was needed for the more extreme among the Western party
at Antioch; and this was given in Jerome's dialogue, which is clear, moderate, and
free from the violence of his later controversial works. It exhibits a considerable
knowledge of church history, and contains the account of the council of Ariminum,
with the famous words (c. 19): "Ingemuit totus orbis et Arianum se esse miratus
est." In 380 Jerome went to Constantinople until the end of 381. He sought the instruction
of Gregory Nazianzen, who had taken charge of the orthodox church there
Bible Work.—His stay in Rome, from the spring of 382 to Aug. 385, was a very eventful and decisive period in his life. He made many friends and many enemies; his knowledge and reputation as a scholar greatly increased, and his experience of Rome determined him to give himself irrevocably and exclusively to his two great interests, scriptural study and the promotion of asceticism. He undertook, at the request of Damasus, a revision of the version of the Psalms (vol. x. col. 121). He translated from the LXX; and his new version was used in the Roman church till the pontificate of Pius V. He, also at the request of Damasus, revised the N.T., of which the old Versio Itala was very defective. The preface addressed to Damasus (ib. col. 557) is a good critical document, pointing out that the old version had been varied by transcribers, and asking, "If anyone has the right version, which is it?" It was intended as a preface to the Gospels only; but from the record of his works in the list of ecclesiastical writers (de Vir. Ill. 135), which states that he had restored the N.T. according to the original Greek, as well as from other passages (e.g. Ep. xxvii. 3), we infer that the whole version was completed (see Vallarsi's pref. to vol. x.; also Murray's Illus. B. D. (1908), art. VULGATE). He also, at the request of Damasus and others, wrote many short exegetical treatises, included among his letters (on Hosanna, xix. xx.; Prodigal Son, xxi.; O.T. Names of God, xxv.; Halleluia and Amen, xxvi.; Sela and Diapsalma, xxviii.; Ephod and Seraphim, xxix.; Alphabetical Psalms, xxx.; "The Bread of Carefulness," xxxiv.). He began also his studies on the original of O.T. by collating the Gk. versions of Aquila and the LXX with the Heb. (xxxii., xxxvi. 12), and was thus further confirmed in the convictions which led to the Vulgate version. He translated for Damasus the Commentary of Origen on the Song of Songs (vol. x. p. 500), and began his translation of the work of Didymus, the blind Origenistic teacher of Alexandria, on the Holy Spirit, which he did not complete till after his settlement at Bethlehem, probably because of the increasing suspicions and enmity of clergy and people, whom he speaks of as the senate of the Pharisees, against all that had any connexion with Origen (pref. to Didymus on the Holy Spirit, vol. ii. 105), which cause also prevented him continuing the translation of Origen's Commentaries, begun at Constantinople. Jerome was Origen's vehement champion and the contemptuous opponent of his impugners. "The city of Rome," he says, "consents to his condemnation . . . not because of the novelty of his doctrines, not because of heresy, as the dogs who are mad against him now pretend; but because they could not bear the glory of his eloquence and his knowledge, and because, when he spoke, they were all thought to be dumb" (Ep. xxxiii. 4).
Asceticism.—The other chief object of his life increased this enmity,
although it also made great advances during his stay at Rome. Nearly fifty years
before, Athanasius and the monk Peter (334) had sown the seeds of asceticism at
Rome by their accounts of the monasteries of Nitria and the Thebaid. The declining
state of the empire had meanwhile predisposed men either to selfish luxury or monasticism.
Epiphanius, with whom Jerome now came to Rome, had been trained by the hermits
HILARION and HESYCHAS;
he was, with Paulinus, the guest of the wealthy and noble Paula (cviii. 5), the
heiress of the Aemilian race; and thus Jerome was introduced to one who became his
life-long friend and his chief support in his labours She had three daughters: Blessila,
whose death, after a short and austere widowhood, was so eventful to Jerome himself;
Julia Eustochium, who first among the Roman nobility took the virgin's vow; and
Paulina, who married Jerome's friend Pammachius. These formed part of a circle of
ladies who gradually gathered round the ascetic teacher of scriptural lore. Among
them were MARCELLA, whose
house on the Aventine was their meeting-place; her young friend Principia (cxxvii.);
her sister the recluse Asella, the confidant of Jerome's complaints on leaving Rome
(xlv.); Lea, already the head of a kind of convent, whose sudden death was announced
whilst the friends were reading the Psalms (xxiii.); Furia, the descendant of Camillus,
sister-in-law to Blesilla, and her
A crisis in Jerome's fortunes came with the end of 384. Damasus, who had been pope for nearly 20 years, was dying, and amongst his possible successors Jerome could not escape mention. He had, as he tells us, on first coming to Rome, been pointed out as the future pope (xlv. 3). But he was entirely unfitted by character and habit of mind for an office which has always required the talents of the statesman and man of the world, rather than those of the student, and he had offended every part of the community. The general lay feeling was strongly opposed to asceticism (xxvii. 2). At the funeral of Blesilla (xxxix. 4) the rumour was spread that she had been killed by the excessive austerities enjoined upon her; the violent grief of her mother was taken as a reproach to the ascetic system, and the cry was heard, "The monks to the Tiber!" Jerome, though cautioned by his friends to moderate his language (xxvii. 2), continued to use the most insulting expressions towards all who opposed him. It is not surprising that the Roman church should have deemed him unfitted to be its head, and that Jerome himself should, in his calmer reflections, have felt that Rome was ill-suited to him, and that in attempting, with his temper and habits, to carry out his conception of Christianity in Rome he had been vainly trying "to sing the Lord's song in a strange land" (xlv.6). Siricius, the successor of Damasus, had no sympathy with Jerome either then or in the subsequent Origenistic controversy. The party of friends on the Aventine was broken up. Jerome counsels Marcella (xliv.) to leave Rome and seek religious seclusion in the country. Paula and Eustochium preferred to go with him to Palestine. In Aug. 385 Jerome embarked, with all that was dearest to him, at Portus, and in his touching and instructive letter to Asella (xlv.) bade a final farewell to Rome. Accompanied by his brother Paulinian and his friend Vincentius (cont. Ruf. iii. 22), he sailed direct to Antioch. Paula and Eustochium (Ep. cviii., where all these incidents are narrated), leaving Paulina, then of marriageable age, and her young brother Toxotius, embarked at the same time, but visited Epiphanius in Cyprus on their way. The friends were reunited at Antioch, as winter was setting in. Paula would brook no delay, and, despite the inclemency of the season, they started at once for Palestine. They visited Sarepta, Acre, Caesarea, Joppa, Lydda, and Emmaus, arriving at Jerusalem early in 386. The city was moved at their coming, and the proconsul prepared a splendid reception for them in the Praetorium; but they only stayed to see the holy places, and, after visiting spots of special interest in the S. of Palestine, journeyed on into Egypt. There the time was divided between the two great objects of Jerome's life, the study of Scripture and the promotion of asceticism. At Alexandria he sat, though already grey-haired (lxxxiv. 3), at the feet of Didymus, the great Origenistic teacher, whom, in contrast to his blindness, Jerome delights to speak of as "the seer." (See in his praises the preface to the commentary on Ephesians.) Jerome had already, as we have seen, translated in part his book on the Holy Spirit; and now, at the request of his distinguished pupil, Didymus composed his Commentary on Hosea and Zechariah (Hieron. pref. to Hosea, and de Vir. Ill. 109). Pausing at Alexandria only 30 days, they turned to the monasteries of Nitria, where they were received with great honour. At one time they were almost persuaded to remain in the Egyptian desert, but the attractions of the holy places of Palestine prevailed; and sailing from Alexandria to Majoma, they settled at Bethlehem, in the autumn of 386. There Jerome lived the remaining 34 years of his life, pursuing unremittingly and with the utmost success the two great objects of his life.
Bethlehem, First Period, 386–392. Monasteries.—Their first work
was to establish themselves at Bethlehem. A monastery and a convent were built,
over which Jerome and Paula respectively presided (Ep. cviii. 14, 19). There
was a church in which they met on
Bible Work.—The results of his first six years' labours may be thus summed up. The commentary on Eccles. and the translation of Didymus on the Holy Spirit were completed; commentaries were written on Gal. Eph. Tit. and Philemon; the version of N.T. begun in Rome was revised; a treatise on Pss. x.–xvi. was written; and translations made of Origen's Commentaries on St. Luke and the Psalms. Jerome, who had long before felt the great importance for scriptural studies of a knowledge of the localities (pref. to Chron.), turned to account his travels in Palestine in his work on the names of Hebrew places, mainly translated from Eusebius, and gave to the world what may be called "Chips from his Workshop," in the book on Hebrew proper names and the Hebrew questions on Gen., a work which he seems to have intended to carry on in the other books as a pendant to his translations. Further, as a preparatory work to the Vulg., he had revised the Latin version of O.T. then current (which was imperfectly made from the LXX), by a comparison of Origen's Hexapla (pref. to Joshua, vol. ix. 356; pref. to Chron. vol. ix. col. 1394; pref. to Job, vol. ix. col. 1142; Ep. lxxi. ad Lucinium). This work, though not mentioned in the Catalogue (de Vir. Ill. 135), certainly existed. Jerome used it in his familiar expositions each day (cont. Ruf. ii. 24). Augustine had heard of it and asked to see it (Ep. cxxxiv., end), but it had, through fraud or neglect, been lost; and all that remains of it is Job, the Psalms, and the preface to the books of Solomon (vol. x.). The Vulgate itself was in preparation, as we find from the Catalogue; but as it was not produced for some years, what had been done thus far was evidently only preliminary and imperfect work.
Besides his work on the Scriptures, Jerome had designed a vast scheme of church history, from the beginning to his own time, giving the lives of all the most eminent men; and as a preliminary to this, and in furtherance of asceticism, he wrote Lives of MALCHUS and HILARION. The minuteness of detail in these works would have made a church history on such a scale impossible; and the credulity they shew throws doubt on Jerome's capacity for such work.
A far more important work for the purposes of the church historian is the book
which is variously called the "Catalogue of Church Writers," the "Book on Illustrious
Men," or the "Epitaphion" (though it includes men then living). Some portions are
taken from Eusebius, but the design and most of the details are original. It includes
the writers of
The letter which Jerome wrote in the name of Paula and Eustochium to Marcella at Rome (Ep. xlvi.), the only letter preserved from these first six years, expresses an enthusiastic view of their privileges in reading the Scriptures in the tongue and country in which they were written. The crowds who came from all parts seem to them to be so many choirs, engaged in services of praise, each in their own tongue. The very ploughmen chant Hallelujahs. Far from the Babylon of Rome, they associate with the saints of Scripture and find in the holy places the gate of heaven. This view of Palestine is always present to Jerome, however much he has to confess the actual secularization of Jerusalem (lviii. 4); and it makes his Biblical work not merely one of learning but of piety.
Second Period, 393–404.—Private letters of Jerome abound during this period, and illustrate his personal history.
To this period belong the many external difficulties at Bethlehem already mentioned. During almost the whole of 398 Jerome was ill, and again in 404–405 (lxxiv. 6, cxiv. 1). He was disturbed also by the controversy or schism between the monks of Bethlehem and the bp. of Jerusalem; and an injury to his hand prevented his writing. Poverty was also overtaking him. Paula had spent her fortune in lavish charity, and Jerome sent his brother Paulinianus to their former home to sell the remains of their property to support the monasteries (lxvi. 14). The sad quarrel between Jerome and Rufinus began in 394; see under the controversies (infra) which occupied so much of this period.
Commentaries.—Jerome had begun his commentaries on the Minor Prophets in 391 (de Vir. Ill. 135); they form four books, and were published at long intervals up to 406. In 397 he wrote his commentary on Matthew, the last on the N.T. It was finished, with great haste and eagerness (Ep. lxxiii. 10), in Lent 398, as he was recovering from an illness. After a long interval the commentary on Isaiah followed, and thereafter he wrote upon the Great Prophets only.
The Vulgate.—That which we now call the Vulgate, and which is in the main the work of Jerome, was during his life the Bible of the learned and only by degrees won general acceptance. The editio vulgata in previous use was a loose translation from the LXX, almost every copy varying. Jerome had begun very early to read the O.T. in Gk. Here the same difficulty met him. The LXX version was confronted, in Origen's Hexapla, with those of Theodotion, Aquila, and Symmachus, and with two others called Quinta and Sexta. Where they differed, who was to decide? This question is asked by Jerome as early as the preface to the Chronicle of Eusebius (381) and was constantly repeated in defence of his translation. He seems to have distinctly contemplated this work from the moment of his settlement at Bethlehem, and a great deal of the labour of his first years there may be regarded as preliminary to it. It was begun within the first few years. But, in so elaborate a work, it was impossible that the first copies should be perfect. It is probable that the whole, or larger part, was gone through at an early date and given to his friends or the public after a more mature revision, according as his health or courage allowed. He distinctly purposed to publish it from the first. Yet the actual publication was made in a fragmentary and hesitating manner. At times he speaks of portions as extorted from him by the earnest requests of his friends (pref. to Gen. vol. ix. etc.). Some parts he represents as done in extreme haste; the books of Solomon as the work of three days (pref. in vol. ix. col. 1307); Tobit and Judith were each that of a single day. He shews in his prefaces extreme sensitiveness to attacks upon his work, and speaks of it often as an ungrateful task. Of the Apocrypha he translated only parts, and these very cursorily (pref. to Tobit, vol. x.), doubtless because of his comparative indifference to the Apocrypha, his opinion of which is quoted in Art. vi. of the 39 Articles, from the preface to the Books of Solomon (vol. ix. ed. 1308). Samuel and Kings were published first, then Job and the Prophets, then Ezra, Nehemiah and Genesis. All these were finished in or before 393; but here occurred a break, due partly, no doubt, to unsettlement and panic caused by the invasion of the Huns in 395. In 396 the work was resumed at the entreaty of Chromatius and Heliodorus, who sent him money to support the necessary helpers (pref. to Books of Solomon). The Books of Solomon were them completed (398) and the preface indicates an intention to continue the work more systematically. But the ill-feeling excited by his translation made him unwilling to continue, and his long illness in 398 intervened. He tells Lucinius that he had then given his servants the whole except the Octateuch to copy (Ep. xlix. 4). But, from whatever cause, the work was not resumed till 403–404, in which years the remainder was completed, namely, the last four books of Moses, Joshua and Judges, Ruth and Esther. His friends collected the translations into one volume, and the title of Vulgate, which had hitherto applied to the version before in use (pref. to Ezk. vol. ix. col. 995, pref. to Esther, vol. ix. 1503), in time came to belong to an edition which is in the main the work of Jerome.
Controversies.—Controversial works at this period occupied a share of Jerome's energies out of all proportion to their importance.
Against Jovinian.—Jovinian was a Roman monk, originally distinguished by extreme asceticism, who had adopted freer opinions. He put off the monastic dress and lived like other men. The book of Jovinian was sent to Jerome about the end of 393, and he at once answered it in two books. He warmly attacks Jovinian as a renegade and as a dog who has returned to his vomit.
Origenism.—The second great controversy in which Jerome was now engaged
arose about Origenism, which embraces in its wide sweep Epiphanius, bp. of Cyprus,
John, bp. of Jerusalem, Theophilus, bp. of Alexandria, St. John Chrysostom, the
pope Anastasius, and above
Jerome's own relation to Origen is not difficult to understand, though it laid him open to the charge of inconsistency. He had become acquainted with his works during his first enthusiasm for Greek ecclesiastical learning and had recognized his as the greatest name in Christian literature, worthy of comparison with the greatest of classical times (see esp. Ep. xxxiii.). The literary interest was to Jerome, then as at all times, more than the dogmatic; deeply impressed by the genius and learning of the great Alexandrine, his praise, like his subsequent blame, was without reason or moderation. He spoke with entire commendation of his commentaries, and even of the Τόμοι, or Chapters, which included the book περὶ Ἀρχῶν (which may be translated either On First Principles or On the Powers on which the chief controversy afterwards turned). "In his work," he says (pref. to trans. of Origen on Jer. vol. v. col. 611), "he gave all the sails of his genius to the free breath of the winds, and receding from the shore, went forth into the open sea." It was not the peculiarities of Origen's dogmatic system, but the boldness of his genius, that appealed to the mind of Jerome. From the first he shewed a certain independence, nor did he ever give his adherence to Origen's peculiar system. He quoted without blame even such theories as the possible restoration of Satan, but never gave his personal assent to them. Even when, afterwards, he became a violent opponent of Origenism, he shewed discrimination. He continued to use Origen's commentaries, and even in some points of doctrine commended his exposition. His vehement language, however, makes him appear first a violent partisan of Origen, and later an equally violent opponent. The change, moreover, has the appearance of being the result, not so much of a great conviction, as of a fear of the suspicion of heresy.
John, bp. of Jerusalem, and Rufinus.—During the first year of Jerome's stay at Bethlehem he was on good terms with both John the bp. and Rufinus, who had been established with Melania on Mount Olives since 377. John, who succeeded Cyril a few months before Jerome and Paula arrived in 386, was on familiar terms with Rufinus whom he ordained, and there is no sign that he was ill-disposed towards Jerome. The troubles originated in the visit to Jerusalem of a certain Aterbius, otherwise unknown (cont. Ruf. iii. 33), who scattered accusations of Origenistic heresy among the foremost persons at Jerusalem, and joining Jerome with Rufinus on account of their friendship, charged them both with heresy. Jerome made a confession of his faith which satisfied this self-appointed inquisitor; but Rufinus refused to see him, and with threats bade him begone. This was apparently in 393. In 394 Epiphanius, bp. of Salamis in Cyprus, who in his book on heresies had formally included the doctrines of Origen, visited Jerusalem, and strife broke out in the church of the Resurrection, where Epiphanius's pointed sermon against Origenism was taken as reflecting so directly upon John that the bishop sent his archdeacon to remonstrate and stop him. John, after he had delivered a long sermon against Anthropomorphism, was requested by Epiphanius, amidst the ironical applause of the people, to condemn Origenism with the same earnestness; and then Epiphanius came to the monastery at Bethlehem declaring John a heretic, and, after attempting to elicit some anti-Origenistic confession from the bishop, finally at night left his house, where he had been a guest, for the monastery. Epiphanius, convinced that John was on the verge of heresy, advised Jerome and his friends to separate themselves from their bishop; and provided for the ministrations of their church by ordaining Jerome's brother Paulinian.
John now appealed to Alexandria and to Rome against Jerome and his friends as
schismatics. Theophilus of Alexandria at once took John's side, but, becoming an
anti-Origenist later, opened communication with Jerome, of which the latter gladly
availed himself. Jerome was thenceforward the minister of Theophilus in his communication
with the West in the war against Origen; and thus completely united himself with
the anti-Origenistic party. Rufinus, when he arrived in Rome with Melania in 397,
found the contest about Origenism at its height, but ignorance on the subject was
so great that pope Anastasius, even though induced to condemn Origen, plainly admitted
in his letter to John of Jerusalem (Hieron. ii. 677, Vallarsi's Rufinus [Migne's
Patr. xxi.] 408) that he neither knew who Origen was nor what he had written.
Rufinus being asked by a pious man named Macarius to give an exposition of Origen's
tenets, made the translation of the περὶ Ἀρχῶν
which is now published in Origen's works and is the only extant version. This translation
was at once the subject of dispute. Jerome's friends complained that Rufinus had
given a falsely favourable version. Rufinus declared that he had only used the just
freedom of a critic and translator in omitting passages interpolated by heretics,
who wished to make Origen speak their views, and in translating Eastern thoughts
into Western idioms. But the real complaint against Rufinus rested on personal grounds.
In his preface he had seemed to associate Jerome, as the translator of Origen, with
Origen's work, and to shield himself under Jerome's authority. Jerome and his friends,
extremely sensitive of the least reproach of heresy and having already taken a strong
part against Origen, trembled for his reputation. Rufinus's preface was sent to
him by Pammachius and Oceanus, with the request (Ep. lxxxii.) that he would
point out the truth, and would translate the περὶ
Αρχῶν as Origen had written it. Jerome did so, and with his new translation
sent a long letter (lxxxiv.) to his two friends, which, though making too little
of his former admiration for Origen, in the main states the case fairly and without
asperity
Vigilantius.—A fourth controversy was with Vigilantius (cont. Vig. liber unus), a Spanish monk, into whom, as Jerome says, the soul of his former opponent Jovinian had passed, a controversy further embittered by mutual accusations of Origenism, and in which Jerome's violence and contemptuousness passes all bounds. Vigilantius had stayed at the monastery at Bethlehem in 396, on the introduction of Paulinus. In a letter to Vigilantius in 396, Jerome accuses him of blasphemous interpretations of Scripture derived from Origen. He treats him as a vulgar fool, without the least claim to knowledge or letters. He applies to him the proverb Ὄνῳ λύρα, turns his name to Dormitantius, and ends by saying he hopes he may find pardon when, as Origen holds, the devil will find it. Vigilantius is said by Gennadius (de Scr. Eccl. 35) to have been an ignorant man, though polished in words. But he was as far in advance of Jerome in his views of the Christian life as he was behind him in literary power. His book, written in 404, was sent by Riparius to Jerome, who replied (Ep cix.), dismissing the matter with contempt. Afterwards, probably finding the opinions of Vigilantius gaining ground, he, at the request of certain presbyters, wrote his treatise against him. It is a short book, dictated, he states, unius noctis lucubratione; his friend Sisinnius, who was to take it, being greatly hurried. Vigilantius maintained that the honour paid to the martyrs' tombs was excessive, that watching in their basilicas was to be deprecated, that the alleged miracles done there were false; that the money collected for the "poor saints at Jerusalem" had better be kept at home; that the hermit life was cowardice; and, lastly, that it would be well that presbyters should be married before ordination. Jerome speaks of these accusations as being so openly blasphemous as to require neither argument nor the production of testimonies against them, but merely the expression of the writer's indignation. He does not admit even a grain of truth in them. "If you do not honour the tombs of the martyrs," he says, "you assert that they were not wrong in burning the martyrs." He himself believes the miracles, and values the intercession of the saints. This is the treatise in which Jerome felt most sure he was in the right, and the only one in which he was wholly in the wrong.
Augustine.—The exchange of letters between Jerome and Augustine, though
begun with something of asperity, ended in edification. Jerome heard of Augustine
soon after his conversion (386); and Augustine, eight years his junior, had a
great respect (which did not prevent criticism) for Jerome and his work. Augustine's
friend Alypius stayed with Jerome in 393, and Jerome heard with satisfaction of
the great African's zeal for the study of Scripture and of his rising fame. In
394 Augustine, then coadjutor bp. of Hippo (succeeding in 395), having had his
attention no doubt called to Jerome's works by Alypius, wrote the letter (among
Jerome's, lvi.) which originated the controversy. It related to the interpretation
of the dispute of St. Paul and St. Peter at Antioch, recorded in
Last Period, 405–420. Old Age and Troubles.—This last period of Jerome's life was full of external dangers and towards its close agitated by controversy. In 405 the Isaurians devastated the N. of Palestine, the monasteries of Bethlehem were beset with fugitives, and Jerome and his friends were brought into great straits for the means of living. The winter was extremely cold, and Jerome was laid low by a severe illness in Lent 406 (Ep. cxiv.) which left him weak for a long time. The barbarian invasions culminated in the sack of Rome by Alaric in 410. In this last calamity, which seemed to be ushering in the end of the world (cxxiii.), Pammachius and Marcella died. Emigration from Italy to Africa and Syria set in, and the more religious among the fugitives flocked to Jerusalem and Bethlehem (pref. to bks. iii. and vii. of Comm. on Ezk.). Jerome was not unaffected by the evil political influences of the time. He represents himself as watched by enemies, who made it dangerous for him even to express his sense of the miseries of the empire. In his Commentary on the Monarchies in Daniel he reflects on the low state to which the Roman empire had fallen and its need of support from barbarians; and these words were taken as reflecting on Stilicho, the great half-Vandal general, the father-in-law and minister of Honorius, and the real ruler of the empire. Stilicho, whom Jerome afterwards speaks of (Ep. cxxiii. 17) as "the half-barbarian traitor who armed the enemy against us with our own resources," appears to have heard of Jerome's expressions in his commentary and to have taken great offence, and Jerome believed that he was meditating some revenge against him when he was put to death ("Dei judicio," pref. to bk. xi. of Comm. on Is.) by order of his imperial relative. In the year following the sack of Rome Palestine suffered from an incursion of barbarians from which Jerome barely escaped (Ep. cxxvi. 2). He was very poor (pref. to Comm. on Ezk. bk. viii.), but made no complaint of this. His best friends had passed away—Paula in 403, Pammachius and Marcella in 410 (pref. to Comm. on Ezk. bk. i.). Of his Roman friends, Oceanus, Principia, and the younger Fabiola alone remained (Epp. cxx. cxxvii.); Eustochium had very possibly (as Thierry supposes) less authority than her mother in the management of the convent, and this left room for irregularities like those related in Jerome's letter (cxlvii.) to Sabinianus. Eustochium died in 418 (pref. to Comm. on Jer. bk. i.). Jerome's days were taken up by the monastery and the hospice (pref. to Comm. on Ezk. bk. viii.) and he could only dictate his commentaries at night; he was even glad when winter came and gave him longer nights for this purpose (ib.). He was growing weak with age and frequent illnesses, and his eyesight, which had originally failed nearly 40 years before (Constantinople, 380), was so weak that he could hardly decipher Heb. letters at night (ib.). Controversy arose again with Pelagius (pref. to Comm. on Jer. bks. i.–iv.), and Jerome's relations with the bp. of Jerusalem can hardly have been smooth (Ep. cxxxvii.). On the other hand, his brother Paulinian was still with him; the younger Paula, daughter of Toxotius and Laeta (cvii. cxxxiv.), survived him and replaced her aunt Eustochium in managing the monasteries. Albina, and the younger Melania with her husband Pinianus (cxliv.), came to live with him; he had kindly relations with persons in many countries; and the only leading man of the Western church was his friend. Amidst all discouragements, he continued his Biblical studies and writings with no sign of weakness to the end.
Pelagianism.—The Pelagian controversy was forced upon his notice. He had
not antecedently formed any strong opinion on it, and had been connected in early
life with some of the leading supporters of Pelagius (pref. to Comm. on Jer.
bk. iv.). But no great question could now arise in the church without an appeal
to Jerome, and his correspondence necessarily embraced this subject (Epp.
cxxxiii. cxxxviii.). Orosius, the friend of Augustine, came to reside at Bethlehem
in 44, full of the council of Carthage and of the thoughts and doings of his teacher;
and when in 415 Pelagius and Coelestius came to Palestine, Jerome was in the very
centre of the controversy. A synod was held under John of Jerusalem [JOANNES
(216)] in July 415 with no result; and at a synod at Diospolis in 416 Pelagius
was acquitted, partly, it was believed, because the Eastern bishops could not see
their way in matters of Western theology and in judging of Latin expressions. But
the mind of the church generally was against him, and Jerome was called upon to
give expression to it. Ctesiphon from Rome wrote to him directly on the subject
and drew a long reply (cxxxiii.). Augustine addressed to him two letters on points
bearing upon the subject (cxxxi. cxxxii.), and in his letter on the origin of souls
insinuated that Jerome's creationism might identify him with Pelagius's denial of
the transmission of Adam's sin (cxxx. 6). Pelagius sometimes quoted Jerome as agreeing
with him (pref. to Comm. on Jer. bk. i.), sometimes attacked passages in
his commentaries (id. bk. iv.) and depreciated his translation of the Scriptures
(pref. to Dial. against Pelag.). Orosius, who withstood Pelagius in the synod
of Jerusalem with little success, appealed (de Libero Arbitrio contra Pelagium)
to Jerome as a champion of the faith. Jerome wrote, therefore, in 3 books, the dialogue
against the Pelagians, an amplification of his letter to Ctesiphon, in which Atticus
(the Augustinian) and Critobulus (the Pelagian) maintain the argument. It turns
upon the question whether a man can be without sin if he so wills. Its tone is much
milder than that of Jerome's other controversial writings, with the single exception
of the dialogue against the Luciferians. But still he is dealing with a heretic,
and heresy is under the ban of the church and of heaven. This terrible doom contrasts
somewhat sharply with the balanced argument, in which Jerome appears
Letters.—The letters of this period of Jerome's life are mostly ones of
counsel to those who asked his advice. Among these may be mentioned that to Ageruchia
(cxxiii.), exhorting her to persevere in her estate as a widow, and giving as deterrents
from a second marriage some touches of Roman manners and a remarkable account of
the sack of Rome; to the virgin Demetrias (cxxx.), who had escaped from the burning
of Rome and fallen into the hands of count Heraclian in Africa; and to Sabinianus
(cxlvii.) the lapsed deacon, who had brought disorder into the monasteries, and
from which letter a whole romance of monastic life might be constructed. Jerome
wrote also the Memoir of Marcella (cxxvii.), who died from ill-treatment in the
sack of Rome, addressing his letter to her friend Principia; but he was too dejected
and infirm to write the Epitaphium of Eustochium, who died two years before him
(cdxviii.). Other letters relate to scriptural studies; cxix., to Minucius and Alexander,
learned presbyters of the diocese of Toulouse, on the interpretation of the words,
"We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed"; cxx., to Hebidia, a lady
of a remarkable family whose father and grandfather were orators, poets, professors,
and priests of Apollo Belen at Bayeux; cxl., to the presbyter Cyprian, an exposition
of
Commentaries on Greater Prophets.—Of Bible work in his later years we have only the Commentaries on the Greater Prophets: on Daniel in 407; on Isaiah in 16 books, written in the intervals of business and illness, and issued at various times from 408–410; on Ezekiel, from 410–414; and on Jeremiah, cut short at c. xxxii. by Jerome's last illness. The prefaces to these are remarkable documents and very serviceable for the chronology of Jerome's life. Those on Ezekiel record the sack of Rome, the death of Rufinus (bk. i.), the immigration from Rome (bks. iii. and vii.), the rise of Pelagianism (bk. vi.) ; and bk. ix. of the commentary speaks of the invasion of Rome by count Heraclian. Jerome was prevented from taking up the commentary on Jeremiah till after the death of Eustochium (418), and thus his last work was written in the year (419) which intervened between Eustochium's death and his own. Yet not only is the work full of vigour, but the prefaces shew a renewal of controversial ardour against Pelagius, whom he speaks of as "Scotorum pultibus praegravatus" (bks. i. and iii.). That controversy and the business of the pilgrims (bk. iv.) shortened has time for the commentary (bk. iii.), which, though intended to be short (bk. i.), required his excuses in the last preface (bk. vi.) for its growing length.
Death.—It is generally believed that a long sickness preceded the death of Jerome, that after 419 he was unable to work at all, that he was attended in this illness by the younger Paula and Melania; that he died, according to the Chronicle of Prosper of Aquitania, on Sept. 20, 420, and that he was buried beside Paula and Eustochium near the grotto of the Nativity. His body was believed to have been subsequently carried to Rome and placed in the church of Sta. Maria Maggiore on the Esquiline. Legends, such as that, immortalized by the etching of Albert Dürer, of the lion which constantly attended him, and of the miracles at his grave, are innumerable.
Writings now Extant.—Vallarsi's ed. contains a complete table of contents which may be usefully consulted. In our list the date of time and place at which each was composed, and the volume in Vallarsi's ed., are added.
I. BIBLE TRANSLATIONS:—
(1) From the Hebrew.—The Vulgate of O.T., written at Bethlehem, begun 391, finished 404, vol. ix.
(2) From the LXX.—The Psalms as used at Rome, written in Rome 383; and as used in Gaul, written at Bethlehem c. 388. The book of Job, being part of the translation of LXX made between 386 and 392 at Bethlehem, the rest being lost (Ep. cxxxiv.), vol. x.
(3) From the Chaldee.—Tobit and Judith, Bethlehem, a.d. 398.
(4) From the Greek.—The Vulgate version of N.T., made at Rome between 382 and 385.
II. COMMENTARIES:—
(1) Original.—Ecclesiastes, vol. iii. a.d. 388; Isaiah, vol. iv. 410; Jeremiah, i.–xxxii. 41, vol. iv. 419; Ezekiel, vol. v. 410–414; Daniel, vol. v. 407; Minor Prophets; vol. vi. at various times between 391 and 406; Matthew, vol. vii. 387; Galatians, Ephesians, Titus, Philemon, vol. vii. 388: all at Bethlehem.
(2) Translated from Origen.—Homilies on Jer. and Ezk., vol. v. Bethlehem, date doubtful; on Luke, vol. vii. Bethlehem, 389; Canticles, vol. iii. Rome and Bethlehem, 385–387.
There is also a commentary on Job, and a specimen of one on the Psalms, vol. vii.; and the translation of Origen's Homilies on Isaiah, all attributed to Jerome, vol. iv.
III. BOOKS ILLUSTRATING SCRIPTURE:—
(1) Book of Hebrew Names, or Glossary of Proper Names in O.T.; Bethlehem, 388; vol. iii. 1.
(2) Book of Questions on Genesis, Bethlehem, 388; vol. iii. 301.
(3) A translation of Eusebius's book on the Sites and Names of Hebrew Places, Bethlehem, 388; vol. iii. 121.
(4) Translation of Didymus on the Holy Spirit, Rome and Bethlehem, 385–387; vol. ii. 105.
IV. BOOKS ON CHURCH HISTORY AND CONTROVERSY (all in vol. ii.):—
(1) Book of Illustrious Men, or Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers, Bethlehem, a.d. 392.
(2) Dialogue with a Luciferian, Antioch, 379.
(3) Lives of the Hermits: Paulus, Desert, 374; Malchus and Hilarion, Bethlehem, 390.
(4) Translation of the Rule of Pachomius; Bethlehem, 404.
(5) Books of ascetic controversy: against Helvidius, Rome, 383; against Jovinian, Bethlehem, 393; against Vigilantius, Bethlehem, 406.
(6) Books of personal controversy: against John, bp. of Jerusalem, Bethlehem, 398 or 399; against Rufinus, i. and ii. 402, iii. 404.
(7) Dialogue with a Pelagian, Bethlehem, 416.
V. GENERAL HISTORY:—Translation of the Chronicle of Eusebius, with Jerome's additions, vol. viii., Constantinople, 382.
VI. LETTERS:—The series of letters, vol. i. Ep. i. Aquileia, 371; ii.–iv. Antioch, 374; v-xvii. Desert, 374–379; xviii. Constantinople, 381; xix.–xlv. Rome, 382–385; xlvi.–cxlviii. Bethlehem, 386–418.
The works attributed to Jerome but not genuine, which are given in Vallarsi's ed., are: A Breviary, Commentary, and Preface on the Psalms, vol. vii.; some Greek fragments, and a Lexicon of Hebrew Names, the Names of Places in the Acts, the Ten Names of God, the Benedictions of the Patriarchs, the Ten Temptations in the Desert, a Commentary on the Song of Deborah, Hebrew Questions in Kings and Chronicles, an Exposition of Job, vol. iii., three letters in vol. i., and 51 in vol. xi., and several miscellaneous writings in vol. xi., most of which are by Pelagius.
Criticism.—(1) As a Bible translator, Jerome deserves the highest place for his clear conviction of the importance of his task and his perseverance against great obstacles. This is shewn especially in his prefaces, which are of great value as shewing his system. He took very great pains, but not with all alike. The Chronicles he went over word by word with his Hebrew teacher; Tobit he translated in a single day. His method was, first, never to swerve needlessly from the original; second, to avoid solecisms; third, at all risks, even that of introducing solecisms, to give the true sense. These principles are not always consistently carried out. There is sometimes undue laxity, which is defended in the de Optimo Genere Interpretandi; sometimes an unnecessary literalism, arising from a notion that some hidden sense lies behind the words, but really depriving the words of sense. His versions were during his lifetime both highly prized and greatly condemned. His friend Sophronius translated a great part of them into Greek and they were read in many Eastern churches in Jerome's lifetime. After his death they gradually won universal acceptance in the West, and were finally, with some alterations (mostly for the worse), stamped with the authority of the Roman church at the council of Trent. See Vallarsi's preface to vol. ix., and Zöckler, pt. II. ii. Hieronymus als Bibel Uebersetzer.
(2) As an expositor, Jerome lacks originality. His Commentaries are mostly compilations from others, whose views he gives at times without any opinion of his own. This, however, makes them of special value as the record of the thoughts of distinguished men, such as Origen. His derivations are puerile. His interpretation of prophecy is the merest literal application of it to events in the church. He is often inconsistent, and at times seems to veil his own opinion under that of another. His allusions to the events of his own time as illustrations of Scripture are often of great interest. His great haste in writing (pref. to bk. ii. of Comm. on Eph. and pref. to bk. iii. of Comm. on Gal.), his frequent weak health and weak eyes, and his great self-confidence caused him to trust his memory too much.
(3) The books on Hebrew Names, Questions on Genesis, and the Site and Names of Hebrew Places shew a wide range of interest and are useful contributions to Biblical knowledge, especially the last-named, which is often appealed to in the present day. But even here he was too ready to accept Jewish tales rather than to exercise independent judgment.
In theology, properly so called, he is weak. His first letter to Damasus on the Trinitarian controversies at Antioch shews a clear perception of what the church taught, but also a shrinking from dogmatic questions and a servile submission to episcopal authority. He accepted without question the damnation of all the heathen. His dealings with Origen shew his weakness; he surrendered his impartial judgment as soon as Origen's works were condemned. In the Pelagian controversy his slight realization of the importance of the questions contrasts markedly with the deep conviction of the writings of Augustine. In some matters, which had not been dealt with by church authority, he held his own; e.g. as to the origin of souls he is decided as a creationist. He puts aside purgatory and scoffs at millenarianism. His views on the Apocrypha and on the orders of the Christian ministry have become classical.
(4) For church history he had some considerable faculty, as is shewn by the dialogue
with a Luciferian. His knowledge was great and his sympathies large, when there
was no question of church condemnations. His book de Viris Illustribus is
especially valuable and
(5) His knowledge of and sympathy with human history generally was very like that of monks of later times. He had much curiosity and considerable knowledge. His translation of the Chronicle of Eusebius shews his interest in history, but is very uncritical. The mistakes of Eusebius are not corrected but aggravated by the translator; his own additions shew that his critical faculty was not such as to guard against the admission of considerable errors; and his credulity constantly reveals itself. He nowhere shews even the rudiments of a philosophy of history. He knew both the events of his time and facts lying beyond the usual range. He was acquainted with the routes to India, and mentions the Brahmans (Epp. xxii. lxx. etc.) and Buddha (adv. Jov. i. 42). Events like the fall of Rome deeply impressed him; but he deals with these very much as the monks of the middle ages dealt with the events of their time. He is a recluse, with no political sagacity and no sense of human progress.
(6) His letters are the most interesting part of his writings. They are very various; vivid in feeling and graphic in their pictures of life. The letters to Heliodorus (xiv.) on the praise of hermit life; to Eustochium (xxii.) on the preservation of virginity in the mixed life of the Roman church and world; to Asella (xlv.) on his departure from Rome; to Nepotian (lii.) on the duties of the presbyters and monks of his day; to Marcella from Paula and Eustochium (xlvi.), giving the enthusiastic description of monastic life among the holy places of Palestine; to Laeta (cvii.) on the education of a child whose grandfather was a heathen priest, whose parents were Christians, and who was herself to be a nun; to Rusticus (cxxv.), giving rules which shew the character of the monastic life in those days,—all these are literary gems; and the Epitaphia of Blesilla (xxxix.), Fabiola (lxxvii.), Nepotianus (lx.), Paula (cviii.), and Marcella (cxxvii.) form a hagiography of the best and most attractive kind.
Style.—His style is excellent, and he was rightly praised .as the Christian Cicero by Erasmus, who contrasts his writings with monkish and scholastic literature. It is vivid, full of illustrations, with happy turns, such as "locus a non lucendo," Ὀνῷ λύπα, "fac de necessitate virtutem," "Ingemuit totus orbis et Arianum se esse miratus est." The scriptural quotations and allusions are often overdone and forced, but with no unreality or cant; and he never loses his dignity except in some controversial personalities.
Character.—He was vain, and unable to bear rivals; extremely sensitive as to the estimation of his contemporaries, especially the bishops; passionate and resentful, but at times suddenly placable; scornful and violent in controversy; kind to the weak and poor; respectful in dealing with women; entirely without avarice; extraordinarily diligent, and nobly tenacious of the main objects of his life.
Influence.—His influence grew through his life and increased after his death. "He lived and reigned for a thousand years." His writings contain the whole spirit of the church of the middle ages; its monasticism, its contrast of sacred things with profane, its credulity and superstition, its deference to hierarchical authority, its dread of heresy, its passion for pilgrimages. To the society which was thus in a great measure formed by him, his Bible was the greatest boon which could have been given. But he founded no school and had no inspiring power; there was not sufficient courage or width of view in his spiritual legacy. As Thierry says, "There is no continuation of his work; a few more letters of Augustine and Paulinus, and night falls over the West." A cheap popular Life of St. Jerome by E. L. Cutts is pub. by S.P.C.K. in their Fathers for Eng. Readers. A trans. of his principal works is in the Lib. of Nic. and Post.-Nic. Fathers. The Bp. of Albany has in preparation (1911) a trans. of the Epistolae Selectae (ed. Hurter).
Hierotheus, a writer whose works are quoted by the Pseudo-Dionysius, who styles him his teacher. Two long extracts are preserved in the de Divinis Nominibus of the Pseudo-Dionysius (c. 2, §§ 9, 10; c. 4, §§ 15–17), and there are incidental references to him elsewhere. In the first extract (c. 2, § 9 fin.) his Theological Institutes (θεολογικαί στοιχειώσεις) are cited; in the second his Amatory Hymns (ἐρωτικοι ὕμνοι). His writings most probably belong to the school of Edessa, and should be dated about the middle or end of 5th cent. In confirmation of this view Dr. Westcott has noted a statement in Assemani (Biblioth. Orient. ii. 290, 291) that Stephen Bar-Sudaili, abbat of a monastery at Edessa, published a book under the name of Hierotheus to support his own mystic doctrines. Assemani says that this abbat held the doctrine of final restoration as taught by Origen, and was abused for it by Xenaias and James of Sarug, bp. of Batnae (Bibl. Or. i. 303 ii. 30–33; Ceillier, x. 641; Westcott on Dionys. Areop. in Contemporary Rev. May, 1867). The mystical views in the works of Hierotheus and Dionysius easily lend themselves to the support of that theory. According to Assemani (ii. 291), Bar-Sudaili wrote under the name of Hierotheus to prove "finem poenarum aliquando futurum, nec impios in saeculum saeculorum puniendos fore, sed per ignem purgandos; atque ita et malos daemones misericordiam consequuturos esse, et cuncta in divinam naturam transmutanda, juxta illud Pauli, ut sit Deus omnia in omnibus." In Mai's Spicilegium Romanum (iii. 704–707) will be found other fragments of this writer, translated from some Arabic MSS. Their theology savours, however, more of the 4th and 5th cents. than of the 1st. But see A. L. Frothingham, Stephen Bar-Sudaili and the Book of Hierotheos (Leyden, 1886).
Hilarianus (1) Quintus Julius (Hilarion), a Latin Chiliast writer
c. 397, author of two
The second treatise, Chronologia sive Libellus de Mundi Duratione, is founded on a dispute about the date of the end of the world. The author counts 5,530 years from the Creation to the Passion; gives the world 6,000; and would therefore end it c. 498.
The following is a sketch of his chronology:
| From the Creation to the Deluge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 2237 years. |
| "; "; Deluge to the Call of Abraham . . . . . . . | 1012 " |
| "; "; thence to the Exodus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 430 " |
| "; "; "; Samuel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 450 " |
| "; "; "; Zedekiah. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 514 " |
| The Captivity lasted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 70 " |
| Thence to the Passion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 887 " |
He believes that after the close of the apocalyptic thousand years will come the loosing of Satan, the seducing of the nations Gog and Magog, the descent of fire from heaven upon their armies; then the second resurrection, the judgment, the passing away of the old things and the bringing in of the new heavens and new earth; "impii in ambustione aeterna; justi autem cum Deo in vita aeterna" (c. 19). His style is b arbarous. La Bigne, Biblioth. Vet. Patr. 1609, t. vii.; 1618, t. v. pt. i.; 1654, t. vii.; 1677, t. vii. Migne, Patr. Lat. xiii. col. 1094–1114; Cave, i. 252; Ceillier, vi. 288. A new ed. of de Mundi Duratione was pub. by C. Frisk in Chronica Minora (Leipz. 1892).
Hilarion (1), a hermit of Palestine (d. 371). Jerome wrote his Life in 390, quoting Epiphanius, Hilarion's disciple. Jerome certainly considered his Lives of the Hermits as historical (Vit. Malchi, i.); but the marvels of the Life of Hilarion have induced some to believe it to be a mere romance (Israel in Hilgenfeld's Zeitschrift for 1880, p. 128, but see Zöckler's Jerome, 179). No attempt is made in this art. to separate fact from fiction. The Life of Hilarion in any case shews the ideal on which monasticism was nourished in the 4th cent.
Hilarion was born at Thabatha, 5 miles S. of Gaza, c. 300, of heathen parents, who sent him for education to Alexandria. There he shewed great talents and proficiency in rhetoric, which then comprehended nearly the whole of a liberal education. He was of a disposition which made him beloved by all. He became a Christian, and, turning from the frivolous pleasures of the circus and theatre, spent all his leisure in the assemblies of the church. Hearing of the monastic retreat of Anthony, he became his disciple for a time, but found that the multitude who resorted to Anthony made life with him a city life rather than one of retirement. Though but fifteen years old, he determined to become a hermit. He returned to Palestine and found his parents dead, gave away his goods to his brothers and the poor, and went to live in a desert place 7 miles from the Christian city of Majoma near Gaza. The boy hermit was clad in a sackcloth shirt, which he never changed till it was worn out, a cloak of skins which Anthony had given him, and a blanket such as peasants wore. His daily sustenance was 15 carices (a sort of figs). He cultivated a little plot of ground and made baskets of rushes, so as not to be idle. His disordered fancy summoned up a thousand temptations of Satan, but he overcame them all by calling on the name of Christ. He dwelt 12 years in a little cabin made by himself of woven reeds and rushes; after that in a but only 5 feet high, still shewn when Jerome was in Palestine, and more like a sepulchre than a house.
The fame of his sanctity spread rapidly and he was reputed to be a worker of miracles and an exorcist. Men of all ranks (whose names and abodes are circumstantially recorded) suffering from hysteric affections, then attributed to demons, were healed. An officer of Majoma, whose duty it was to rear horses for the Circensian games and who had been always beaten through a spell laid upon his chariot by the votaries of Marnas, the idol of Gaza, won the race when the saint had poured water upon his chariot wheels. Hilarion had many disciples, whom he formed into societies and went on circuits to visit them; and many stories were told of his shrewdness and penetration in rebuking their weaknesses.
But the crowds who flocked about him made him feel no longer a hermit; and in his 63rd year, the year of the death of Anthony (which was miraculously made known to him), he resolved to set out on his wanderings. Men crowded round him to the number of 10,000, beseeching him not to depart. Business ceased throughout Palestine, the minds of men being wholly occupied with hopes and fears about his departure; but he left them, and with a few monks, who seem soon to have left him, he went his way, never to return. He first turned towards Babylon, then to Egypt. He fled to the Oasis, and afterwards sailed for Sicily. There he lay hid for a time; but his disciple Hesychius at last discovered him. He again set forth in search of solitude; but wherever he went his miracles betrayed him. He at length arrived in Cyprus, the home of his friend Epiphanius. There he found a solitary and inaccessible place, still called by his name, where he lived the last three years of his life, often in the company of Hesychius and Epiphanius. His body was buried in the grounds of a lady named Constantia, but Hesychius disinterred it, and carried it to Majoma in Palestine. Constantia died of grief, but the translation caused joy throughout Palestine, where its anniversary was observed as a festival. Vita S. Hilarionis, in Jerome's Works vol. ii. 13–40, ed. Vall.; Soz. iii. 14, vi. 32; Vit. Patrum, lib. v. c. 4, § 15, p. 568, in Migne's Patr. Gk. vol. lxxiii. His name occurs in the Byzantine Calendar, Oct. 21, as "our Father Hilarion the Great."
Hilarius (7) Pictaviensis, St. (Hilary of Poictiers), d. a.d. 368.
Authorities.—(1) His own writings. These furnish so much information that
the biography in the Benedictine ed. of Hilary's works is mainly drawn from them.
(2) Hieron. de Viris Illustribus (seu Scriptorum Eccles. Catalogus),
c.100. Also in Esaiam, c. lx., in Psalm. lviii. (A.V. lix.),
in the prooemium in lib. ii. Comm. ad Gal. (3) St. Augustine, de Trinitate,
lib. x. c. 6, lib. xv. c. 2. (4) Cassian, de Incarnatione,
Life.—Hilary is believed to have been born of illustrious stock in Poictiers. St. Jerome (in Gal.) distinctly asserts this, but some authorities name more vaguely the province of Aquitaine, rather than the capital. He enjoyed a good education in the Latin classics, and evidently was specially fond of the writings of Quintilian.
About a.d. 150, Hilary, then a married man but, it would seem, still young, appears to have become a Christian. He depicts himself as gradually rising first above the attractions of ease and plenty; then aiming at knowledge of truth and the practice of virtue. The books of Moses and the Psalms gave him abundant help in his desire to know God; in his consciousness of weakness the writings of apostles and evangelists aided him, more especially the Gospel of St. John, with its clear and emphatic teaching on the incarnation of the co-eternal Son. His conversion was essentially due to the study of Holy Scripture.
After his baptism he became an edifying example of a good Christian layman. He must have remained a layman for some few years. His wife's name is unknown, but a daughter, his only child, was called Abra (al. Apra seu Afra). About 353 the see of Poictiers became vacant by death. The popular voice fixed upon Hilary as the new bishop, and he was raised per saltum to the episcopate. He amply justified the choice.
Two years after his consecration a visit from St. Martin, which was regarded as a compliment to the orthodoxy and zeal of Hilary, proved a prelude to an active struggle against the Arian party in Gaul, then headed by Ursacius, Valens, and Saturninus, of whom Saturninus occupies, in the writings of the orthodox, an evil pre-eminence, being represented as immoral, violent, and apt to seek the aid of the civil power against the defenders of the creed of Nicaea. Hilary unites with Sulpicius Severus in censuring Saturninus more than his comrades. The course pursued by Ursacius and Valens, though less violent, was extremely fitful and uncertain, and a majority of the bishops of Gaul, led by Hilary, formally separated themselves from the communion of all three. Many even of those who had leant towards Arianism now threw in their lot with Hilary, who received them on condition that they should be approved by the confessors then suffering exile. At a council at Béziers, in Languedoc, Saturninus probably presiding, Hilary (with some other orthodox bishops) was present, but declares that he was refused a hearing. The emperor Constantius received from Saturninus an account of this gathering, and at once resolved to banish to Phrygia Hilary and one of his allies, St. Rhodanus, bp. of Toulouse. Hilary believed that the accusation laid against him before the emperor involved a charge of gross impropriety of conduct. As this event occurred soon after the council of Béziers and before that of Seleucia, its date is assigned to the middle of 356. During this exile of somewhat more than three years Hilary had a good deal of liberty and much enforced leisure. He employed it in examining the condition of religion in Asia Minor, forming an exceedingly unfavourable impression, especially as regarded his episcopate, and in composition and an attempt to remove misunderstandings, especially between the bishops of the East and those of Gaul; for the Gallicans imagined all in Asia to be sheer Arians, while the Orientals supposed their brethren in Gaul to be lapsing into Sabellianism. Hilary's treatise de Synodis belongs to this period (358 or 359) and also his great work de Trinitate.
The fourth year (359) of Hilary's exile witnessed the council of Rimini in the West and that of Seleucia in the East. The emperor apparently intended the decisions of these two assemblies, if accordant, to be conjointly regarded as the decree of one oecumenical council. Hilary was compelled by the secular authorities to attend that of Seleucia, Constantius himself having convoked it. He found there three sections: the orthodox, semi-Arian, and ultra-Arian or Anomoean. Although his presence was of great service in explaining the true state of things in Gaul, the language of the Acacians so shocked him that he retired from the assembly. These Anomoeans were nevertheless condemned there.
From Seleucia Hilary went to Constantinople and was granted an interview with
the emperor. Here the Arians, having joined the Anomoeans, were in great force,
and, having gathered another council in the Eastern capital, tried to reverse their
failure at Seleucia. A challenge from Hilary to discuss the questions at issue publicly,
in presence of the emperor, on the evidence of Holy Scripture, was, as he informs
us, declined; and Constantius sent his prisoner back to Gaul, without formally annulling
the sentence of banishment or allowing him perfect liberty. The energies of Hilary
in Gaul were chiefly concerned with the Arians, but his acts (though by no means
all his writings) in Phrygia with the semi-Arians. His attitude towards these two
forms of error was by no means identical. Arianism he regarded as a deadly heresy,
with which anything like compromise was impossible. But with semi-Arianism, or at
any rate with certain leading semi-Arians, he thought it quite possible to come
to an understanding; and it will be seen in the account of his works how earnestly
he strove to act as a peacemaker between them and the supporters of the creed of
Nicaea. The three succeeding years (a.d.
360–362) were partly occupied by his rather dilatory journey homeward, and after
his return by efforts which, though of a conciliatory character, all aimed at the
restoration of the faith as set forth at Nicaea. His joy at reaching Poictiers (where
he was warmly welcomed) and at finding in health his wife, his daughter, and his
disciple St. Martin, was dashed by the, scenes witnessed during his progress. Constantius
had banished all bishops who had refused to accept the formula promulgated at Rimini
(Socr. H. E. ii. 37; confirmed by Soz. iv. 19, and by St. Jerome in his treatise
adv. Luciferianos). Hilary and his more ardent
Hilary now ventured, despite the unrepealed sentence of banishment, to journey into N. Italy and Illyria, to bring these provinces into spiritual conformity with Gaul. He arrived in Italy a.d. 362 and was greatly encouraged and assisted by St. Eusebius of Vercelli. These two friends, especially in remote districts, into which a fair statement of the points at issue had not penetrated, created a considerable impression, though not equal to that produced in Gaul. Possibly Lucifer of Cagliari proved an obstacle. That this ardent and ultra-Athanasian supporter of orthodoxy disapproved of one of the conciliatory manifestos of Hilary will be seen below; and as on another ground he had broken with Eusebius and was opposed to all communion with any who had accepted the decrees of Rimini, he could not have viewed their career with satisfaction.
Hilary, nevertheless, remained in Italy until the late autumn of 364. Valentinian, who became emperor in Feb. 364, found him at Milan in November. A serious altercation between Hilary and Auxentius, bp. of Milan, attracted his attention. The generally charitable tone adopted by Hilary towards his ecclesiastical opponents warrants our accepting his unfavourable report of Auxentius. According to Hilary, the profession of the creed of Nicaea made by Auxentius was thoroughly insincere, though he persuaded Valentinian that he was acting in good faith; and, as a natural result, Hilary was commanded to return to Gaul and at once obeyed, but to the bishops and the church at large made known his own convictions respecting the real character of the bp. of Milan.
Hilary spent more than three years at Poictiers after his return from Italy. These years, especially the last two, were comparatively untroubled. He died calmly on Jan. 13, 368, though in the Roman service-books his day is Jan. 14, so as not to interfere with the octave of the Epiphany.
Writings.—I. EXEGETICAL.—(1)
Exposition of the Psalms (Commentarii in Psalmos).—The comments embrace
(2) Commentarii in Matthaeum.—This is the earliest gospel commentary in the Western church; all previous ones being either, like that of Origen, in Greek, or, if in Latin; only partial, as some tractates of St. Cyprian. In the next century the work of Hilary was somewhat overshadowed by the commentaries produced by the genius of St. Augustine and the learning of St. Jerome in the West, and by the eloquence of St. Chrysostom in the East. Although he may have made some use of the writings of Origen, there is much that is curious and sometimes acute as well as devout that seems to be really his own. Jerome and Augustine frequently quote it. It was probably composed before his banishment to Phrygia in 356.
On the expressions concerning divorce (
Hilary's respect for the LXX led him to embrace the Alexandrian rather than the Palestinian canon of O.T. He occasionally cites some portions of the Apocrypha (as Judith, Wisdom, and Maccabees) as Scripture. He is earnest in urging the study of Scripture, and lays much stress on the need of humility and reverence for reading them with profit. Both the Word and the Sacraments become spiritual food for the soul.
II. DOGMATICAL.— Libri XII. de
Trinitate.—For de Trinitate some copies read contra Arianos, others
de Fide, and others some slight varieties of a like kind. But de Trinitate
appears on the whole the most suitable; and as Hilary's is the most ancient extant
exposition of St. Matthew by a Latin father, so the de Trinitate is the first
great contribution, in Latin, to the discussion of this great dogma. Bk. i. treats
of natural religion, and how it leads up to revelation. Bk. ii. especially discusses
the baptismal formula (
A more serious error is Hilary's apparent want of grasp of the truth of our Lord's humanity in all things, sin alone excepted. At times he seems to speak of our Lord's natural body as if endued with impossibility (indolentia), and of His soul as if not obnoxious to the human affections of fear, grief, and the like. This and the other mistakes of Hilary are more or less palliated by Lanfranc, by the two great schoolmen Peter Lombard and Aquinas, and by Bonaventure. Hilary also meets with indulgence from Natalis Alexander; and, above all, is defended by his Benedictine editor, Dom Coutant, who, as Cave justly remarks, "naevos explicare, emollire et vindicare satagit." A sort of tradition was handed down to Bonaventure by a schoolman, William of Paris, that Hilary had made a formal retractation of his error concerning the indolentia, which he had ascribed to our Lord. This seems very doubtful; nevertheless, the language of his later books, e.g. on the Pss., appears to recognize the reality of both the mental and bodily sufferings of Christ.
III. POLEMICAL.—(1) Ad Constantium Augustum Liber Primus.—This address, probably Hilary's earliest extant composition, is a petition to the emperor—evidently written before Hilary's exile, at the close of 355 or early in 356—for toleration for the orthodox in Gaul against the persecution of Arian bishops and laymen. These assaults Hilary represents as both coarse and cruel. He names some supporters of Arianism, both in the East and in Gaul. Among the latter, Ursacius and Valens occupy a painful prominence. He urges that it is even on political grounds a mistake for the emperor to allow such proceedings; among his Catholic subjects will be found the best defenders of the realm against internal sedition and barbarian invasion. The excellent tone of this address is admitted on all sides.
(2) Ad Constantium Augustum Liber Secundus.—This second address is subsequent
to Hilary's exile, having been presented to the
(3) Contra Constantium Augustum Liber.—This book is addressed to the bps. of Gaul. Jerome is almost certainly mistaken in asserting its composition to be later than the death of Constantius. Internal evidence sufficiently confutes the idea, though its existence probably did not become widely known until after that event (361). Hilary's tone is now utterly changed. He has given up all hope of influencing Constantius. The emperor, too, on his side, has altered the traditional line of policy against opponents. He is here charged, not with persecution, but with the enticements of bribes, of good dinners, of flatteries and invitations to court. Hilary appears to have laid aside his usual self-restraint, perhaps to have lost his temper, and to have forgotten his usual respectfulness and charity of language. Constantius has become, in his eyes, an Anti-christ, who would fain make a present of the world to Satan. The entire letter shews that Hilary had lost all hope of any aid to the faith being granted by Constantius, and it is at least just to give its due weight to the remark of Mohler that, "if we drive men to despair, we ought to be prepared to hear them speak the language of despair."
(4) De Synodis Fidei Catholicae contra Arianos et praevaricatores Arianis acquiescentes; also occasionally referred to as de Fide Orientalium; and sometimes, though less frequently, as de Synodis Graeciae, or even simply as Epistola. Internal evidence furnishes a satisfactory approximation to the date of its composition, viz. in 358 or very early in 359. It is a letter from Hilary, an exile in Phrygia, to his brother-bishops in Gaul, who had asked for an explanation of the numerous professions of faith which the Orientals seemed to be putting forth. Hilary, although (as we have seen from his subsequent second letter to Constantius) deeply conscious of the harm wrought by these proceedings, wrote back a thorough Irenicon, for such must the de Synodis among all his writings be especially considered. Praising his Gallic brethren for firmness in opposing Saturninus and for their just condemnation of the second formula proposed at Sirmium, he desires that they and their brethren in Britain (provinciarum Britanniaram episcopi) should come to Ancyra or to Rimini in a conciliatory frame of mind. Just as the orthodox Homoousion may be twisted into Sabellianism, even so may the unorthodox. Homoiousion be found patient of a good interpretation. It may be shewn to those well disposed that, rightly understood, complete similarity in reality involves identity. The faith professed at Sardica was, he maintains, substantially sound. It asserted the external origin of the Son from the substance of the Father, and condemned the heresy of Photinus, "quae initium Dei filii ex partu Virginis mentiebatur." Hilary appeals to the more peace-loving among the semi-Arian bishops to accept both terms in their true sense. "Date veniam, Fratres, quam frequenter poposci. Ariani non estis; cur negando homoousion censemini Ariani?" (§ 88). Here comes in that remarkable statement, that he had never, before his exile, heard the Nicene Creed, but had made it out for himself from the Gospels and other books of N.T.
A peacemaker is often suspected on one side, sometimes upon both. His first letter to Constantius, his commentary on St. Matthew, his confessorship as shewn in his exile, did not save Hilary from suspicion. By some he was held to have conceded too much to the semi-Arians. This opinion was voiced by Lucifer of Cagliari, the earnest nut somewhat harsh-minded representative of that extreme wing which might be called more Athanasian than Athanasius. Some apologetic notes, shewing much courtesy and gentleness, appended by Hilary to a copy sent to Lucifer, were first published in the Benedictine ed. (Paris, 1693).
(5) Liber contra Auxentium.—Written
a.d. 365, under Valentinian, who had
become emperor in 366. Hilary was convinced that the profession of orthodoxy made
by Auxentius was thoroughly insincere. The emperor accepted the position avowed
by Auxentius; entered into communion with him, and ordered Hilary to leave Milan.
Hilary obeyed at once, but, as the sole resource left him, published this address
to the church at large. Hence its other titles, viz. contra Arianos vel Auxentium
Mediolanensem, and Epistola ad Catholicos et Auxentium. It forms a curious
commentary upon church history by bringing into vivid relief the utterly changed
character of the temptations to which Christians were now exposed as compared with
those of the ante-Nicene period. Hilary's view must be considered a rather one-sided
one. He sees clearly the evils of his own day, but hardly realizes what must have
been the trials of the times of Nero, Decius, and Galerius. The concluding part
makes out a strong case against Auxentius. It is difficult to believe that he was
not an Arian at heart. Hilary, like some of his contemporaries, declares that the
ears of the people have become purer than the hearts of the bishops. He begs those
who shrink from breaking off communion with Auxentius, whom he calls an angel of
Satan, not to let their love of mere walls and buildings seduce them into a false
peace. Antichrist may seat himself within a church; the forests and mountains, lakes
and prisons, are safer. It must be remembered, in palliation of Hilary's strong
language respecting the bp. of Milan, that he regarded him not as an open foe, but
as a betrayer of truth by false pretences. Rufinus, who speaks of Hilary as a "confessor
fidei Catholicae," entitles this work "librum instructionis plenissimae."
(6) Fragmenta Hilarii.—These fragments were first published in 1598 by
Nicolaus Faber, who got them from the library of Father
(7) Epistola ad Abram Filiam suam (c. 358).—Hilary, during his exile, learnt that there was some prospect of his daughter Abra, though only in her 13th year, being sought in marriage. He draws a mystic portrait of the heavenly bridegroom, which is evidently intended to suggest the superiority of a religious celibacy, but leaves her an entirely free choice, only desiring that the decision should be really her own. He encloses a morning and an evening hymn. On any difficulties in the letter or the hymns, Abra is to consult her mother. The Hymnus matutinus, a very brief one, is still extant. The Hymnus vespertinus is more disputed, but Cardinal Mai makes a fair case for it, though it does not satisfy Dom Coutant and Dom Ceillier. Two other hymns by Hilary, commencing respectively "Hymnum dicat turba fratrum" (a hymn on the life of our Lord) and "Jesus refulsit omnium" (on the Epiphany) are given by Thomassy in his Hymnarium. Dom Pitra gives some verses of considerable beauty on our Lord's childhood, which seem to be Hilary's. The letter to Abra is considered doubtful by some critics, and rejected by Cave, but upon insufficient evidence.
The best ed. of Hilary is the Benedictine by Coutant (Paris, 1693), or its reprint with a few additions by Maffei (Verona, 1730). The de Trinitate is in Hurter's Ss. Pat. Opusc. (Innsbrück, 1888).
In conclusion, it must be observed that, though Hilary in his de Trinitate (lib. vi. 3638) speaks of Peter's confession as the foundation of the church, he, in other writings, more especially in his commentary on the Psalms, is inclined to make Peter himself, whom he terms caelestis regni janitorem, the foundation. In the fragmenta we find a letter from the fathers of Sardica to pope Julius, which certainly does refer to the Roman see as the head see. If Hilary approved of this document, he may very probably have allowed to Rome a primacy, at any rate, in the West. But this is a somewhat slender foundation to build a superstructure upon; and it is singular to find Ceillier's editor, in his anxiety to damage the authority of the fragmenta, somewhat injuring the credit of the only one brief sentence in the extensive works of Hilary which can be cited as a recognition, however indirect, of the Roman primacy (Ceillier, iv. p. 63, note). In practice Hilary did not often take his stand upon authority. The metropolitan see of Arles was in his time occupied by the Arian Saturninus, Hilary's chief opponent in his earlier day. He had not been long bishop when, by force of character, will, intellect, and confessorship, he came into the first rank of champions. The idea of controversy being settled by the fiat of any one bishop, whether of Rome or elsewhere, had never dawned upon his mind. No leave was asked when he descended into Italy to confront Auxentius. A cheap popular Life of Hilary of Poictiers, by J. G. Cazenove, is pub. by S.P.C.K. in their Fathers for Eng. Readers, and a selection of his works is in the Lib. of Nic. and Post Nic. Fathers. Cf. also an art. in Journ. of Theol. Stud. Apr. 1904, by A. J. Mason on "The First Latin Christian Poet."
Hilarius (17) Arelatensis (Hilary of Arles), St., bp. of Arles and metropolitan.
Authorities..—(1) References to himself in his biography of his predecessor, Honoratus of Arles. (2) Vita Hilarii, usually assigned to St. Honoratus, bp. of Marseilles, a disciple of Hilary (Boll. Acta SS. 5; Mai. ii. 25). (3) Gennadius, Illust. Vir. Catal. § 67. (4) St. Leo (Ep. 89, al. 10). (5) Councils of Riez, 439, Orange and Vaison, 442, Rome, 445 (Labbe, Concil. t. i. pp. 1747, 1783), Vienne, 445 (Natalis Alexander, Hist. Ecclesiastica, t. v. p. 168, art. viii. de Concilio Romano in causâ Hilarii Arelatensis). (6) Notices of St. Hilary are also to be found in the writings of St. EUCHERIUS (who dedicated to him his book de Laude Eremi), of St. Isidore, of Sidonius Apollinaris, and others; and very specially in certain writings of St. Prosper and St. Augustine, to which references will be found below.
The place of his birth, probably in 401, was apparently that part of Gallia Belgica called later Austrasia. He was of noble family. His education was, according to the standard of the age, a thoroughly liberal one, including philosophy and rhetoric. That in rhetoric he became no mean proficient is proved by the graceful style of the one assured composition of his which is extant.
The early ambition of Hilary's mind lay in the direction of secular greatness.
Both station and culture gave him every prospect of success, and he appears to have
ably discharged the duties of some dignified offices in the state, though we are
not informed of their precise nature. He must have been very young when the example
and the entreaties of his friend and kinsman Honoratus of Arles induced him to renounce
all secular society for the solitude of the isle of Lérins. He sold his estates
to his brother, and gave the proceeds partly to the poor, partly to some monasteries
which needed aid. At Lérins he became a model monk in the very best and highest
sense; but after a period probably not exceeding two years his friend Honoratus,
being chosen (a.d. 426) bp. of Arles,
obtained the comfort of Hilary's companionship in his new duties.
The canons passed by the councils of Riez and of Orange, over which Hilary presided in 439 and 442 respectively, were in the main of a disciplinary character; at Riez a special canon, the seventh, insisted strongly on the rights of the metropolitan. It seems undeniable that Hilary was inclined to press the claims of this office to a degree which amounted to usurpation; partly, perhaps, in regard to the geographical extent of the jurisdiction claimed by him for the see of Arles, and certainly with respect to the rights of the clergy, the laity, and the comprovincial bishops.
But before dealing with his important contest with pope Leo, we must interpose a few words on the semi-Pelagianism of which he has been accused. In 429, the year in which he became bishop, two letters (225 and 226 in the Benedictine ed. of St. Augustine) were addressed to the great bp. of Hippo, one by Prosper, and one by another Hilary, a layman. In the former, Prosper, after recounting various shades of dissent manifested in S. Gaul from the Augustinian teaching on predestination, expressly names Hilary, bp. of Arles, among the recalcitrants. Prosper refers in terms of high encomium to Hilary, and intimates that in all other respects the bp. of Arles was an admirer and supporter of Augustine's teaching. He believed, indeed, that Hilary had some intention of writing to Augustine for explanation on the points at issue. The epistle of Hilary the layman, though its statement is more brief and general, entirely confirms that of Prosper.
If on this evidence, and also from the respect shewn by him to Faustus of Riez, we are compelled to class Hilary of Arles with the semi-Pelagians, it must be recognized that he is a supporter of their views in their very mildest form. That Hilary had some grounds for fearing that Augustine's teaching might imperil the acknowledgment of man's free agency is admitted by many of our historians, e.g. Canons Bright (Hist. of Church, p. 307) and Robertson (Hist. of Chr. Church, bk. iii. cc. ii. and vii.). St. Germain of Auxerre, who went twice over to Britain to contend against Pelagianism, was a companion of the bp. of Arles on at least one of his tours through Gaul. Out of this tour, undertaken by Hilary as metropolitan, there arose the important contest between the bps. of Arles and Rome which ended in procuring for the Roman see a great increase of authority, both in respect of territory and of power. The struggle is in many respects a remarkable one. Each side was well championed. Leo and Hilary were men of saintly piety, earnest and energetic in the discharge of their duties. Each conscientiously believed himself in the right; both were apt to be hasty and high-handed in carrying out their views of ecclesiastical government. Hilary found at Besançon (Vesontio), or according to some at Vesoul, a bp. named Chelidonius, the validity of whose position was assailed on the two grounds that he had married a widow while yet a layman, and that he had previously, as a lay magistrate, pronounced sentences of capital punishment. Hilary held a council at Vienne in 444, and we learn from his biographer and from the testimony of Leo that by its sentence Chelidonius was deposed from the episcopate and appealed to Rome in person. Although it was now midwinter, Hilary went on foot across the Alps. Presenting himself to Leo, he respectfully requested him to act in conformity with the canons and usages of the universal church. Persons juridically deposed were known to be serving the altar in Rome. If Leo found this to be the case, let him, as quietly and secretly as he pleased, put a stop to such violation of the canons. If Leo would not do this, Hilary would simply return home, as he had not come to Rome to bring any accusation. It seems probable, however, that he would have listened if Leo had been content with suggesting a rehearing of the cause in Gaul. Leo declined to take this view. Although Gaul was not a portion of the Roman patriarchate, the Roman pontiff resolved to assert over that region a claim similar to that which he had just failed to establish in Africa. [LEO.] He summoned a council or conference in which Hilary, for the sake of peace, consented to take part. Several bishops were present, including Chelidonius. Hilary, with much plainness of speech, defended his conduct. Leo had him put under guard; but Hilary contrived to escape and (apparently in Feb. 445) returned to Arles. Leo found the charge of marriage with a widow not proven against Chelidonius; and formally (as he had already done informally) pronounced him restored to his rank of bishop and to his see. Not content with the reversal of Hilary's sentence, Leo proceeded to deprive the bp. of Arles of his rights as a metropolitan, and to confer them on the bp. of Vienne. He further charged Hilary with having traversed Gaul attended by a band of armed men, and with hastily, without waiting for election by the clergy and laity, consecrating a new bishop in place of Projectus, a bishop (according to Hilary within his province) who was at that time ill. Leo availed himself of his great influence with Valentinian III., to obtain an imperial rescript against Hilary, as one who was injuring the peace of the church and rebelling against the majesty of the empire. This celebrated document, which virtually promised the support of the secular arm to the claim of the Roman pontiff to be a universal bishop, was issued in 445, and was addressed to the Roman general in Gaul, Aetius.
In this controversy Protestant historians, as a rule, take the side of Hilary.
But Roman Catholics are much divided. Writers of the ultramontane school, as Rohrbacher
or the
It must be said for him that his conviction, that the see off Arles gave him metropolitical power over the whole of Gaul, was based upon no small amount of cogent testimony. The case in favour of this has been ably summed up by Natalis Alexander (H. E. § v. c. v. art. 8), and by the Rev. W. Kay in a note to the Oxf. trans. of Fleury (Lond. 1844). But if it hold good for the case of Chelidonius, it is not equally clear for that of Projectus. That Hilary should escape from Rome, when he found the secular authority employed to detain him, was only natural and justifiable. That he should take soldiers with him in making his visitations may be reasonably ascribed (as Fleury suggests) to the disturbed state of the country. As regards Projectus, he may have strayed beyond the ill-defined limits of his province and most certainly violated canonical rule. But there is no reason to doubt that Hilary, in so acting, really believed that Projectus would not recover, and wished to provide against an emergency. As for Hilary's exceeding freedom of language in. the presence of Leo, which greatly shocked Leo and probably others among the audience, it must be remembered that the bp. of Arles was always wont to speak very plainly. Moreover, as a friend of Hilary, the prefect Auxiliaris subsequently observed, "Roman ears were very delicate."
Those who are willing to accept pleas on behalf of Hilary do not thereby commit
themselves to unreserved censure on pope Leo. The encouragement to interference
in the affairs of S. Gaul was undeniably very great. Strong as was the case for
the jurisdiction of Arles over most of the Gallican sees, the authority over Narbonensian
Gaul had long been claimed for the bp. of Vienne. A contest between Patroclus of
Arles and Proculus of Marseilles had already been carried to a former bp. of Rome,
Zosimus, in 422 (some 22 years before the case of Hilary), though the result had
not been encouraging to the partisans of Rome, since Zosimus misjudged it and his
successor Boniface referred it back to the prelates of Gaul. But Leo, though at
times dwelling more upon St. Peter's confession of faith than on his personal position,
in all his letters bearing on the contest with Hilary repeats continually the text
(
Leo's recourse to the emperor's aid has been severely censured; and Tillemont declared concerning the famous law of June 6, 445, that "in the eyes of those who have any love for the church's liberty or any knowledge of her discipline, it will bring as little honour to him whom it praises as of injury to him whom it condemns" (Tillem. Mém. eccl. t. xv. art. xx. p. 83). Baronius (as Tillemont naturally adds) is fully justified in appealing to this act of Valentinian as a proof of the powerful aid lent by the emperors towards establishing the greatness and authority of the pope.
Of the remaining four years of Hilary's life, after his return to Gaul, we know little more than that they were incessantly occupied with the discharge of his duties. Practically the acts of Leo do not appear to have affected his position (see Hallam, Middle Ages, vol. ii. c. vii. pt. i. and Fleury), and Hilary never acknowledged their validity; though an appeal to Leo was made after Hilary's death for the restoration of its ancient metropolitical rights to Arles. The attempts of Hilary through friends to conciliate Leo availed little. But when, after the death of Hilary (May 5, 449), the prelates of the provinces announced to Leo that Ravennius had been elected and duly consecrated, Leo wrote an acknowledgment which sounds like a virtual retractation of his imputations on the motives and character of Hilary and most justly entitled him a man "of holy memory."
Writings.—Waterland (Critical History of the Athanasian Creed) argues that Hilary of Arles was the author of the (so-called) Creed of St. Athanasius, but this remains only an ingenious conjecture. Among other doubtful works assigned to Hilary must be classed certain poems on sacred subjects: (1) Poema de septem fratribus Maccabaeis ab Antiocho Epiphane interfectis. (2) A poem, more frequently attributed to Prosper Aquitanus and generally included in his works, entitled Carmen de Dei Providentiâ. (3) Carmen in Genesim. This poem (which, like the two preceding, is in hexameters) has been more often ascribed to the earlier Hilary, bp. of Poictiers. The Benedictine editors reject it with some indignation from the genuine works of Hilary of Poictiers; remarking, however, that this does not involve its attribution to Hilary of Arles. But despite faults—theological, grammatical, and metrical—the poem is curious as a real attempt at that blending of the Christian and classic elements of literature displayed in after-ages so brilliantly, though after all with questionable success, by such able scholars as the Jesuit Casimir and the Presbyterian Buchanan.
We have the authority of Hilary's biographer for asserting that he did compose some poetry (versus), wrote many letters, an explanation of the Creed (Symboli Expositio—this is a main element in Waterland's argument) and sermons for all the church's festivals (Homiliae in totius Anni Festivitates). These were apparently extant when Honoratus wrote. Two only survive: (1) Epistola ad Eucherim Episcopum Lugdunensem. (2) Vita Sancti Honorati Arelatensis Episcopi. This may be read in the Bollandist Acta Sanctorum, for Jan. 16.
Hilarius (18) (Hilarus), bp. of Rome from Nov. 19 (or 17, Bolland.),
461, to Sept. 10, 467, succeeding Leo I., after a vacancy of nine days. He was
a native of Sardinia and, when elected pope, archdeacon of Rome. He had been sent,
when a deacon, as one of the legates of pope Leo to the council at Ephesus called
Latrocinium (449), and is especially mentioned in the Acts of the council as having
protested against the deposition of Flavian. After the council, Flavian having
died from the violent
In 465 Hilary exercised over the Spanish church the authority already brought to bear on that of Gaul, but this time on appeal. Two questions came before him. First, Silvanus, bp. of Calchorra, had been guilty of offences against the canons; and his metropolitan, Ascanius of Tarragona, had in 464 sent a synodal letter on the subject to the pope, requesting directions (Inter Hilar. Epp., Ep. ii. Labbe). Secondly, Nundinarius, bp. of Barcelona, had nominated his successor, and after his death the nomination was confirmed by the metropolitan Ascanius and his suffragans. But they wrote to the pope desiring his concurrence and acknowledging the primacy of St. Peter's see. Both these letters were considered in a synod at Rome. On the second case it was decided that Irenaeus, the nominated bishop, should quit the see of Barcelona and return to his former one, while the Spanish bishops were ordered to condone the uncanonical acts of Silvanus (Hil. Epp. i. ii. iii. and Concil. Rom. xlviii. Labbe).
In 467 the new emperor Anthemius was induced by one Philotheus a Macedonian heretic whom he had brought with him, to issue a general edict of toleration for heretics. This was, however, revoked before coming into effect, and pope Gelasius (Ep. ad Episc. Dardan.) says that this was due to Hilarius having in the church of St. Peter remonstrated with the emperor and induced him to promise on oath that he would allow no schismatical assemblies in Rome. In the same year Hilarius died. He appears in the Roman Calendar as a saint and confessor. In remembrance of his deliverance at Ephesus from the trials that procured him the title of confessor, he built, after he became pope, in the baptistery of Constantine near the Lateran, two chapels dedicated to St. John Baptist and St. John the Evangelist, to the latter of whom he attributed his deliverance. The chapel to the Evangelist bore the inscription, "Liberatori suo Johanni Evangelistae, Hilarus famulus Christi" (Bolland. citing Caesar Rasponus).
The extant writings of Hilarius are his letters referred to above. Anastasius Bibliothecarius mentions his decreta sent to various parts, confirming the synods of Nice, Ephesus, and Chalcedon, condemning Eutyches, Nestorius, and all heretics, and confirming the domination and primacy of the holy Catholic and apostolic see (Concil. Rom. u.s.; Thiel. Epp. Pontiff. Rom. i.).
Hippolytus (2) Romanus. Though so celebrated in his lifetime, Hippolytus has been but obscurely known to the church of subsequent times. He was at the beginning of the 3rd cent. unquestionably the most learned member of the Roman church, and a man of very considerable literary activity; his works were very numerous, and their circulation spread from Italy to the East, some having been translated into Syriac, Arabic, Armenian, Ethiopic, and perhaps other languages. His name assumes various disguises, as Poltus in the popular memory of Italy, in Egypt as Abulides. There is evidence also that he took a very active part in the affairs of his own church; but there are no contemporary witnesses to inform us concerning his personal history. A century after his death Eusebius evidently knew nothing of him beyond what he could infer from such works of his as had reached him. These works were soon superseded by those of other more able and learned writers. Scarcely one has come down to us without mutilation, and the authenticity of almost every work assigned to him has been disputed. Yet his celebrity survived, and various legends, not always carefully distinguished from the authentic history of the saint, arose. It has been disputed whether Hippolytus was a presbyter or a bishop; and if a bishop, of what see; whether he laboured in Italy or Arabia; whether he was orthodox or a schismatic; whether he was a martyr, and if so, by what death he died. At length the recovery of the work on heresies, now by general consent attributed to him, cleared away some obscurities in his personal history, though many questions can still receive only doubtful answers.
The earliest notice of Hippolytus is by Eusebius in two passages (H. E. vi. 20, 22). In the first, speaking of ecclesiastical writers of whom letters were then preserved in the library at Jerusalem, Eusebius mentions "likewise Hippolytus, who was bishop of another church somewhere." In the second he gives a list of the works of Hippolytus which he had met with (not including any letters), this being probably the list of those in the library at Caesarea, but adds that many other works by him might be found elsewhere.
If the earliest witnesses give no certain information as to where Hippolytus
laboured, they enable us to determine when he lived. Eusebius says that he wrote
a work on the Paschal feast, in which he gives a sixteen-years' Easter table, and
accompanies it with a chronology, the boundary of his calculations being the first
year of the emperor Alexander, i.e.
A.D. 222. In 1551, in some excavations made on the Via Tirburtina, near
Rome, a marble statue was found, representing a venerable person sitting in a chair,
clad in the Greek pallium. The back and sides of the chair contain Greek inscriptions.
The back has a list of works presumably written by the person represented. One side
has a sixteen-years' cycle, exactly corresponding to the description of Eusebius
and beginning with the first year of Alexander. Other evidence makes it certain
that this cycle is that of Hippolytus. The works sufficiently agree with those ascribed
to Hippolytus by Eusebius and Jerome; and no doubt is entertained that Hippolytus
is the person commemorated. The list of Paschal full moons in the cycle gives accurately
the astronomical full moons for the years 217–223 inclusive. For the next eight
years the true full moons are a day or two later than those given, and after that
deviate still further; so that after two or three revolutions of the cycle the table
would be useless. This table must, then, have been framed about the time specified,
a.d. 222, and the chair must be a nearly
contemporary monument, for it is not conceivable that the table would be put on
record, to do its author honour, after it had been tried long enough to make its
worthlessness apparent. Further, the inscription is in Greek, and the early Roman
church contained a large section, if not a majority, of foreigners, whose habitual
language was Greek. This inscription must have been placed before that section had
disappeared and Latin had become the exclusive language of the church. A further
proof of antiquity is furnished by the list of writings, which is independent of
those of Eusebius and Jerome, and which no one in the West could have drawn up long
after the death of Hippolytus. The date thus fixed agrees with what we otherwise
know, that Hippolytus was a contemporary of Origen, Jerome telling us that it appeared
from a homily of Hippolytus then extant that it had been delivered in Origen's hearing.
We know from Eusebius (H. E. vi. 14) that Origen visited Rome in the reign
of Caracalla and episcopate of Zephyrinus, i.e. some time in the years 211–217.
In one of these years he might thus have heard Hippolytus preach. We must place
the commencement of the activity of Hippolytus as early as the 2nd cent. Photius
tells us that the treatise of Hippolytus Against all the Heresies professed
to be a synopsis of lectures delivered by Irenaeus. The simplest supposition seems
to be that Hippolytus heard Irenaeus lecture in Rome. Eusebius tells of one visit
of Irenaeus to Rome c. 178. A note in a Moscow MS. of the martyrdom of Polycarp
(Zahn's Ignatius, p. 167) represents him as teaching at Rome several years
before. It is not unlikely that Irenaeus came again to Rome and there delivered
lectures against heresies. The time could not have been long after the beginning
of the last decade of the 2nd cent. It has been shewn that the author of the cycle
engraved on the chair must also have been the author of a chronicle, a Latin translation
of which is extant, the last event in which is the death of the emperor Alexander
(235). In that year an entry in the Liberian Catalogue of bishops of Rome records
that Pontianus the bishop, and Hippolytus the presbyter, were transported as exiles
to the pestilent island of Sardinia. It is difficult to believe that the
The picture which Prudentius saw may well have been originally intended to depict the sufferings of the mythological Hippolytus, and, being inscribed with that name, have been ignorantly copied or transferred by Christians to adorn the resting-place of the martyr of that name. The tale told by Prudentius is plainly the offspring of the picture, and the authentic evidence of the deposition, on Aug. 13, on the Via Tiburtina of the remains of a Hippolytus who is coupled with Pontianus indicates the real owner of the tomb, of whom, in the century and a half which passed before Prudentius visited it, all but his name and the day of his feast had been forgotten.
What light has been cast upon his history by the recovery of the treatise against
heresies? The portion previously extant had been known under the name of Origen's
Philosophumena. We make no scruple in treating this as the work of Hippolytus,
for this is the nearly unanimous opinion of critics, Lipsius alone hesitating and
cautiously citing the author as Pseudo-Origenes. From this work it appears that
he took an active part in the affairs of the Roman church in the episcopates of
Zephyrinus and Callistus. Döllinger has shewn that, without imputing wilful misstatement
to Hippolytus, it is possible to put on all that he relates about CALLISTUS
a very much more favourable interpretation than he has done; and with regard to
the charge that Callistus in trying to steer a middle course between Sabellianism
and orthodoxy had invented a new heresy, the retort may be made that it was Hippolytus
himself who in his dread of Sabellianism had laid himself open to the charge of
Ditheism. But the point to which Döllinger called attention, with which we are most
concerned here, is that Hippolytus in this work never recognizes Callistus as bp.
of Rome. He says that Callistus had aspired to the episcopal throne and that on
the death of Zephyrinus "he supposed himself to have obtained what he had been hunting
for." But Hippolytus treats him only as the founder of a school (διδασκαλεῖον)
in opposition to the Catholic church, using the same word with regard to Noetus
(cont. Haer. Noeti, Lagarde, p. 44), of whom he says that when expelled from
the church he had the presumption to set up "a school." Hippolytus says that Callistus
and his party claimed to be the Catholic church and gloried in their numbers, though
this multitude of adherents had been gained by unworthy means, namely, by improper
laxity in receiving offenders. Callistus had received into his communion persons
whom Hippolytus had excommunicated. He adds that this school of Callistus still
continued when he wrote, which was plainly after the death of Callistus, and he
refuses to give its members any name but Callistians. Evidently the breach between
Hippolytus and Callistus had proceeded to open schism. But if Hippolytus did not
regard Callistus as bp. of Rome, whom did he so regard? To this question it is difficult
to give any answer but Döllinger's: Hippolytus claimed to be bp. of Rome himself.
In the introduction to his work, Hippolytus claims to hold the episcopal office;
he declares that the pains which he took in the confutation of heresy were his duty
as successor of the apostles, partaker of the grace of the Holy Spirit that had
been given to them and which they transmitted to those of right faith, and as clad
with the dignity of the high priesthood and office of teaching and guardian of the
church. Afterwards we find him exercising the power of excommunication upon persons,
who thereupon joined the school of Callistus. Thus we seem to have a key to the
difficulty that Hippolytus is described in the Liberian Catalogue only as presbyter,
and yet was known in the East universally as bishop; and very widely as bp. of Rome.
His claim to be bishop was not admitted by the church of Rome, but was made in works
of his, written in Greek and circulating extensively in the East, either by himself
in the works or more probably in titles prefixed to them by his ardent followers.
We have also a key to the origin of the tradition that Hippolytus had been a Novatianist.
He had been in separation from the church, and the exact cause of difference had
been forgotten. Against another hypothesis, that Hippolytus was at the same time
bp. of Portus and a leading presbyter of Rome, Döllinger urges, besides the weakness
of the proof that Hippolytus was bp. of Portus, that there is no evidence that Portus
had then a bishop, and that, according to the then constitution of the church, the
offices of presbyter and bishop could not be thus combined. Döllinger contends that
the schism could not have occurred immediately on the election of Callistus; but
there is exactly the same reason for saying that Hippolytus refused to recognize
Zephyrinus as bishop, as that he rejected Callistus; for he speaks of the former
also as "imagining" that he governed the church. In consistency, then, Döllinger
ought to have made the schism begin in the time of Zephyrinus,
The preceding discussions have told all that is known of the life of Hippolytus. We now proceed to enumerate his works; acknowledging the great help of the list of Caspari, Taufsymbol und Glaubensregel, iii. 377.
(1) Most completely associated with his name is the 16 years' cycle (mentioned
by Eusebius and Jerome, u.s.), and the little treatise in which he explained
it. This is among the list of works on the statue, Ἀπόδειξις
χρόνων τοῦ πάσχα καὶ τὰ ἐν τῷ πίνακι. That the cycle engraved on the statue
is undoubtedly that of Hippolytus is not only proved by facts already pointed out
and by its interpretation
(2) Eusebius, in the passage where he has spoken of the work on the Paschal feast just considered (τὸ περὶ τοῦ πάσχα σύγγραμμα), proceeds with a list of the other works of Hippolytus he had met with, among which is one περὶ τοῦ πάσχα. The use of the definite article in the first case might suggest that Eusebius only knew one such work, and mentions it the second time in its order in his collection of works of Hippolytus. But it may be considered certain that Hippolytus treated doubly of the Paschal celebration: in (1) giving rules for finding Easter; in another writing, which probably was an Easter-day sermon, treating of its doctrinal import.
(3) Among the works enumerated on the statue is a chronicle. The list runs χρονικῶν πρὸς Ἕλληνας, and it has been questioned whether this describes two separate works, or a chronicle written with a controversial object; but the remains of the chronicle itself shew it to have been written for the instruction of Christians and not as a polemic against heathenism. The chronicle records the death of the emperor Alexander, and therefore the deportation of Hippolytus and Pontianus to Sardinia could not have taken place under Alexander as the later Papal Catalogue has it, but under Maximin. It follows, also, that this chronicle is likely to be the latest work of Hippolytus, and therefore that a passage common to it and to the later treatise on heresy was taken from an earlier work, a supposition which presents no difficulty.
(4) We pass now from the chronological to the anti-heretical writings; first, the treatise against all heresies, which may have been the earliest work of Hippolytus. It is mentioned in the lists of both Eusebius and Jerome, and a passage is quoted from it in the Paschal Chronicle, though it is not in the list on the chair as we have it, which shews that we cannot build any conclusion on the absence of a name therefrom. The fullest account of this treatise is given by Photius (Cod. 121). He describes it as a small book, βιβλιδάριον, against 32 heresies, beginning with the Dositheans and ending with Noetus and the Noetians; that it purported to be an abstract of discourses of Irenaeus; was written in a clear, dignified style, though not observant of Attic propriety. It denied St. Paul's authorship, of Hebrews. It was probably published in the early years of the episcopate (199–217) of Zephyrinus, to lead up to an assault on Noetianism, then the most formidable heresy at Rome.
(5) A work, or rather a fragment, bearing in the MS. the title of Homily of Hippolytus against the Heresy of one Noetus, appears on examination to be not a homily, but the conclusion of a treatise against more heresies than one. It begins: "Certain others are privily introducing another doctrine, having become disciples of one Noetus." It proceeds to refute the Noetian objection that the assertion of the distinct personality of our Lord contradicts those texts of Scripture which declare the absolute unity of God. At the end of this discussion he says, "Now that Noetus also has been refuted, let us come to the setting forth of the truth, that we may establish the truth, against which all so great heresies have arisen, without being able to say anything." The orthodoxy of the tract seems unsuspected by Tillemont, Ceillier, Lumper, and others. It was formally defended by bp. Bull, and was published by Routh (Ecc. Script. Opusc.) as a lucid exposition of orthodox doctrine. When, however, it came to light that the teaching of Hippolytus had been censured by pope Callistus, Döllinger had no difficulty in pointing out features in it open to censure. Though Hippolytus acknowledges the Logos to have been from eternity dwelling in God as His intelligence, he yet appears to teach that there was a definite epoch determined by the will of God, prior no doubt to all creation, when that Logos, which had previously dwelt impersonally in God, assumed a separate hypostatic existence, in order that by Him the world should be framed and the Deity manifested to it. Thus, beside God there appeared another; yet not two Gods, but only as light from light, a ray from the sun. Hippolytus also teaches that it was only at the Incarnation that He Who before was the Logos properly became Son, though previously He might be called Son in reference to what He was to be. Döllinger imagines that this emanation doctrine of Hippolytus may, in the controversies of the time, have been stigmatized as Valentinian, and that thus we may account for a late authority connecting this heresy with his name.
(6) Refutation of all Heresies.—In 1842 Minoides Mynas brought to Paris
from Mount Athos, besides other literary treasures, a 14th-cent. MS. containing
what purported to be a refutation of all heresies, divided into 10 books. Owing
to mutilation, the MS. begins in the middle of bk. iv.; but from the numbering of
the leaves it is inferred that the MS. had never contained any of the first three
books. Miller, who published it in 1851 for the Univ. of Oxford, perceived that
it belonged to the work published under the name of Origen's Philosophumena
by Gronovius, and afterwards in the Benedictine ed. of Origen, though it had been
perceived that the ascription to Origen must be erroneous, as the author claims
the dignity of high priesthood, and refers to a former work on heresies, while no
such work is said to have been composed by Origen. Miller in his edition reprinted
the Philosophumena as bk. i. of the Elenchus, but ascribed the whole
to Origen, an ascription which was generally
(a) The Treatise against the Thirty-two Heresies.—The author begins by saying that he had a long time before (πάλαι) published another work against heresy, with less minute exposure of the secret doctrines of the heretics than that which he now proposes to make. Of those for whom the authorship has been claimed, Hippolytus is the only one whom we know to have published a previous work on heresies. The time between the two works would be 20 years at least.
(b) The Treatise on the Universe.—At the end of the Refutation (x. 32, p. 334, Plummer's trans.) the author refers to a previous work of his, περὶ τῆς τοῦ παντὸς οὐσίας, and among the works ascribed to Hippolytus on the statue we read, πρὸς Ἕλληνας καὶ πρὸς Πλάτωνα ἣ καὶ περὶ τοῦ παντός. Photius remarks that the author of the work on the universe also wrote the Labyrinth, according to a statement at the end of that work. Now, bk. x. begins with the words, "The labyrinth of heresies." We may, then, reasonably conclude that what Photius knew as the Labyrinth was our bk. x. which was known by its first word.
(c) The Chronicle and the Treatise on the Psalms.—The enumeration of the 72 nations among whom the earth was divided (x. 30), and which the author states that he had previously given in other books, precisely agrees with that in the Chronicle of Hippolytus; and though this chronicle was probably later than the Refutation, Hippolytus wrote commentaries on Genesis, where this enumeration would naturally be given in treating of c. x., and he appears to have been, like many prolific writers, apt to repeat himself. This same enumeration is given in his commentary on the Psalms (No. 29 infra).
(d) The Tract against Noetus.—On comparing this tract with the exposition of the troth given at the end of the Refutation, the identity of doctrine, and sometimes of form of expression, decisively proves common authorship. The same doctrine is found, that the Logos, Which had from eternity dwelt in the Deity as His unspoken thought, afterwards assumed a separate hypostatic existence; differing from created things not only in priority but also because they were out of nothing, He of the substance of the Godhead; and being the framer of the universe according to the divine ideas (in the Platonic sense of the word) which had dwelt in Him from the first. That the Son's personal divinity was not by the original necessity of His nature, but given by an act of the divine will, is stated more offensively than in the earlier tract. He says to his reader, "God has been pleased to make you a man, not a god. If He had willed to make you a god He could have done so; you have the example of the Logos."
(e) The Treatise on Antichrist.—In c. ii. of this treatise (Lagarde, p. 2), when telling how the prophets treated not only of the past but of the present and the future, he uses language in some respects verbally coinciding with what is said in the Elenchus (x. 33, p. 337).
The evidence which has been produced amounts to a demonstration of the Hippolytine authorship. The title of the work would be φιλοσοφούμενα ἢ κατὰ πασῶν αἱρέσεων ἐλέγχος; the name Philosophumena properly applying to the first 4 books, the Elenchus to the last 6. Its chief value to us consists, in addition to the light cast on the disputes in the church of Rome at the beginning of the 3rd cent., in its extracts from otherwise unknown gnostic writings, inserted by the author to shame these sects by an exposure of their secret tenets. Its attack on the character of pope Callistus was fatal to its circulation. No doubt when a reconciliation was effected at Rome all parties desired to suppress the book. Bk. i. was preserved as containing a harmless and useful account of the doctrines of heathen philosophers; and bk. x., which presented no cause for offence (there being nothing to indicate that the heretic Callistus mentioned in it was intended for the bp. of Rome), also had some circulation and was seen by Theodoret and Photius. But these two writers are the only ones in whom we can trace any knowledge of bk. x., which was certainly not used by Epiphanius. The rest of the work is mentioned by no extant writer, and but for the chance preservation of a single copy in the East would have altogether perished.
(7) The Little Labyrinth.—Eusebius (H. E. v. 27) gives some long
extracts from an anonymous work against the heresy of Artemon. Internal evidence
shews that the writer was a member of the Roman church and speaks of things that
occurred in the episcopate of Zephyrinus as having happened in his own time. On
the other hand, Zephyrinus is described as Victor's successor, language not likely
to be used if Zephyrinus were at the time bishop, or even the last preceding bishop.
The writer's recollection too does not appear to go back to the episcopate of Victor.
The date would therefore be soon after the episcopate of Callistus. Theodoret (Haer.
Fab.
(8) The Work against Bero and Helix.—A certain Anastasius of the 7th cent. is the earliest authority for designating Hippolytus as bp. of Portus. He so calls him in sending to Rome extracts made by him at Constantinople from what purported to be a treatise of Hippolytus, περὶ θεολογίας καὶ σαρκώσεως, against the above-named heretics, his adversaries having hindered Anastasius from getting possession of the entire work. Döllinger (p. 295) has given conclusive reasons for regarding this as no work of Hippolytus, but as a forgery not earlier than the 6th cent. The technical language of these fragments is also that of the controversies of the 5th cent., and quite unlike that of the age of Hippolytus. It was doubtless Anastasius who supplied another passage from the discourse περὶ θεολογίας produced at the Lateran Council in 649.
(9) A Syriac list of the writings of Hippolytus given by Ebed Jesu, a writer of the very beginning of the: 14th cent. (Assemani, Bibl. Or. iii. 1, p. 15), contains a work whose Syriac title is translated by Ecchelensis de Regimine, by Assemani de Dispensatione. Adopting the latter rendering and taking "dispensatio" to be equivalent to οἰκονομία, we should conclude its subject to be our Lord's Incarnation. It may therefore be identical with (8). If the other rendering be adopted, the work would relate to church government, and might be identical with some part of (21).
(10) The Treatise against Marcion.—Mentioned in the catalogues of Eusebius and Jerome, but nothing of it remains.
(11) On the statue is enumerated a work περὶ τἀγαθοῦ καὶ πόθεν τὸ κακόν. This may well have been an anti-Marcionite composition, and possibly that mentioned by Eusebius (10).
(12) Defence of the Gospel and Apocalypse of St. John.—We may probably class among anti-heretical writings the work described on the chair as ὑπὲρ τοῦ κατὰ Ἰωάννην εὐαγγελίου καὶ ἀποκαλύψεως, and in the list of Ebed Jesu as "a defence of the Apocalypse and Gospel of the apostle and evangelist John." The work on the Apocalypse mentioned by Jerome we take to be different, and we notice it among the exegetical works. Hippolytus in his extant remains constantly employs the Apocalypse, and his regard for it is appealed to by Andrew of Caesarea (Max. Bibl. Patr. v. 590). It has been supposed that CAIUS was the writer, replied to by Hippolytus, who ascribes the Apocalypse and the Gospel to Cerinthus; but the arguments for supposing that Caius rejected the Apocalypse are inconclusive, and it is highly improbable that he, an orthodox member of the Roman church, rejected the Gospel of St. John.
(13) One argument in support of the view just referred to is that Ebed Jesu (u.s.) enumerates among the works of Hippolytus Chapters (or heads) against Caius, which, it has been conjectured, were identical with (12). But Ebed Jesu reckons the two works as distinct. What other heresy of Caius Hippolytus could have confuted is unknown.
(14) It is hard to draw the line between controversial and dogmatic books. Thus, with regard to the treatise cited by Anastasius Sinaita (Lagarde, No. 9, p. 90), περὶ ἀναστάσεως καὶ ἀφθαρσίας, which may be the same as that described on the statue as περὶ Θεοῦ καὶ σαρκὸς ἀναστάσεως and by Jerome as de Resurrectione, we cannot tell whether it was a simple explanation of Christian doctrine or directed against the errors of heretics or heathens.
(15) A controversial character more clearly belongs to another work on the same subject, a fragment of which is preserved in Syriac (Lagarde, Anal. Syr. p. 87), and contains what Stephen Gobar (Photius, Cod. 232) noted as a peculiarity of Hippolytus, found also in both his treatises against heresy, viz. that he makes Nicolas the deacon himself, and not any misunderstood saying of his, the origin of the errors of the Nicolaitanes. Here he is charged with maintaining that the resurrection has passed already and that Christians are to expect none other than that which took place when they believed and were baptized.
(16) One work at least Hippolytus specially directed to the heathen, and though
this is not included in the list of Jerome he probably alludes to it (Ep. ad
Magnum, i. 423) where he classes Hippolytus with others who wrote "contra gentes."
On the chair we read χρονικῶν πρὸς Ἕλληνας καὶ πρὸς
Πλάτωνα ἢ καὶ περὶ τοῦ παντός. We might take
πρὸς Ἕλληνας as a distinct work, or with what
precedes or with what follows. That the last is the true construction appears both
from the title given in one of the MSS., in which a fragment is preserved,
ὁ λόγος πρὸς Ἕλληνας ὁ ἐπιγεγραμμένος κατὰ Πλάτωνα
περὶ τῆς τοῦ παντὸς αἰτίας, and from the fact that the same fragment contains
addresses to the Greeks. This, then, is evidently the treatise
περὶ τῆς τοῦ παντὸς οὐσίας, mentioned at the
end of the Elenchus, and of which Photius speaks in a passage already referred
to (Cod. 48). He says that the treatise was in two short books, that it shewed
that Plato was inconsistent; that the Platonic philosopher Alcinous had spoken falsely
and absurdly about the soul, matter, and the resurrection; and that the Jewish nation
was much older than the Greek. The theory of the universe embodied in this work
made all things consist of the four elements, earth, air, fire, or water. Things
formed of more elements than one are subject to death by the dissolution of their
component parts, but things formed of one element (e.g. angels,
(17) The Demonstration against the Jews.—The Greek text of a fragment of a work bearing this title was first published by Fabricius (vol. ii. 1) from a copy supplied by Montfaucon from a Vatican MS. There is no external evidence to confirm the ascription in the MS. of this work to Hippolytus. The mutilated list on the chair begins -ους; but it is bare conjecture which completes this into πρὸς Ἰουδαίους. There is nothing in the fragment which forbids us to suppose Hippolytus the writer. It shews that the Jews have no reason to glory in the sufferings they inflicted on Jesus of Nazareth, for it had been foretold that the Messiah should so suffer, and these sufferings had been the cause of the misery afterwards endured by the Jewish nation.
(18) We pass now to dogmatic writings. Jerome, in his list of the writings of Hippolytus, gives "Προσομιλία de laude Domini salvatoris." This is the homily delivered in the presence of Origen.
(19) The Work on Antichrist.—Of all the writings of Hippolytus this is
the only one extant in a perfect state, or nearly so. It appears in Jerome's list
with the title de Antichrista; Photius calls it
περὶ Χριστοῦ καὶ ἀντιχρίστου; and the title
it bears in the MS. from which the first printed edition was made is
περὶ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ περὶ τοῦ ἀντιχρίστου.
The work is addressed to one Theophilus, and the author cautions him against communicating
to unbelievers what he was about to teach him, quoting Paul's directions to Timothy,
"the things thou hast heard of me commit thou to faithful men." The doctrine
of the treatise as to the coming overthrow of the Roman power would give good reason
for this caution. Jerome's title best describes the treatise, of which, after some
introductory remarks on prophetic inspiration, Antichrist is almost exclusively
the subject. The later title has some justification in the parallel between Christ
and Antichrist, with which he begins, shewing how the deceiver had sought in all
things to liken himself to the Son of God. He was to be, like Christ, a lion
(
(20) The text of a homily on the Holy Theophany was communicated to Fabricius by Gale from a MS. still preserved at Cambridge. There is also extant a Syriac translation of great part of this homily, viz. to the end of c. 7 (Wright, Catal. of Syr. MSS. of Brit. Mus. ii. 842). The ascription of the MSS. is not confirmed by any external evidence, nor is this homily mentioned in any list of the Hippolytine works, nor quoted by any ancient author. We do not, however, see anything in it which Hippolytus might not have written, and Wordsworth has pointed out a remarkable coincidence with the Refutation, viz. that in both man is spoken of as becoming a god by the gift of new birth and immortality.
(21) On the chair is enumerated περὶ χαρισμάτων ἀποστολικὴ παράδοσις. It is doubtful whether this is the title of one work or two. For various speculations see Fabricius, p. 83. The most probable theory is that it treated of Montanist claims to inspiration.
(22) On the chair we have words which have been read ᾠδαὶ εἰς πάσας τὰς γραφάς. If the line describes only a single work it may denote hymns, one in praise of each of the books of Scripture and perhaps giving a poetical account of its contents.
(23) On the Hexaemeron.—We now pass to the exegetical writings. This work
is given in the lists of Eusebius And Jerome. The
(24) εἰς τὰ μετὰ τὴν ἑξαήμερον (Eus.). In Genesim (Hieron.). From this we suppose the account of the 72 nations to have been taken.
(25) On Exodus.—This we only know from Jerome's list. No quotations have
been preserved, though Magistris makes a doubtful suggestion that Theodoret's citations
from the λόγος εἰς τὴν ᾠδὴν τὴν μεγάλην are
from a commentary on the Song of Moses (
(26) There is extant a fragment (Lagarde, 51) of a commentary on "the blessings of Balaam"; and Trithemius also ascribes to Hippolytus a commentary on Numbers. An Arabic catena on the Pentateuch, of which a portion was pub. by Fabricius, ii. 33–44, and the whole of Gen. by Lagarde, Materialien zur Kritik und Geschichte des Pentateuchs, contains numerous extracts from an Hippolytus whom it describes as the expounder of the Targum. It is generally admitted that the scholia do not belong to our Hippolytus.
(27, 28) Theodoret cites several passages from the Discourse on Elkanah and Hannah. Another part of Samuel was the subject of a special treatise called by Jerome de Saul et Pythonissa, and in Gk. εἰς τὴν ἐγγαστρίμυθον, for so an imperfect line on the chair is generally, and, as we believe, correctly, completed.
(29) The Commentary on the Psalms.—The existence of this work is testified
by Jerome and by the inscription on the chair. Yet elsewhere when writing to Augustine
Jerome gives a list of commentators on the Psalms (Ep. cxii., vol. i. p.
754), leaving out Hippolytus and counting Eusebius as the next Greek commentator
after Origen, either through mere forgetfulness or because Jerome had only read
of Hippolytus, homilies on particular Psalms and some general observations on the
whole book. Theodoret quotes from the commentary on Pss. ii. xxiii. and xxiv., and
on the ᾠδὴ μεγάλη, which may mean
(30) On Proverbs. Mentioned in Jerome's list. Some fragments have been preserved in catenae (Lagarde, pp. 196–199). Others pub. by Mai (Bib. Nov. Pat. vii.) will be found in Migne (p. 6).
(31, 32) Jerome enumerates a commentary on Ecclesiastes; both Eusebius and Jerome one on the Song of Songs. Lagarde gives one fragment from the former (No. 136, p. 200) and four from the latter (No. 35, p. 200; and Anal. Syr. p. 87). One of these states that Hezekiah suppressed the works of Solomon on natural history, because the people sought in them for the recovery of their diseases, instead of seeking help from God.
(33, 34, 35) Jerome enumerates a commentary on Isaiah; Eusebius one on parts of Ezekiel. Assemani states (Bibl. Or. i. 607) that there is Syriac testimony to the existence of one on Jeremiah.
(36) On Daniel.—In Jerome's list. It is the subject of an article by Photius;
is quoted by several other writers, and large fragments of it remain. In a most
valuable contribution to Hippolytine literature, Bardenhewer (Freiburg, 1877) collects
all the notices of this work, discusses the different extant fragments, and restores
the original as far as possible. Catenae quote passages from the commentary of Hippolytus
on Susanna, but the early lists do not mention this as a separate treatise, and
Bardenhewer is probably right in thinking that it was the commencement of the commentary
on Daniel, to which book that of Susanna was then commonly prefixed. The list of
Ebed-Jesu attributes to Hippolytus an exposition of Susanna and of Daniel the Little.
This writer's list of O.T. books includes Daniel, Susanna, and Daniel the Little.
There is no evidence what is meant by the last. Hippolytus supposes Susanna to have
been the daughter of the high-priest Hilkiah (
(37) On Zechariah.—Known only from Jerome's list and the prologue to his commentary on Zechariah.
(38) On Matthew.—We know of this from the prologue to Jerome's commentary on Matthew; and Theodoret quotes from a discourse on the parable of the talents, which, however, may have been a separate homily.
(39) On Luke.—Two fragments are given by Mai (Lagarde, p. 202), and Theodoret has preserved part of a homily on the two thieves.
(40) On the Apocalypse.—In the list of Jerome, and mentioned by Jacob
of Edessa (Eph. Syr. Opp. Syr. i. 192) and Syncellus, 358. Some fragments
are preserved in an Arabic
This enumeration includes all the works for which there is evidence of Hippolytine authorship, unless we add the letters with which it would seem Eusebius was acquainted. The list of genuine writings is quite enough to establish the immense literary activity of Hippolytus, especially as an interpreter of Scripture; and his labours must have given a great impulse to the study of God's word. As a writer he must be pronounced active rather than able or painstaking. Yet he must be admitted to deserve the reverence his literary labours gained from his contemporaries and the honour paid him at his death. For centuries afterwards his name was obscured; but his glory blazed out again when in the time of Charlemagne his relics were transferred to France. For some interesting particulars of this translation see Benson, Journ. of Classical and Sacred Philology, i. 190. We quote his account of the visit of pope Alexander III. to his shrine in the church of St. Denys in 1159. "on the threshold of one of the chapels he paused to ask, ' Whose relics it contained?' 'Those of St. Hippolytus,' was the answer. 'I don't believe it—I don't believe it' ('Non credo—non credo'), replied the infallible authority. 'The bones of St. Hippolytus were never removed from the holy city.' But St. Hippolytus, whose dry bones apparently had as little reverence for the spiritual progeny of Zephyrinus and Callistus as the ancient bishop's tongue and pen had manifested towards these saints themselves, was so very angry that he rumbled his bones inside the reliquary with a noise like thunder ('ut rugitus tonitrui putaretur'). To what lengths he might have gone if rattling had not sufficed we dare not conjecture. But the pope, falling on his knees, exclaimed in terror, 'I believe, O my Lord Hippolytus—I believe; pray be quiet.' And he built an altar of marble there to appease the disquieted saint."
Literature.—Arts. on Hippolytus are to be found in Tillem. vol. iv.; Ceillier, vol. i.; Fabr. Bibl. Gr. vii. 183, ed. Harles, where is the best account of the older bibliography. The discovery of the Refutation made a good deal of the older literature antiquated. We have already referred to some of the more important writings which that discovery elicited. The more important special dissertations on the other works have been referred to under their respective sections. The most important discussion on the life and works of Hippolytus is that in vol. xi. of part i. of Bp. Lightfoot's Apost. Fathers, pp. 137–477.
Hippolytus (5): Aug. 10 (Bas: Men.), Aug. 13 (Mart. Vet. Rom. Usuard.). An apocryphal martyr, first mentioned in the 5th or 6th cent. His story, as given in the martyrology of Ado, is taken from the spurious acts of St. Laurentius the Roman archdeacon, where we are told that that saint, when arrested, was delivered by the prefect Valerian into the custody of Hippolytus, a high military officer, who was converted and at once baptized by him, and thereupon sentenced to be torn asunder by wild horses. Döllinger, in Hippolytus and Callistus (Plummer's trans.), pp. 28–39 and 51–60, discusses the rise and development of this legend, which has largely helped to confuse the story of the genuine Hippolytus, the Roman presbyter and writer of the 3rd cent. (q.v.) (cf. Bunsen's Christianity and Mankind, i. 426). Döllinger fixes the composition of this story between the time of pope Liberius and that of Leo the Great, a period of about 70 years. The whole subject is in a state of great confusion in the martyrologies, which Döllinger has striven, with his usual critical power and vast knowledge, to arrange in some consistent order. Yet the impartial reader must feel sorely perplexed between the opposing theories of Döllinger and Bunsen. (Cf. for the more modern traditions regarding this martyr, Aug. Hare's Walks in Rome, ii. 139.)
Honorius (1), Flavius Augustus, emperor, b. 384, d. 423. A full account of him is given in the Dict. of Classical Biogr. He was declared emperor of the West in 394 at Milan, where he remained almost uninterruptedly till 399. He and his brother Arcadius seem to have been only ill-informed spectators of the tremendous events passing around them.
There is an important enactment against paganism in the first year of Honorius's
reign (Cod. Theod. XVI. x. 13) which forbids all sacrifices and apparently
all public assemblage for pagan worship. The legislation against heresy is varied
and stringent. In XVI. v. 25 of the Theodosian Code all Theodosius's coercive
edicts were re-enacted in their sharpest form and all concessions revoked. The Eunomians
in particular were excluded from rights of military service, legal testimony and
inheritance, though this special severity was relaxed soon after (v. 27), in accordance
with Theodosius's edicts (XVI. v. 22–24). All heretical congregations were forbidden,
and their celebration of the holy mysteries, with ordination either of bishops or
presbyters, altogether interdicted. Two more of the five
It is difficult to say how strictly the Honorian edicts against heresy were carried out, but no such persecution as that of St. Chrysostom is laid to the account of the emperor of the West. There is doubt, however, that the ecclesiastical legislation of 396 and following years was very severe. On March 2, 396 (T. C. XVI. v. 30), all heretical places of assemblage were confiscated and all meetings interdicted. By edicts 31 and 32 the Eunomian clergy were banished and inquiries were directed to be made after their leaders. XVI. vii. 6 deprived all apostates of testamentary power, their property was to go to their natural heirs; and by XVI. x. 14 all privileges of pagan priesthood or ministry were done away. The Jews were protected by three edicts (XVI. viii. 11–13).
The following edicts on church matters extend over 397 and 398. The Apollinarians were banished from Constantinople (T. C. XVI. v. 33) on Apr. 1, which was the only coercive measure of the year, and does not belong to Honorius. By XVI. ii. 30, Jan. 31, all ancient privileges were confined to bishops and clergy, with the proviso "Nihil extraordinarii muneris ecclesiae, vel sordidae functionis agnoscatur," repeated in XI. xvi. 22 (June 4). The Jews were protected from popular tumults (XVI. viii. 12, 13), and equal privileges and respect shewn to high-priests and patriarchs as to the higher Christian clergy. In 398 there were severe statutes on heresy. By T. C. XVI. v. 34 (Constantinople, but in Honorius's fourth consulship) Eunomian and Montanist clergy were banished from all cities and deprived of civic rights. If detected performing their rites in the country they were to be banished and the building confiscated, their books seized and burned, and keeping them was a capital offence. The Manicheans were specially attacked a.d. 399 (c. 35), and those who harboured them were threatened. C. 36 allowed testamentary rights to the Eunomians, but forbad them to assemble or to celebrate the mysteries. Their clergy ("ministri sceleris, quos falso nomine antistites vocant) were to be banished. Clerical rights of sanctuary for criminals were formally refused (de Poenis, ix. xl. 16), but intercession was permitted. This claim seems to have been pressed by the clerical and monastic body by violent means, which the authorities had difficulty in restraining. Cases in which "tanta clericorum ac monachorum audacia est, ut bellum velint potius quam judicium" were to be referred to the emperor for severer adjudication. Bishops were to punish the offences of monks. Debtors, public and private, including some unhappy curiales, had claimed sanctuary in churches (IX. xlv. 3). They were to be removed "manu mox injecta." No cleric or monk was to assert sanctuary by forcible defence for condemned criminals (XI. xxx. 7). Bishops were recommended to ordain clergy from the monastic orders (VI. ii. 32).
Ambrose had successfully resisted the reintroduction of the altar or statue of
Victory into the senate-house in 384; and by 399 it may have appeared to Honorius's
advisers that the time was come when paganism might be hastened out of existence.
The paganism of the Roman senate and people was connected with the proudest associations
of their public and domestic history, and it lingered long in the old patrician
houses of the metropolis and among the rustic population. This was a source of weakness
in keeping Christian emperors away from Rome. It may have been intended to end this
division by direct attempts at suppressing paganism. The death-struggle of a paganism
long fostered, and quite without real devotion, contributed to the final overthrow
of Rome. Its immediate result in the life of Honorius seems to have been the undermining
of Stilicho. The eunuch influence in both Eastern and Western courts had always
been against him. There seems no doubt that Stilicho was opposed to anything which
thinned his muster-rolls and weakened the hearts of his followers. Athanasius had
advised Jovian (Broglie, L᾿Eglise et l᾿Empire romain, vol. v. p. 362) to
bear with error; to bear witness to truth as emperor, but trust for its victory
to the God of truth. Stilicho hardly reached this, as is proved by the many laws
against heretics and idolaters in the code; but the accusations of Orosius (vi.
37) and the hostility of Zosimus on the pagan side seem to justify Gibbon's honourable
estimate of him. In any case he had a few years of glory to come, and his great
enemy was preparing for the defeats of Pollentia and Verona. In 398–399 Alaric was
declared master-general of Eastern Illyricum by Arcadius, and raised on barbarian
bucklers as king of Visigoths, with one man only between him and Rome (de Bello
Getico, 503). Between 400 and 403 he had crossed Pannonia to the Julian Alps,
taken Aquileia, subdued Istria and Venetia, and was threatening Milan. Honorius,
now in his 15th year, thought only of flight into Gaul; but Alaric, overthrown by
Stilicho at Pollentia and Verona, was allowed or compelled to retreat, and Honorius
went with Stilicho to Rome to celebrate the last triumph of the empire (a.d.
404). The customary games took place with great magnificence, and on this occasion
St. Telemachus sacrificed himself by attempting to separate the gladiators. Honorius
seems not to have prevented their exhibition, though there are traces of an attempt
to substitute hunting scenes, races, and grand cavalry displays, among which seems
to have been the ancient game of Troy. After a stay of some months at Rome, during
which he appears to have honestly done all in his power to conciliate the senate,
clergy, and people, Honorius determined (a.d.
404) to fix his residence in the fortress of Ravenna, which was almost impregnable
on the land side and afforded easy escape by sea. The Milanese entertained an affection
for Honorius, and desired his return; but he had soon good reason to feel that his
The anti-pagan legislation of 399–400 prepared for the consummating decree of
confiscation in 408. T. C. XVI. x. 15 prohibited sacrifice, but restrained
the destruction of temples, as monumental public works. In July there was an edict
(c. 16) for the destruction of rural temples ("sine turba ac tumultu"). Some concession
was found necessary, for, in Sept.,
In a.d. 400 the games were forbidden during Lent and the week before Easter, also on Christmas Day and Epiphany. Civic banishment and exclusion from society was decreed on bishops and clergy deprived or degraded by their fellow-clergy for seditious conduct (XVI. ii. 35). Sons of priests were not to be forced into the ministry (XII. i. 166).
The single edict of a.d. 401 on ecclesiastical matters, addressed to Pompeianus, proconsul of Africa, excepted bishops and clergy actively employed in sacred duties from the "auraria pensio," apparently (see Brissonus, Dict.) a tax on commercial men.
In 404 there were 14 decrees, chiefly on religious matters. Of XVI. viii. 15, 16, 17, de Judaeis, 15 renews the general privileges of their patriarchs; 16 deprives or exempts Samaritans from military responsibilities; 17 withdraws the prohibition of a.d. 400 as to collections in the synagogues. XVI. ii. (37 Aug.) releases from prison various clerical persons concerned in popular tumults in Constantinople, but expels them, with all other foreign bishops and clergy, from the city. XVI. iv. 4, 5 (De his qui super Religione contendunt) coerces "the orthodox, who now forsake the holy churches, and assemble elsewhere ('alio convenire conantur'), and venture to dissent from the religion of Acacius, Theophilus, and Porphyrius," now dominant in Constantinople—Nov. Tillemont considers that all these edicts refer to the tumults which took place in 404 on the persecution of St. Chrysostom, except that which refers to officials, issued in Jan. The saint was not exiled till June.
There were 5 religious decrees out of 18 in 405. Two related to the Manichean and Donatist heresies, former statutes being put in force or threatened: "Una sit catholica veneratio, una Salus sit, Trinitatis par sibique congruens Sanctitas expetatur." XVI. vi. 3, 14 were against the repetition of baptism; which some persons seem to have thought might be repeated not only after heresy, but for forgiveness of repeated sins. Persons guilty of rebaptizing others were deprived of all their property, which was, however, secured to their heirs if orthodox. The contumacious were threatened with loss of all civil rights, and there was a heavy fine for connivance.
The irruption of the pagan and ferocious Radagaisus is dated by Gibbon 406, by Tillemont 405. He had to capitulate and was beheaded, and so many of his Germans were sold as slaves that their price fell to a single gold piece. After this invasion and in his desperate circumstances as the last general of Italy's last army, Stilicho apparently turned towards his worthiest enemy and felt the necessity of making terms with Alaric. Stilicho was slain at Ravenna Aug. 23, 408.
Alaric now (Oct. 408) crossed the Alps on pretence of a large claim of money. Honorius fled to Ravenna, and Alaxic besieged Rome for the first time, but accepted a large ransom in 409 and withdrew into Tuscany. He renewed the siege in the same year, and Rome submitted. Attalus was proclaimed emperor by him. In 410 the capture and sack of Rome followed. Alaric died before the end of the year, and in 412 the Goths under Adolf withdrew into Gaul, where Adolf remained until driven into Spain about 3 years after.
a.d. 407, 408. T .C. XVI. v. 40, 41 included the Manichean, Phrygian, and Priscillianist sects in the liabilities of the Donatists, i.e. loss of rights of property and succession, gift, sale, contract, will, and right to restrain orthodox slaves from worship. Heresy was expressly made a public offence, because crimen in religione divina in omnium fertur injuriam, but by c. 41 simple "confessio" or acknowledgment of error and return to orthodox service sufficed for restoration to all rights, and Honorius shewed genuine anxiety to recall his people to the right path on easy terms. XVI. ii. 38 enacted clerical immunities for Africa.
In 408, XVI. viii. 18 stated that at the feast of Purim ("Aman ad recordationem")
the Jews were accustomed to burn or insult the cross. This was to cease, their other
ceremonies were "infra contemptum Christianae legis," and might continue. There
were 6 statutes on heretics and pagans—XVI. v. 42–45, with XVI. x. 19, and V. xiv.
7—and XVI. ii. 36, de Episcopis. Enemies to the Catholic faith were forbidden
to serve in the emperor's palace guard. All statutes against Donatists, Manicheans,
and Priscillianists were to be fully enforced, and a new sect called Caelicolae
were, with them, to be deprived of all buildings for public assemblage. Donatists
who had not yet confessed
a.d. 409. De Haereticis, XVI. v. 46, Jan., 47, June. Two edicts to enforce laws on Jews, Gentiles, or pagans, and heretics. Tillemont says that the death of Stilicho caused a general outbreak of heretics, the Donatists of Africa in particular asserting that his laws against them were now abrogated. Two edicts in March and July forbad amusements ("voluptates") on Sunday and exempted Jews from public calls on their Sabbath (II. viii. 25, 26).
In 410 there were 4 decrees (out of 19) on heresy. The Montanists, Priscillianists, and others were forbidden military service, and other means of exemption from curial burdens (XVI. v. 48). To the intestacy of the Eunomians was added the reversion of bequests to the fisc, if no orthodox heir survive; c. 51 altogether abrogated a former imperial oraculum or rescript, by which certain heretics had been allowed to meet in secret. XVI. xi. 3 confirmed all existing religious statutes.
a.d. 411, 412. XVI. v. 52, Jan. Heavy fines, or total confiscation of property, on obstinate Donatists. Pressure was to be exercised by masters on their slaves, and by the local authorities on coloni. Heretical clergy banished from Africa (c. 53). Jovinian and others, his followers, to be corporally punished and banished to island of Boas, on coast of Dalmatia. XVI. ii. 40, 41, de Episcopis. Church properties exempted from fugatio (a kind of land-tax by acreage, Brisson), also from repairs of public roads and bridges. By c. 41 clergy were to be tried only before their bishops and unnecessary scandal avoided by only bringing accusations which could be definitely proved. For perfect tolerance towards the Jews, XVI. viii. 20, 21.
In 418 Wallia and his Visigoths were settled in the S.W. of France with Toulouse for their capital. Britain was entirely lost, and the Armoricans were maintaining themselves in independence. A fresh revolt under another Maximus seems not to have been suppressed till 422. Wallia, however, acted in Spain as a feudal ally of the empire, won a succession of victories over the Alani, Vandals, and Suevi, and restored great part of the peninsula to Honorius, who is said by Prosper's Chronicle to have entered Rome in triumph a second time. The Burgundians occupied the two provinces which still bear their name, and the Franks were settled on the Rhine. All continued to acknowledge the title of Honorius, and to hold titles from the empire; and all accepted the civil law and magistracy of Rome. Honorius himself had confirmed the independence of Britain and Armorica c. 410, and died of dropsy in his 40th year (423), Aug. 27.
His later legislation has little historical interest, but the enactments on paganism and heresy from 413 to 423 were as follows: Two against repetition of baptism, a.d. 413; two against Donatists, v. 54, 55. These comprise (XVI. vi. 6, 7) the settlement effected by Marcellinus on Honorius's part at Carthage, between the orthodox and the Donatists, which, Tillemont says, brought the heresy to an end. Against any public assemblage for heretical purposes, v. 56. By v. 57 Montanist congregations were forbidden; their clergy to be banished if they attempted to ordain others. Harbourers to be deprived of the house or property where the heretic remained. Their places of meeting, if any were left standing, to be the property of the church. By c. 58 houses of Eunomian clergy were confiscated to the fisc; or any in which second baptism has been administered. Their clergy were exiled, and they were again deprived of testamentary and military rights. All these, except the last, were addressed to Africa. By III. xii. 4 marriage with a deceased wife's sister or husband's brother was forbidden. XVI. x. 20. All pagan priests were required to return to their native place. Confiscation to the church or the emperor of lands and grounds used for pagan purposes. To become a pagan was now a capital offence. In 416 Gentiles, or persons guilty of participation in pagan rites, were excluded from the army and from official or judicial positions. In 423 Honorius renewed all his edicts against heresy, with special mention of Manicheans, Phrygians, Priscillianists, Arians, Macedonians, Eunomians, Novatianists, and Sabbatiani. XVI. v. 59, 60. He was able to say that he believed there were very few pagans remaining, and so far his persecution may seem to have been successful, as with the Donatists and others. Other and more powerful causes were at work, and error and idolatry were taking other forms. The remarkable statute (XVI. x. 22 and 23) ran thus: "Paganos, si qui supersunt, quanquam jam nullos esse credamus, promulgatorum legum jam dudum praescripta compescant." The next (c. 23) stated that pagans caught in acts of idolatrous ceremonial ought to be capitally punished, but are only subject to loss of property and exile. He denounced the same sentence in c. 24 on Manicheans and Pepuzitae, who were worse than all other heretics, saying, "quod in venerabili die Paschatis ab omnibus dissentiant." He ended with a strong caution against any violence on Christian pretences to pagans or Jews leading quiet and legal lives, with penalty of triple or fourfold f restitution. Two more decrees this year restored all fabrics taken from the Jews, even for church purposes; or, in case the holy mysteries had been celebrated in such buildings, equal accommodation should be provided for the former holders.
Honorius possessed no character except a timid docility, but with some natural
goodness of heart or gentleness, otherwise he could not have continued to reign
so disastrously for 28 years. It must be remembered, in excuse of his coercive action,
that persecution was no invention of his or Theodosius's, but an inheritance of
the empire. Such questions as the expediency or the possibility of perfect toleration,
the limits of pressure or coercion, and what body in the state is to exercise it,
have been debated in theory and hewn out in practice, from the beginnings of
Theodosius's 15 edicts in 15 years, from 380–384, extend over the ministers, assemblies, and persons of heretics, and make not only the Manichean heresy punishable by death, but the Quartodeciman error as to keeping Easter. Ambrose, like other Churchmen, could not abstain from the use of the mighty arm of flesh at his command, and the institution of inquisitors must certainly have been an ecclesiastical measure. It should be remembered that the Christian faith had by its own influences so elevated and organized the influence of the human conscience as to have become a temporal power by the nature of things. The Christian spiritual power ruled men's persons and fortunes; the bishop was in fact obeyed by his large share of the population, and became a temporal magistrate because men made him arbitrate for them. (See Guizot, Civ. in Europe, lect. ii. p. 34, ed. Bohn.) He was consequently involved with the civil power in coercive measures of all kinds and in all directions.
Lastly, the empire was divided between Rome and Constantinople, but Italy between Rome and Milan or Ravenna. Ambrose must have felt that the remaining paganism of Rome was his chief difficulty, and his influence must have been accordingly exerted on Honorius in his first days. Hence, perhaps, his supineness and indifference to the fate of Rome, and perhaps, in a great degree, the paralysis of Italian defence as soon as the barbaric genius of Stilicho was withdrawn.
A coin of Honorius is figured in Smith's Dict. of G. and R. Biogr. s.v. The countenance has an inexpressiveness which may have belonged to him in a special degree, but extends to most portraiture after the 3rd cent. Another represents the emperor in the paludamentum, bearing a globe and the labarum. On another, with Vota Publica, are two emperors with nimbi, which is important evidence of the derivation of that symbol from imperial effigies (see Tyrwhitt, Art Teaching of Prim. Ch., Index "Nimbus").
Hormisdas (8), bp. of Rome after Symmachus from July 26, 514, to Aug.
6, 523, Anastasius and Justin being successively emperors of the East and Theodoric
ruling the West as king of Italy. Hormisdas was a native of Frusino in Campania.
Pope Silverius (acc. 536) is said to have been his son (Liberat. Breviar.
22). The memorable event of his pontificate was the restoration of communion between
Rome and Constantinople, which had been interrupted since 484, in connexion with
the Eutychian heresy. [FELIX
III.; ACACIUS.] The
first overtures were made in 515 by the emperor Anastasius, being moved thereto
by Vitalian, a Scythian, the commander of the imperial cavalry, who, having taken
up the cause of orthodoxy, made himself master of Thrace, Scythia, and Mysia,
and marched with an army of Huns and Bulgarians to the gates of Constantinople.
Anastasius had to procure peace by assenting to 3 conditions, one being that he
should summon a council at Heraclea, the pope being invited and free discussion
allowed (Theophan. Chron. ad an. Imp. Anast. 23). In 515 the emperor wrote
to Hormisdas, desiring his concurrence in restoring unity to the church by means
of such a council; and Hormisdas, after a guarded reply, sent legates to Constantinople
with letters to the emperor and Vitalian, and a statement of the necessary conditions
for union. These were: (1) The emperor should issue to all bishops of his dominion
a written declaration accepting the council of Chalcedon and the letters of pope
Leo. (2) A like declaration should be publicly signed by the Eastern bishops,
who should also anathematize Nestorius, Eutyches, Dioscorus, Aelurus, Peter Mongus,
Peter the Fuller, and Acacius, with all their followers. (3) Persons exiled for
religion should be recalled and their cases reserved for the judgment of the apostolic
see. (4) Such exiles as had been in communion with Rome and professed the catholic
faith should first be recalled. (5) Bishops accused of having persecuted the
This attempt failed, as Anastasius, though now professing orthodoxy, demurred to erasing the name of Acacius from the diptychs. But he continued his overtures. In 516 he sent two distinguished laymen to Rome with a letter to Hormisdas. But Hormisdas continued resolute, and the emperor dismissed the bishops already assembled at Heraclea for the intended council. In a letter to Avitus of Vienne (517) the pope, referring to this embassy, complains of the fruitless and perfidious promises of the Greeks, but rejoices at the faithfulness of the churches of Gaul, Thrace, Dardania, and Illyricum, which had stood firm against persecution in the communion of Rome. It appears that 40 bishops of Illyricum and Greece had renounced obedience to their metropolitan of Thessalonica and sent to Hormisdas to seek communion with Rome (Theophan. Chron.).
Hormisdas, building on the emperor's political necessities, sent in 517 a second embassy to the East with increased demands. They were charged with a rule of faith (regula fidei) for the signature of all who desired reconciliation with Rome which was more exacting than any previous document. The signers were to declare that, mindful of the text "Thou art Peter," etc., the truth of which has been proved by the immaculate religion ever maintained by the apostolic see, they profess in all things to follow that see, and to desire communion with it. Accordingly they were to accept the decrees of Chalcedon and the "tome" of pope Leo, and also all letters on religion he had ever written; and not only to anathematize Nestorius, Eutyches, Dioscorus, Timothy Aelurus, Peter Fullo, and Acacius, with all their followers, but also exclude from their diptychs all who had been "sequestrated from catholic communion," which is explained to mean communion with the apostolic see. Such demands ended the negotiations, and Anastasius peremptorily dismissed the legates, and sent a reply to Hormisdas (July 11, 517) which ended: "We can bear to be injured and set at naught; we will not be commanded" (Hormisd. Epp. post. Ep. xxii. Labbe).
Persecutions were now renewed in the East. The monasteries of the orthodox in Syria Secunda were burnt and ago monks massacred. The survivors sent a deputation to the pope, acknowledging in ample terms the supremacy of "the most holy and blessed patriarch of the whole world," "the successor of the Prince of the Apostles," and "the Head of all." They implore him to exercise his power of binding and loosing in defence of the true faith, and to anathematize all heretics, including Acacius (ib.). To this appeal Hormisdas replied in a letter to all the orthodox in the East, exhorting them to steadfastness in the faith of Chalcedon, and to patience under present straits (in Act. V. Concil. Constantin. Labbe, vol. v. p. 1111).
The death of Anastasius (July 9, 118) and the accession of the orthodox Justin changed the aspect of affairs. During divine service at Constantinople, while John the Cappadocian (who had lately succeeded Timotheus as patriarch) was officiating, the populace, who had been all along on the orthodox side, seem to have made a riot in the church in the impatience of their orthodox zeal, crying, "Long live the emperor!" "Long live the patriarch!" They would not brook delay. By continued cries, by closing the doors of the church and saying they would not leave it till he had done what they wanted, they compelled him to proclaim the acceptance of the four general councils, including Chalcedon. A synod, attended by some 40 bishops, ratified what the patriarch had done. Letters were sent to various Eastern metropolitans, including those of Jerusalem, Tyre, and Syria Secunda, who forthwith reported to the synod the full acceptance of orthodoxy by their several churches (ib. p. 1131, etc.). Coercive measures were used by Justin. In two edicts he ordered the restoration of the orthodox exiled by Anastasius, the acknowledgment of the council of Chalcedon in the diptychs of all churches, and declared heretics incapable of public offices, civil or military.
The pope insisted upon the erasure of the name of Acacius and the subscription of the rule of faith rejected by Anastasius as the first steps to restoration of communion. In 519 Hormisdas sent a legation to Constantinople, charged with letters to the emperor and patriarch, and also to the empress Euphemia and other persons of distinction, including three influential ladies. Anastasia, Palmatia, and Anicia. They carried with them the libellus described above, to be signed by all who desired reconciliation.
At Constantinople they were met by Vitalian, Justinian, and other senators, and
received by the emperor in the presence of the senate and a deputation of four bishops
to represent the patriarch. The libellus was read; the bishops had nothing
to say against it, and the emperor and senators recommended them to accept it. The
patriarch proved unwilling to sign it as it stood; but at length, after much contention,
it was agreed that he might embody the libellus unaltered in a letter, with
his own preamble. This was done, the names of Acacius and his successors in the
see, Fravitas, Euphemius, Macedonius, and Timotheus, and of the emperors Zeno and
Anastasius, were erased from the diptychs; the bishops of other cities, and the
archimandrites who had been previously reluctant, now came to terms; and the legates
wrote to the pope expressing thankfulness that so complete a triumph had been won
without sedition, tumult, or shedding of blood. The patriarch's preamble was a protest
against the claim of Rome to dictate terms of communion to Constantinople and an
assertion of the co-ordinate authority of his own see. He says, "Know therefore,
most holy one, that, according to what I have written, agreeing in the truth with
thee, I too, loving peace,
Notwithstanding the general triumph of orthodoxy throughout the East, except at Alexandria, the unbending pertinacity of Hormisdas still caused difficulties. In 520 the emperor Justinian and Epiphanius (who had succeeded John as patriarch) wrote urgent letters to him on the subject. They alleged that, though the condition was complied with in the imperial city, yet no small part of the Orientals, especially in the provinces of Pontus, Asia, and Oriens, would not be compelled by sword, fire, or torments to comply, and they implored the pope not to be more exacting than his predecessors. The pope persisted in his demand, and urged Justin, as a duty, not to shrink from coercion. He authorized Epiphanius to deal at his discretion with various cases (ib. lxxii. Concil. Constant. act. V.. Labbe, vol. v. p. 1119).
A nice question, arising out of the now defined orthodox doctrine of One Person and Two Natures in Christ, came before Hormisdas for settlement. There being but one Personality in the Incarnate Word, and that Divine, it seemed correct to say that this Divine Person suffered, and yet to say this seemed to attribute passibility to the Godhead. It was undoubted Nestorian heresy to deny that lie Whom the Blessed Virgin brought forth was God. But He Who was brought forth was the same with Him Who suffered on the Cross. On the other hand "God was crucified" had been a favourite Monophysite formula, used to emphasize their doctrine of the absorption of the human nature into the divine; and great offence had formerly been given to the orthodox by the addition of "Who wast crucified for us" to the Trisagion by Peter Fullo. The adoption of this addition at Constantinople under Anastasius had caused a popular tumult, and it was probably its abrogation during the reaction under Justin that caused certain Scythian monks to defend the formula, and to maintain that "one of the holy and undivided Trinity" suffered. The question was laid before the legates of Hormisdas, when in Constantinople, a.d. 529. They decided against the Scythian monks, arguing that the faith had been fully and sufficiently defined at Chalcedon and in the letter of pope Leo, and that the formula of the monks was an unauthorized novelty, likely to lead to serious heresy. The monks contended that its adoption was necessary for rendering the definitions of Chalcedon distinct against Nestorianism. Vitalian seems to have supported them. Justin and Justinian begged the pope to settle the question. He wrote to desire that the monks should be kept at Constantinople; but they managed to get to Rome to lay their case before him (Ep. lxxix. Labbe). At length they left Rome, having publicly proclaimed their views there. Hormisdas does not seem to have actually condemned the expression of the monks, though annoyed by their propounding it, but spoke strongly against it as an unnecessary novelty. In the end, however, their view triumphed. For in 533 the emperor Justinian issued an edict asserting that "the sufferings and miracles are of one and the same—for we do not acknowledge God the Word to be one and Christ another, but one and the same: for the Trinity remained even after the Incarnation of the One Word of God, Who was of the Trinity; for the Holy Trinity does not admit of the addition of a fourth person. We anathematize Nestorius the man-worshipper, and those who think with him, who deny that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God and our God, Incarnate, made man, and crucified, was One of the holy consubstantial Trinity" (Lex Justinian. a.d. 533 Cod. I. i. 6; Joann. Pap. ii. Epp. in Patr. Lat. lxvi. 18 B), and it has since been accounted orthodox to affirm that God suffered in the flesh, though in His assumed human, not in His original divine, nature. (See Pearson On the Creed, art. iv.).
Hormisdas died early in Aug. 523, having held the see 9 years and 11 days. He,
as well as all the popes during the schism with the East, except the too conciliatory
Anastasius, has had his firmness acknowledged by canonization, his day in the Roman
Calendar being Aug. 6. His extant writings consist of letters, 80 being attributed
to him, one of which, to St. Remigius (in which he gives him vicariate jurisdiction
over the kingdom of Clovis which he had converted, is probably spurious, as it implies
that Clovis was still reigning, though he had died in 511, more than two years before
the election of Hormisdas. Most of the
Three letters of Hormisdas (xxiv.–xxvi.), to John, bp. of Tarragona, Sallustius, bp. of Seville, and the bishops of Spain in general, give the two prelates vicariate jurisdiction over E. and W. Spain, exhort against simony and other irregularities, and direct the regular convention of synods. Cf. Thiel, Epp. Pontiff. Rom. i.
Hormisdas had great administrative and diplomatic abilities, was singularly uncompromising and firm of purpose, and one of the most strenuous and successful assertors of the supremacy of the Roman see.
Hosius (1), (Osius), a confessor under Maximian, and bp. of Corduba, the capital of the province of Baetica in Spain. He took a leading part on the catholic side in the controversies of the first half of the 4th cent. For nearly 50 years he was the foremost bishop of his time, held in universal esteem and enjoying unbounded influence. Eusebius says, "He was approved for the sobriety and genuineness of his faith, had. distinguished himself by the boldness of his religious profession, and his fame was widely spread" (Vit. Cons. bk. ii. cc. 63, 73). Socrates calls him "the, celebrated Hosius" (H. E. ii. 29). Sozomen says: "He was honoured for his faith, virtuous life, and steadfast confession of truth" (H. E. i. 16). Athanasius is never weary of repeating his praises. "of the great Hosius," he says, "who answers to his name, that confessor of a happy old age, it is superfluous for me to speak, for he is not an obscure person, but of all men the most illustrious" (Apol. de Fugâ, § 7). Considering his great renown and his prominent part in affairs, it is remarkable how very little is known of his personal history. There seems no reason to doubt Eusebius, Athanasius, and others, who make him a native of Spain. Athanasius says (Hist. Arian. § 45) that when Hosius was more than 100 years old, and had been more than 60 years a bishop, he was summoned by Constantius from Spain to Sirmium, and there subscribed an Arian formula about the middle of a.d. 357. Soon afterwards he returned to his native country and died. We may probably, therefore, place his birth c. 256, as Tillemont does (Mém. t. vii. p. 302, 4to, ed.).
The common view that he suffered for the Christian faith in Diocletian's persecution between 303 and 305 is more than doubtful. We have his own testimony in his letter to Constantius (the son of Constantine) preserved by Athanasius (Hist. Arian. § 44). "I was a confessor at the first, when a persecution arose in the time of your grandfather Maximian." These words can hardly refer to the general persecution enjoined by Diocletian. The allusion seems to be to the persecution of which the chief promoter was Maximian, the Augustus and colleague, not the son-in-law, of Diocletian. Maximianus Herculius was made Caesar in 285, and Augustus in 286, as is shewn by coins and inscriptions (cf. Clinton, Fasti Romani, vo1. i. p. 328), and for six years the Roman empire was divided between these two rulers, Diocletian having the East and Maximian the West. In 292 a further partition of the empire took place by the appointment of two Caesars, Constantius Chlorus (the father of Constantine) and Galerius Maximianus. When Constantius was made Caesar in 292, Maximian's half of the empire was subdivided. "Cuneta quae trans Alpes Galliae sunt Constantio commissa; Africa Italiaque Herculio" (Aur. Vict. de Caesar, xxxix. 30). On the abdication of Diocletian and Maximian in 305, Gaul, with Italy and Africa, was given to Constantius, and the rest of the empire to Galerius. But Constantius, content with the dignity of Augustus, refused to administer Italy and Africa (Eutropius, x. 1). Orosius similarly says that Constantius, "Italiam, Africam, Hispaniam et Gallias obtinuit. Sed, vir tranquillissimus, Gallia tantum Hispaniaque contentus, Galerio caeteris patribus cessit" (Hist. vii. 25). Constantius, says Sozomen (H. E. i. 6), was not willing that Christianity should be accounted unlawful in the countries beyond the confines of Italy, i.e. in Gaul, Britain, or the region of the Pyrenaean mountains as far as the western ocean. These facts shew that in the division of the empire Spain was always an appendage of Gaul, and under the same administration. If so, it was under the jurisdiction of Constantius, and, as both Lactantius and Eusebius affirm, that Constantius took no part in the persecution of the Christians, it could not have been in his period that Hosius became a confessor. When, then, did he suffer? We have his own testimony that he had been a confessor in the time of Maximian. Probably it was in some special and local persecution carried out under the orders of Maximianus Herculius while he was sole ruler of the West, before Constantius was appointed Caesar in 292, and much before the general persecution authorized by the edicts of Diocletian in 303. It is very probable that between 286 and 292, while Maximian was sole ruler of the West, there were many martyrdoms in Spain as well as in Gaul and Italy. Hosius would have been then between 30 and 36 years old, and it is far more likely that he suffered persecution and witnessed a good confession then than later under the mild rule of Constantius. Beyond Hosius's own statement, we have no contemporary evidence upon the subject.
As the bishops and officers of the church generally suffered first in the outbreaks
of persecution, it is more than probable that Hosius was already bp. of Corduba
when he became a confessor. His earliest public act with which we are acquainted
was his presence as bp. of Corduba at the synod of Elvira, but the date of this
synod, like that of other events in his history, is involved in much obscurity.
Mendoza, who has written more fully upon it than any other author, is of opinion
that it should be placed in 300 or 301. Nineteen bishops from different parts of
Spain were present, hence it may be regarded as representing the whole church of
Spain. The president was Felix of Acci (Guadix) in Baetica, probably the oldest
bishop present. The name of Hosius comes next. As a rule the order of signatures
to the Acts of councils indicates the order of precedence among the bishops, either
according to the date of their consecration or the importance of their episcopal
sees (Hefele,
It is now very difficult to form a true conception of Corduba in its ancient grandeur. In the 1st and the beginning of the 2nd cents. Spain reached a very high development in the social system of Rome. Roman influence had so spread in Baetica that the natives had forgotten their own language. Roman schools were opened in the coloniae and municipia, the most brilliant being at Corduba and Osca. For nearly two centuries Spain produced men remarkable in all kinds of culture. Lucan and the two Senecas were born at Corduba, its schools thus furnishing rivals even to Vergil and Cicero. In the time of Hosius this intellectual activity had considerably declined, and pre-eminence in literary culture had passed to the province of Africa. But Corduba must still have retained a high place in the social development of the time. A man called to such an important see would most probably be one of some personal distinction. Baronius (ad ann. 57) attaches little importance to this synod, which he suspects of Novatianist tendencies. The very first canon, indeed, decrees that adults who have sacrificed to idols have committed a capital crime and can never again be received into communion. Such a denial of pardon to those who lapsed under persecution was the chief error of Novatian (Socr. H. E. iv. 28). The Novatianist discipline was very rigid in other respects also, especially with reference to carnal sins, and many of the canons of Elvira relate to such offences, and their stern and austere spirit shews how deeply the Fathers at Elvira were influenced by Novatianist principles. Though we cannot trace the hand of Hosius in the composition of these canons, yet as he was a leading member of the synod, its decrees would doubtless be in harmony with his convictions.
For 12 or 13 years after this synod nothing is known of his life. He then seems to have been brought into close personal relations with the emperor Constantine, and thenceforward his acts form part of the history of his time. It would be interesting to know how Hosius acquired the great influence over Constantine which it is believed he exercised up to the time of the Nicene council. But there is not a single passage in any ancient writer which relates the origin of their connexion.
The absence of Hosius from the synod of Arles, Aug. 1, 314, the most numerously attended council that had hitherto been held in Christendom, is remarkable. Bishops from Italy, Gaul, Spain, and Britain were assembled as representatives of the whole Western church. Constantine was absent, being engaged in his first war with Licinius in Pannonia. Possibly Hosius may have been in attendance upon the emperor, as we learn from Eusebius (Vit. Const. ii. 4) that in this campaign Constantine took with him "the priests of God," for the benefit of their prayers and "to have them constantly about his person, as most trusty guardians of the soul." Traces exist of the presence of Hosius at the imperial court in 316, when the Donatists, having been condemned at the council in Nov. at Milan by the emperor himself, spread abroad a report, as we learn from Augustine (cont. Ep. Parmen. lib. i. c. 8, vol. ix. p. 43, ed. Migne), that by the advice of Hosius, a friend of Caecilian, the catholic bp. of Carthage, they had been condemned.
In the relations between Christianity and paganism there is ground for thinking that the position of Hosius at this time must have been somewhat of a representative one on the Christian side; otherwise it is difficult to understand why the emperor should have addressed to him a law declaring free such slaves as were emancipated in the presence of the bishops or clergy (a.d. 321; Cod. Theod. lib. iv. tit. 7, col. 379, Hänel's ed.). By the end of 323 Constantine had become sole master of the Roman empire in the East and West, and took measures for the re-establishment of religious concord throughout his dominions. To this end, says Socrates (H. E. i. 7), "he sent a letter to Alexander, bp. of Alexandria, and to Arius, by a trustworthy person named Hosius, who was bp. of Corduba in Spain, whom the emperor greatly loved and held in the highest estimation," urging them not to contend about matters of small importance (Eus. Vit. Const. ii. 63). That Hosius, a bishop of the Western church, and speaking only Latin, should be sent to a city in the East in which Greek civilization had reached its highest development is a striking proof of the high opinion that the emperor had of him. Moreover, his mission gave him precedence as an imperial commissioner over the bp. of Alexandria, whose see ranked next to that of Rome. It is not very clear what Hosius did at Alexandria, the accounts being very imperfect and confused. He apparently devoted himself with great earnestness to refuting the dogmas of Sabellius (Socr. H. E. iii. 7); but as to his steps with reference to Arius, history is silent. We know, however, that he failed to extinguish the flame which the Arians had lighted. Finding it impossible to terminate these controversies, he had to return to Constantine and acknowledge that his mission had failed. The emperor thereupon, probably by his advice (Sulpit. Sever. Hist. ii. 55, "Nicaena synodus auctore illo [Hosio] confecta habebatur"), resolved to convoke an oecumenical council and to invite bishops from all quarters. The council was held at Nicaea in 325. The part of Hosius in it has been much discussed. (1) Was he the president of the council, and if so (2) did he preside as legate of the pope? There is no doubt of his very prominent position. Unfortunately no complete account of the acts of the synod is extant, if such ever existed.
(1) Roman Catholic writers, such as Baronius, Nat. Alexander (vol. vii. p. 390),
Fleury, Alzog, and Hefele (Conc. i. 39), maintain that he was president,
but as the legate of the pope. They refer to Gelasius (lib. i. c. 5), who says,
"Osius ex Hispanis, . . . Silvestri Episcopi maximae Romae locum obtinebat"—ἐπέχων
καὶ τὸν τόπον, Mansi, ii. 806 D.
There is a little ambiguity in these words. A man may occupy a place which rightly
belongs to another, but it does not follow that he is his representative because
he sits in his seat. At this
(2) But when we inquire why the usual order of precedence was departed from, we are a little at a loss for a satisfactory answer. Du Pin (Nouv. Bib. t. ii. pt. 2, p. 315) thought that Hosius presided because already acquainted with the question at issue and highly esteemed by the emperor. Similarly Schröckh (Kirchengeschichte, Thl. v. § 336). This seems the most probable explanation. It would be difficult to understand how the bishop of a see in Spain took precedence over the great patriarchs of the East if he had not been appointed by the emperor. Hosius was at the height of his reputation and enjoying the fullest confidence of his imperial master. He was, says Dean Stanley (Eastern Church, lect. iii.), "as the world-renowned Spaniard, an object of deeper interest to Christendom than any bp. of Rome could at that time have been." The power of the popes of Rome was not yet sufficiently consolidated for their claim to preside to have been admitted. Eleven years before, at the great council of the West at Arles in 314; the emperor appointed Marinus, bp. of Arles, to preside, while pope Silvester was represented there, as at Nicaea, by two presbyters and two deacons (cf. Hefele, Conc. i. 181). The council of Nicaea was convoked by Constantine, and there is good reason to believe that Hosius held the foremost place by his appointment. He is believed to have been the emperor's adviser in ecclesiastical matters. The part that Constantine, then only a catechumen, took in the proceedings at Nicaea shews that he must have received some instruction as to the debated questions from an orthodox teacher. It is very unlikely that he could have of himself given such a philosophical explanation of the Homoousion as he did (see the letter addressed by Eusebius to the Christians at Caesarea and preserved by Socrates, H. E. i. 8). Again, the emperor's letter to the churches respecting the council (Eus. Vit. Const. iii. 17–20) bears unmistakable traces of the hand of a theologian. Dean Milman (Hist. of Christianity, vol. ii. p. 364, crown 8vo ed.) calls the letter of Constantine to Arius and Alexander "in its spirit a model of temper and conciliation. It is probable that the hand of Hosius is to be traced in its composition. His influence was uniformly exercised in this manner. Wherever the edicts of the government were mild, conciliating, and humane, we find the bp. of Corduba."
At the conclusion of the council Hosius seems to have returned to Corduba. For nearly 20 years he lived in retirement in his own diocese. No trace of a return to the court of Constantine remains, and it does not appear that they ever met again. We must look to the history of the time for some explanation of the cause for these altered relations. Constantine left Asia Minor for Rome, which he reached c. July 326. His brief stay there was marked by deeds of cruelty. In the midst of the Vicennalia the people of Rome heard with regret that his son Crispus had been put to death. Not long afterwards the young Licinianus, his nephew, a boy of 12, was killed, at the suggestion, it is said, of the empress Fausta, whom retribution soon overtook. There followed a great number of public executions. The true causes of these events are involved in mystery, but Constantine is said to have become a prey to remorse. A great change certainly took place in his character after he became sole master of the Roman empire. He was spoiled by prosperity (Eutropius, lib. x. cc. 4, 6). He became arrogant and impatient of counsel, distrustful and suspicious. This moral deterioration was accompanied with great vacillation in his religious opinions. A few years after the council of Nicaea he fell under Arian influences. Arius was recalled; and at the instigation of Eusebius of Nicomedia and his adherents, Athanasius was condemned upon a false charge and banished to Gaul a.d. 335). Not long before his death, in 337, Constantine received baptism from Eusebius of Nicomedia, an Arian bishop. This change in the character and opinions of Constantine was the true cause of his altered relations with Hosius. As the influence of the Arians over his mind increased, that of his old counsellor would of necessity decline.
Hosius does not appear to have been present at any of the synods between those
of Nicaea and Sardica, nor to have taken any public part in the controversies between
Athanasius and the Arians during 20 years. In 345 the emperor Constans summoned
Athanasius to Milan from Rome, and informed him that he had been urged by certain
bishops (believed to have been pope Julius, Hosius, and Maximinus of Trèves; cf.
Hilar. Frag. 2, p. 16) to use his influence with his brother Constantius,
that a council might be called to settle the questions concerning him, the place
of meeting to be Sardica. Athanasius while in Milan was directed by Constans to
go to Gaul to meet Hosius and travel with him to Sardica (Athan. Apol. ad Const.
c. 4). Hosius was now nearly 90 years old. So long a journey implies considerable
vigour of body, and that age had not changed his convictions nor impaired his zeal.
Nor had his long retirement lessened his influence or the unbounded respect felt
for him by his contemporaries. In the encyclical letter of the council of Sardica
to be found in Athanasius (Apol. contr. Arian. c. 44), Hosius is spoken of
as "one who on account of his age, his confession, and the many labours he had undergone,
is worthy of all reverence." His presidency in this case is affirmed in express
terms by Athanasius (Hist. Arian. c. 16): "The great Hosius was president
of the council." The Acts shew him as the life and soul of the synod, proposing
most of the canons and taking the foremost part in the proceedings.
Until 354 we hear nothing further of him. An extant letter written to him by pope Liberius, early in 354, shews the great respect in which he was held. Liberius writes, full of grief, because Vincentius of Capua, one of his legates in whom he had placed great confidence, at a synod consisting chiefly of the Eusebian party, held at Arles in 353, had consented under constraint to give up communion with Athanasius (ib. vi. t. ii. col. 688).
During his long life Hosius had preserved an unblemished name and been a consistent and uncompromising supporter of the Nicene faith. At length, when 100 years old, he gave way for a brief moment to the violence of his persecutors, and consented under torture to hold communion with Valens and Ursacius (Athan. Hist. Arian. 45), a concession which has been much magnified and misrepresented.
In 355 a synod was convoked by Constantius at Milan, which deserved, says Tillemont (Mém. t. vi. p. 362), the name of a robber synod even more than did the false council of Ephesus. At this synod the Eusebians first openly declared in favour of the dogmas of Arius, and endeavoured to secure their acceptance by the church. The emperor called upon the orthodox bishops, under penalty of banishment, to join in the condemnation of Athanasius. Most of them gave way, and consented to condemn Athanasius and to hold communion with the Arians (Rufinus, lib. i. c. 20). The few who stood firm were banished, bound with chains, to distant provinces: Dionysius, exarch of Milan, to Cappadocia, or Armenia; Lucifer to Syria; Eusebius of Vercelli into Palestine (cf. Athan. Apol. Const. 27). In 366 Liberius, bp. of Rome, was summoned to Milan, where Constantius was residing, and allowed three days to choose between signing the condemnation of Athanasius or going into exile. He chose the latter, and was banished to Beroea in Thrace. From the first the object of the Arians had been to gain the great Hosius. "As long as he escaped their wicked machinations they thought they had accomplished nothing. We have done everything, they said to Constantius. We have banished the bishop of the Romans, and before him a very great number of other bishops, and have filled every place with alarm. But these strong measures are as nothing, nor is our success at all more secure so long as Hosius remains. Begin then to persecute him also, and spare him not, ancient as he is. Our heresy knows not to honour the hoary hairs of the aged" (Athan. Hist. Arian. § 42). At their solicitation the emperor had previously summoned Hosius to Milan, c. a.d. 355. On his arrival he urged him to subscribe against Athanasius and hold communion with the Arians. The old man, full of grief that such a proposal should have been even made to him, would not for one moment listen to it. Severely rebuking the emperor and endeavouring to convince him of his error, he withdrew from the court and returned to his own country. Constantius wrote frequently, sometimes flattering, sometimes threatening him. "Be persuaded," he said, "and subscribe against Athanasius, for whoever subscribes against him thereby embraces with us the Arian cause." Hosius remained fearless and unmoved, and wrote a spirited answer to, Constantius, preserved by Athanasius, the only extant composition by Hosius (ib. § 44). The emperor continued to threaten him severely, intending either to bring him over by force or to banish him, for, says Socrates (H. E. ii. 31) the Arians considered that this would give great authority to their opinions. Finding that Hosius would not subscribe, Constantius sent for him to Sirmium and detained him there a whole year. "Unmindful," says Athanasius (l.c.), "of his father's love for Hosius, without reverence for his great age, for he was then 100 years old, this patron of impiety and emperor of heresy used such violence towards the old man that at last, broken down by suffering, he was brought, though with reluctance, to hold communion with Valens and Ursacius, but he would not subscribe against Athanasius" (a.d. 357). He says elsewhere (Apol. pro Fug. § 7) that Hosius "yielded for a time to the Arians, as being old and infirm in body, and after repeated blows had been inflicted upon him above measure, and conspiracies formed against his kinsfolk." Socrates gives similar testimony (l.c.; cf. Newman, Arians, c. iv. § 3).
It is difficult to determine which of the confessions of faith drawn up at Sirmium
was actually signed by Hosius. Whether there was only one synod of Sirmium, or two
or three at intervals of a few years, is also a question upon which opinions have
differed widely. The predominant opinion is expressed by Valesius in a note to Socrates
(H. E. ii. 30), viz. that there were three synods there, each issuing a different
creed. The first, in 351, at which Photinus was deposed, published a confession
in Greek. At the second, in 357, Hosius was compelled to be present and his subscription
was obtained by force to a creed written in Latin, called by Hilarius "blasphemia
apud Sirmium per Osium et Potamium conscripta" (Opp. ed. Migne, t. ii. col.
487). The third Sirmian creed, called the "Dated Creed" from its naming the consuls,
was agreed upon at a convention of bishops in May 359 This was the creed afterwards
produced by Ursacius and Valens at the synod of Ariminum (cf. Athan. de Synod.
48). Socrates, indeed (H. E. ii. 30), says that three creeds were drawn up
It may be doubted, says Dean Stanley (East. Ch. lect. vii. c. 3), "whether in his own age the authority of Hosius in the theological world was not even higher than that of Athanasius." The Arians, therefore, would naturally make the most of the concession wrung from him. Those who constantly slandered Athanasius would not have many scruples about calumniating Hosius. Epiphanius (Haer. 73), about 20 years later, says that the Arians thought they could condemn the teaching of the church as to the Homoousion by producing letters fraudulently procured from the venerable Hosius, stating that the substance was dissimilar. Sozomen says (H. E. iv. 12) that Eudoxius, bp. of Antioch, c. 358, upheld the heresy of Aetius, that the Son is dissimilar to the Father, and rejected the terms Homoousion and Homoiousion. When he received the letter of Hosius he spread a report that Liberius had also made the same admission (iv. 15). These letters were most probably spurious. There is reason also to believe that the creed actually signed by Hosius was interpolated and sent into the East in his name. This may perhaps explain the expression of Hilarius (contr. Constantium, c. 23, col. 580, ed. Migne, vol. ii.) when he speaks of "deliramenta Osii et incrementa Ursacii et Valentis" (cf. Newman's notes to Athanasius, Eng. trans. vol. i. p. 162).
Exaggerated reports of the fall of Hosius were spread by the Arians far and wide. His perversion was their strongest argument against the Catholic party in Gaul. To this a contemporary writer, Phoebadius, bp. of Agennum, replies (Lib. contra Arian. c. 23, Patr. Lat. ed. Migne, vol. xx. col. 30): "Novit enim mundus quae in hanc tenuerit aetatem qua constantia apud Sardicam et in Nicaeno tractatu assensus sit et damnaverit Arianos. . . . Si nonaginta fere annis male credidit, post nonaginta illum recte sentire non credam." The Donatists also, whose views Hosius had opposed equally strongly, did not fail to calumniate him. Augustine vindicates his memory (Lib. contra Parmen. lib. i. c. 4, § 7, ed. Migne, vol. ix. col. 38). Marcellus and Faustinus, two presbyters who were followers of Lucifer of Cagliari, relate (Libellum ad Theodos. c. 383 or 384) that on the return of Hosius to Spain, Gregory, bp. of Elvira, refused to hold communion with him, and as Hosius was in the act of pronouncing his deposition he was struck dumb and fell from his seat. It is very possible that the first part of the story may have had some foundation, as a letter is extant (Hilar. Frag. xii. t. ii. col. 713, ed. Migne) from Eusebius of Vercelli to Gregory of Spain (c. 360), congratulating him on having withstood the transgressor Hosius. Among ancient writers, no one has referred to the lapse of Hosius so bitterly as Hilary of Poictiers. This is the more remarkable as he had never heard of the Nicene Creed until he went into exile (Hilar. de Syn. c. 91, ad fin. vol. ii. col. 545 ed. Migne). He charges Hosius and Potamius, bp. of Lisbon, with having drawn up the second creed of Sirmium, which he designates in one place (Opp. ed. Migne, t. ii. col. 487) as the "blasphemia," in another (col. 599) as "deliramenta Osii"; and says (col. 539) that his fall was due to his having been too anxious to get away from Sirmium and die in his own country. These hard sayings occur in Hilary's treatise de Synodis, written probably in 358, a year after the second synod of Sirmium, at which Hosius was forced to be present. Hilary himself tells us (de Syn. c. 63, t. ii. col. 533) that the majority of those with whom he was then living in exile had no true acquaintance with God—in other words, held Arian opinions—"Ex majori pane Asianae decem provinciae intra quas consisto, vere Deum nesciunt." Whatever tidings came to him would therefore reach him through Arian channels. His means of information are not to be compared with those of Athanasius. He is, moreover, the only ancient writer who says that Hosius had any hand in the composition of the creed of the second council of Sirmium, and any combination between Hosius and Potamius, the reputed author with him of this confession, is for other reasons most improbable. The one had been all his life a consistent supporter of the Nicene Creed, the other a renegade. Moreover, Hosius at this time was about 100 years old. At such an age men do not willingly invent new creeds; they are far more likely to cling tenaciously to old ones.
Sulpicius Severus (c. 404 or 405) speaks of the lapse of Hosius as resting on a popular rumour which seemed quite incredible unless extreme old age had enfeebled his powers and made him childish (Hist. Sac. lib. 2).
To clear his memory from the charges of Hilary it is sufficient to point out that the synod of Sardica spoke of Hosius as a man of a "happy old age, who, on account of his age, his confession, and the many labours, he has undergone, is worthy of all reverence." So public a testimony to his high character is enough to silence all detraction, and the affectionate and reverential language in which the great Athanasius describes the passing frailty of his venerable friend, the father of the bishops, is very different from the furious and intemperate tone in which it is referred to by Hilary. "This true Hosius, and his blameless life," says Athanasius, "were known to all." As he relates the violence used towards him, he expresses only the tenderest commiseration for his friend; but against Constantius, his persecutor, his indignation knows no bounds (Hist. Arian. 46).
There is some doubt whether Hosius succumbed to the violence used against him
at Sirmium and died there in 357, or whether,
His profound acquaintance with Christian doctrine was combined with a singularly blameless and holy life. He seems to have had great tact and judgment and a conciliatory disposition. The shadow cast upon his name by the concession extorted from him by the Arians must not be allowed to obscure the rightful honour due to him for his labours and sufferings on behalf of the Catholic faith. "Even Christianity," says Dean Milman (Hist. of Christianity, vol. ii. p. 427, ed. 1875), "has no power over that mental imbecility which accompanies the decay of physical strength, and this act of feebleness ought not for an instant to be set against the unblemished virtue of a whole life."
A very full account of his life, and a discussion of various points in his history, will be found in Gams (Die Kirchengesch. von Spanien, Band ii. pp. i–309, Regensburg, 1864). See also Hefele, Conciliengesch. vols. i. and ii., of which there is an Eng. trans.; Tillemont, Mém. t. vii. p. 300, 4to ed.; Dom Ceillier, s.v. t. iii. 392, new ed.; Zahn, Const. der Gr. u. die Kirche, 1876; Florez, España Sagrada, La Provincia de Bética, vol. ix. and x. (Madrid, 1754).
Hunneric (Ugnericus, Hunerix, Honorichus), eldest son and successor (Jan. 24, 477) of Genseric, king of the Vandals. Sent to Rome in his youth as a hostage for the observance of the treaty his father had made with Valentinian III., he married (462), after the sack of Rome, the captive Eudocia, eldest of the daughters of that emperor. Soon after he ascended the throne he ordered diligent search to be made for Manicheans, of whom he burnt many and exiled more across the sea, being commended for this by Victor. His subjects were oppressed with taxes and exactions, but he relaxed the strictness of his father's laws against the orthodox, and, at the intercession of his sister-in-law Placidia, the widow of the emperor Olybrius, and the emperor Zeno, allowed (a.d. 481) a bp. of Carthage (Eugenius) to be elected, the see having been vacant since the death of Deogratias in 457. He made this concession upon condition that a similar liberty should be allowed the Arian bishops and laity in Zeno's dominions, or else the newly elected bishops and all other orthodox bishops with their clergy would be banished to the Moors.
To secure the succession to his son, Hunneric sent his brother Theodoric into exile and put to death his wife and children. The Arian patriarch of Carthage, who was supposed to favour Theodoric, was burnt alive, and many of his clergy shared his fate or were thrown to wild beasts; nor did Hunneric spare the friends his father had commended to him on his death-bed if suspected of being inclined to support his brother. Hunneric now took measures against the orthodox. The influence of Eugenius on the Vandals was especially dreaded by the Arian clergy, at whose suggestion the king forbade him to preach in public or to allow persons in Vandal dress to enter Catholic churches. The bishop replied that the house of God was open to all. A great number of Catholics, being the king's servants, wore the Vandal dress. Men were therefore posted at the church doors with long rakes, with which any person entering in Vandal dress was seized by the hair as so to tear off hair and scalp together. Many died in consequence. Hunneric next deprived Catholics who held posts at the court or belonged to the army of their offices and pay; many of the former were forced to work in the fields near Utica and the latter were deprived of their property and exiled to Sicily or Sardinia. A law confiscating the property of deceased bishops and imposing a fine of 500 solidi on each new bishop was contemplated, but abandoned for fear of retaliatory measures against the Arians in the Eastern empire. Virgins were hung up naked with heavy weights attached to their feet, and their breasts and backs burnt with red-hot irons to extort, if possible, a confession of immorality, which might be used against the bishops and clergy. Many expired under the torture and the survivors were maimed for life. A body of Catholic bishops, priests, deacons, and laity, numbering 4,976, was sent into banishment among the savage Moors of the desert. Victor gives a touching description of their sufferings during their marches by day and in crowded dens at night.
These cruelties were only the prelude of a more extensive and systematic persecution.
Hunneric, on Ascension Day, 483, published an edict to Eugenius, and the other Catholic
or, as he termed them, Homoousian bishops, ordering them to assemble at Carthage
on Feb. 1, to meet the Arian bishops in conference and decide the points in controversy
between
Meanwhile throughout Africa a most cruel persecution raged, neither age nor sex being a protection; some were cruelly beaten, others hung, and some burnt alive. Noble ladies were stripped naked and tortured in the public streets. Victorian, a former proconsul of Carthage, was the most illustrious victim of the persecution. Victor's fifth book is full of accounts of the constancy and suffering, of the Catholics. Eugenius was entrusted to the custody of the cruel Antonius, the Arian bp. of a city in Tripoli, where his hardships brought on a stroke of paralysis. Bp. Habetdeus was bound and gagged by Antonius and forced to undergo the rite of a second baptism, which was imposed also by force or fraud upon many of the orthodox. The Vandals, who had renounced Arianism, were treated with peculiar cruelty. Some had their eyes put out, others their hands, feet, noses, or ears cut off. Hunneric, to insult Uranius, and Zeno who had sent him to intercede for the Catholics, ordered some of the cruellest scenes of torture to be enacted in the streets through which he had to pass on his way to the palace.
The most celebrated event of the persecution occurred at Typasa, a seaport town
of Mauritania. A former notary of Cyrila's having been consecrated as the Arian
bishop of that town, the greater part of the citizens took ship to Spain. A few,
not finding room on board, remained, whom the Arian bishop on his arrival endeavoured,
first by persuasion and then by threats, to induce to become Arians. They refused,
and having assembled in a house, began publicly to celebrate the divine mysteries.
The bishop thereupon dispatched secretly to Carthage an accusation against them
to the king, who sent an officer with orders to have their tongues cut out and their
right hands cut off before the assembled province in the forum. This was done, but
they continued to speak as plainly as before. This is attested by Victor, who was
probably an eye-witness; by the eye-witnesses Aeneas of Gaza, the Platonic philosopher
(Theophrastus, in Migne, Patr. Gk. lxxxv. 1000), Justinian (Cod.
i. 27), and Marcellinus (Chron. in Migne, Patr. Lat. li. 933) all
of whom had seen some of these persons at Constantinople; by Procopius (de Bello
Vandalico, i. 8); Victor Tununensis (Chron. in Migne, Patr. Lat.
lxviii. 946); and pope Gregory the Great (Dial. iii. 32 in Migne, Patr.
Lat. lxxvii. 293), and has generally been considered not only a miracle, but
the most remarkable one on record after apostolic times. The variety of the witnesses
and the consistency of their testimony on all material points give it claims to
belief, such as few apparently preternatural events possess. Dr. Middleton was the
first to suggest (Free Inquiry, 313–316) that, assuming the account true,
it by no means follows that the event was miraculous, a position he maintains by
instances of a person born without a tongue, and of another who had lost it by disease,
who were able to speak. Mr. Twistleton (The Tongue not Essential to Speech)
has shewn this explanation probable. He gives numerous cases of similarly mutilated
persons in Eastern countries, and of persons in England whose tongues had been removed
by surgical operations, who could still pronounce distinctly all letters except
d and t; one of the latter he had actually seen and conversed with.
He sums up by saying "The final result seems to be that questions connected with
the phenomenon of speech in the African confessors are purely within the domain
of natural science, and that there is no reason for asserting or suspecting any
miraculous
Sources.—Victor Vitensis, de Persecutione Vandalica, ii. iv. and v. in Migne, Patr. Lat. lviii., with Ruinart's Appendix; Procopius de Bello Vandalico, i. 8; Appendix to Prosper's Chron. in Migne, Patr. Lat. li. 605; Chron. of Victor Tununensis in ib. lxviii. Gibbon (c. xxxvii.) gives a good narrative of the persecution, and Ceillier (Auteurs sacrés, x. 452–462) may also be consulted.
Hyginus (1), bp. of Rome after Telesphorus, probably from 137 to 141. Our early authorities for the dates and duration of his episcopate are confused, as in the case of other bishops of that early period. Anastasius (Lib. Pontif) says that he was a Greek, son of an Athenian philosopher, of unknown genealogy. Several spurious decretals are assigned to him. See Mart. Rom. under Jan. 11; also Lightfoot, on the Early Roman successions, Apost. Fath. part i. vol. i.
Hypatia (1). Socrates (H. E. vii. 15) says: "There was a lady
in Alexandria, by name Hypatia, daughter of the philosopher Theon. She advanced
to such a point of mental culture as to surpass all the philosophers of her age
and to receive the office of lecturer in the Platonic school, of which Plotinus
had been the founder, and there expound all philosophic learning to any desirous
of it. Students of philosophy came from all quarters to hear her. The dignified
freedom of speech, which her training had implanted in her, enabled her to appear
even before the public magistrates with entire modesty; none could feel ashamed
to see her take her station in the midst of men. She was reverenced and admired
even the more for it, by reason of the noble temperance of her disposition. This
then was the woman upon whom malicious envy now made its attack. She was wont
to have frequent communications with Orestes [the prefect]; this aroused enmity
against her in the church community. The charge was that it was through her that
Orestes was prevented from entering upon friendly relations with the bishop [CYRIL].
Accordingly some passionate fanatics, led by Peter the Reader, conspired together
and watched her as she was returning home from some journey, tore her from her
chariot, and dragged her to the church called Caesarium; there they stripped her
and killed her with oyster shells, and, having torn her in pieces, gathered together
the limbs to a place called Cinaron, and consumed them with fire. This deed occasioned
no small blame to Cyril and the Alexandrian church; for murders, fightings, and
the like are wholly alien to those who are minded to follow the things of Christ.
This event happened in the fourth year of the episcopate of Cyril, in the consulships
of Honorius (for the tenth time) and Theodosius (for the sixth time) in the month
of March, at the season of the fast"c (i.e.
Hypatia (2). In the synodical book of the council of Ephesus is given a letter, from its style evidently the work of a female writer (unnamed), which is falsely attributed to Hypatia (1) the philosopher of Alexandria. it complains of the condemnation and banishment of Nestorius, which took place 17 years after the death of Hypatia. The writer is struck by the teaching of the Christians that God died for men; she founds her plea for Nestorius on an appeal to reason and Scripture. Baluze, Concil. App. p. 837 (Paris, 1683, fol.); Ceillier, viii. 387.
Hypatius (19), presbyter and hegumenus in the first half of the 5th cent. of the monastery in Bithynia, once presided over and afterwards abandoned by Rufinus. His Life, by Callinicus his disciple (Boll. Acta SS. 17 Jun. iii. 303), tells how his zeal brought him into collision with his lukewarm bishop Eulalius of Chalcedon. Understanding that Nestorius, before his formal accusation, was broaching novel opinions, Hypatius had the patriarch's name removed from the office books of the church adjoining his monastery (§§ 14, 38, 51, 53). Eulalius, alarmed at this daring act, which amounted to an excommunication of the all-powerful patriarch, remonstrated and threatened, but Hypatius undauntedly persisted. Again, when Leontius, the prefect of Constantinople, was about to re-establish at Chalcedon the Olympic games abolished by Constantine, Hypatius, finding that Eulalius would do nothing, openly declared that he would by main force defeat this restoration of idolatry at the head of his monks, though it should cost him his life. Leontius, having had warning of this opposition, relinquished the project and returned to Constantinople (§ 45) A certain ascetic archimandrite, Alexander, from Asia Minor, having taken up his abode in the capital with 100 monks, gained much reputation for sanctity, but in consequence of his bold rebukes of the imperial household was ordered to leave. The exiles betook themselves to the church of Hypatius, but Eulalius, obeying orders from the palace, had them beaten and expelled. Hypatius immediately welcomed them into his monastery and dressed their wounds. The bishop threatened fresh violence, but the rustic neighbours volunteered a defence, and a riot was imminent when a messenger from the empress ordered that they should not be molested. Alexander and his party retired in peace and founded a monastery near, the inmates bearing the name of Acoemetae, the Sleepless (§ 57; ACOEMETAE in D. C. A., and the Bollandist account of their founder in Acta SS. Jan. i. 1018).
I
Ibas, bp. of Edessa c. a.d.
435–457, a Syrian by birth. His name in Syriac is Ihiba or Hiba
= Donatus. He appears first as a presbyter of the church of Edessa during the
episcopate of Rabbulas, and warmly espousing the theological views which his
bishop uncompromisingly opposed. He was an ardent admirer of the writings of
Theodore of Mopsuestia, which he translated into Syriac and diligently disseminated
Ibas was a translator and disseminator of the writings of others rather than an original author. His translations of the theological works of Theodore of Mopsuestia, Diodorus of Tarsus, Theodoret, and Nestorius, were actively spread through Syria, Persia, and the East, and were very influential in fostering the Nestorian tenets which have, even to the present day, characterized the Christians of those regions. His influence was permanent in the celebrated theological school of Edessa, in spite of the efforts of Nonnus to eradicate it, until its final overthrow and the banishment of its teachers to Persia. Tillem. Mém. eccl. t. xv.; Assemani, Bibl. Orient. t. i. pp. 199 seq., t. iii. pp. 70–74; Cave, Hist. Lit. t. i. p. 426; Facund. Defens. Trium. Capitul.; Schröckh, xv. 438, xviii. 307–311; Perry, Acts of the Second Council of Ephesus; Abbé Martin, Actes du Brigandage d’Ephèse; Le Pseudo-synode d’Ephèse.
Idatius (3), (Idacius; surnamed Lemicensis), bp. of Aquae Flaviae (Chaves or Chiaves) in Gallicia, from c. 427 to 470, and author of a well-known Chronicle which was one of the various continuations of Jerome. Our only sources for his life are notices in his own work, for the meagre Life by Isidore in de Vir. Ill. c. ix. is merely a summary of Idatius's own prologue. The existing material was elaborately sifted and put together by Florez (Esp. Sagr. iv., Madrid, 1749), and less completely by Garzon, whose ed. of Idatius was pub. at Brussels in 1845 by P. F. X. de Ram.
Birthplace and Bishopric.—Idatius tells us in the prologue to his Chronicle
that he was born "in Lemica civitate," "Lemica" being a copyist's error for
Limica in Portugal. He was born c. 388, shortly after the execution of Priscillian
and his companions at Trèves, and about the time when, as he tells us in his
Chronicle (ad. ann. 386), the Priscillianists, falling back on Spain after the
death of their chief, took a special hold on the province of Gallicia. About
a.d. 400 he was in Egypt and Palestine, where,
as he says (Prolog. and Chron. ad ann. 435), he, "et infantulus et pupillus,"
saw St. Jerome at Bethlehem, John bp. of Jerusalem, Eulogius of Caesarea, and Theophilus
of Alexandria. His return to Gallicia may be dated c. 402 (Florez, Esp.
Sagr. iv. 301). In 416, seven years after the irruption of the Suevi, Alani,
and Vandals into the peninsula, Idatius entered the ministry, for so we must understand
the entry in the Chron. Parvum (see below) under that year, "Idatii conversio
ad Dominum peccatoris" (cf. Florez, l.c. p. 302), and in 427 he was made
bishop (see Prol. Esp. Sags. iv. 348). In 431 the rule of the Suevi had become
so intolerable that Idatius was sent by the Gallician provincials to Aetius in Gaul
to ask for help. He returned in 432, accompanied by the legate Censorius, after
whose departure from Gallicia the bishops persuaded Hermeric, the Suevian king,
to make peace with the provincials. For about 24 years GaIlicia enjoyed tranquillity
compared with the rest of Spain, and the Gallician bishops found themselves to some
extent free to deal with the prevalent Priscillianist
In the troubled times after the flight and execution of Rekiar, Idatius fell a victim to the disorders of the country. His capture at Aquae Flaviae by Frumari (July 26, 460) was owing mostly, no doubt, to his importance as a leader and representative of the Roman population, but partly, perhaps, as Florez suggests, to the hatred of certain Gallician Priscillianist informers (their names are Latin; cf. Chron. ad ann.) who had felt the weight of his authority. He was released in 3 months, and after his return to Chiaves lived at least 8 years under the Suevian kingdom which he had too hastily declared to be "destructum et finitum" in 456 (? "pene destructum," as Isidore, his copyist in Hist. Suevorum, eod. loc.), but which took a new lease, on Frumari's death (464), under Remismund. His Chronicle ends with 469, and he must have died before 474, the year of the emperor Leo's death, under whom Isidore places that of Idatius (Esp. Sagr. iv. 303, ed. De Ram, pp. 15, 39).
Chronicle.—The prologue to the Chronicle, composed apparently after its completion, at any rate in the extreme old age of its author, gives a full account of its intention, sources, and arrangement. It was intended to continue the Chronicle of Eusebius and Jerome, Idatius including his own works in one vol. with theirs (ed. De Ram, p. 48, note 3, and p. 59, note 4), and he divides it into two parts, the first starting from 379, where Jerome breaks off, and ending 427, when Idatius was made bishop; the second extending from 427 to the end. In the first division Sulpicius and Orosius seem to have been his main authorities, together with the works of SS. Augustine and Jerome (Esp. Sagr. iv. 335, 356) and the lives and writings of certain contemporary bishops (John of Jerusalem, l.c. 357. Paulinus of Beziers, ib., Paulinus of Nola, 358, etc.). "Thenceforward" (i.e. from 427), he says, describing his second division, "I, undeservedly chosen to the office of the episcopate, and not ignorant of all the troubles of this miserable time, have added both the falling landmarks ('metas ruituras') of the oppressed Roman empire, and also what is more mournful still, the degenerate condition of the church order within Gallicia, which is the end of the world, the destruction of honest liberty by indiscriminate appointments (to bishoprics), and the almost universal decay of the divine discipline of religion, evils springing from the rule of furious men and the tumults of hostile nations." This is the note of the whole Chronicle, which gives a vivid and invaluable picture of one most important scene in the great drama of the fall of the Western empire, and without which we should be almost in the dark as to events of the first half of the 5th cent. in Spain. Idatius describes the entry of the Vandals, Alani, and Suevi into the Peninsula in Oct. 409, and the two following years of indiscriminate pillage and ruin before the division of the country by lot amongst the invaders.
The Chronicle altogether embraces 91 years. On the chronology of the last five years and on possible interpolations of certain chronological notes by the copyist, see ed. De Ram, p. 39, also Florez, iv. 310.
The Fasti Idatiani were first attributed to Idatius by Sirmond, partly
because in the ancient MS. from which he printed the Chronicle the Fasti
followed immediately, and partly because he believed that there was strong internal
evidence for the Idatian authorship (Op. 1728, ii. 287). This opinion has
been generally adopted, notably by Dr. Mommsen (Corpus Inscr. Lat. i. 484).
Florez is an exception, but his grounds are extremely slight (see Esp. Sagr.
iv. 457, and Garzon's answer, ed. De Ram, p. 41). The history of the Fasti
has now been cleared up with great learning and acuteness by Holder-Egger in the
Neues Archiv der Gesellschaft für ältere Deutsche Geschichtskunde, ii. pp.
59–71. His general conclusions are (1) that the Fasti Idatiani are one of
two derivatives of certain consular Fasti put together at Constantinople in 4th
cent., the Chronicon Paschale (Migne, Patr. Gk. xcii.) being the other.
(2) That the common source of the Fasti and of the Chron. Pasch. was
itself compiled at Constantinople from older Roman Fasti, such as are still preserved
in the Chronographus of 354 (Mommsen, op. cit. i. 483; Wattenbach, Deutschlands
Geschichtsquellen, p. 48), the notices peculiar to Constantinople beginning
from 330, when Byzantium became the second capital of the empire. (3) That after
390–395 when the Chron. Pasch. branches off from the Fasti Idatiani,
a copy of the Constantinople Fasti came westward, received certain additions in
Italy and then reached Spain, where a Spanish reviser and continuator gave them
the shape under which we now know them as the Fasti Idatiani. That Idatius
the author of the Chronicle revised the Fasti Holder-Egger does not
believe, but is inclined to hold that their agreement is best explained by the theory
that Idatius used but did not compose the Fasti. His arguments on
this point seem scarcely conclusive, and he
The Chronicon Parvum Idatii is the work of an unskilful abbreviator of the larger Chronicle, who adds a continuation to the time of Justinian. It must not be confused with the excerpta from Idatius made under Charles the Great.
Besides the references already given see Adolf Ebert, Allgemeine Gesch. der Litt. des Mittelalters im Abendlande, i. 1874; Teuffel, Gesch. der Römischen Litt. 1875.
Ignatius (1), St. (called Theophorus), Oct. 17, the 2nd bp. of Antioch (c. 70–c. 107), between Evodius and Hero. He is sometimes reckoned the 3rd bishop, St. Peter being reckoned the first (Bosch, Pat. Ant. in Boll. Acta SS. Jul. iv. introd. p. 8; Le Quien, Or. Chr. ii. 700).
The question of the life and writings of Ignatius, including the connected subject of the Ep. of Polycarp to the Philippians, has been described by M. Renan as the most difficult in early Christian history next to that of the fourth gospel.
I. About 165 Lucian in his satire de Morte Peregrini relates (cc. 14–41) that Peregrinus was made a prisoner in Syria. The Christians of Asia Minor sent messengers and money to him according to their usual custom when persons were imprisoned for their faith. Peregrinus wrote letters to all the more important cities, forwarding these by messengers whom he appointed (ἐχειροτόνησε) and entitled νεκραγγέλους and νερτεροδρόμους. The coincidence of this story with that of Ignatius, as told afterwards by Eusebius, would be alone a strong evidence of connexion. The similarity of the expressions with the πρέπει χειροτονῆσαί τινα ὃς δυνήσεται θεοδρόμος καλεῖσθαι of ad Pol. vii. would, if the words stood alone, make it almost certain that Lucian was mimicking the words of the epistle. These two probabilities lead us to believe that the composition was by one acquainted with the story and even some of the letters of Ignatius. (Renan, i. 38; Zahn, i. 517; Pearson, i. 2; Denzinger, 85; Lightfoot, ii. See Authorities at the foot of this art.)
Theophilus, bp. of Antioch (fl. before 167), has a coincidence with Ignat. ad Eph. xix. 1, where the virginity of Mary is said to have been concealed from the devil. Irenaeus, c. 180 (adv. Haer. iii. 3, 4), bears witness that Polycarp wrote to the Philippians, and (v. 28) mentions how a Christian martyr said, "I am the bread-corn of Christ, to be ground by the teeth of beasts that I may be found pure bread"—words found in Ignat. ad Rom. iv. 1. the passage of Irenaeus is quoted by Eusebius (H. E. iii. 36) as a testimony to Ignatius. Origen, early in 3rd cent., Prol. in Cant. (Op. ed. Delarue, iii. 30), writes, "I remember also that one of the saints, by name Ignatius, said of Christ, 'My love was crucified'"—words found in Ignat. ad Rom. vii. 2. Origen also (Hom. in Luc. vol. iii. 938) says, "I find it well written in one of the epistles of a certain martyr, I mean Ignatius, 2nd bp. of Antioch after Peter, who in the persecution fought with beasts at Rome, that the virginity of Mary escaped the prince of this world" (Ignat. ad Eph. xix. 1).
Eusebius, early in 4th cent., gives a full account which explains these fragmentary
allusions and quotations. In his Chronicle he twice names Ignatius as 2nd
bp. of Antioch after the apostles; in one case adding that he was martyred. In his
Ecclesiastical History, besides less important notices of our saint and of
Polycarp, he relates (iii. 22, 37, 38, iv. 14, 15) how Ignatius, whom he calls very
celebrated among the Christians, was sent from Syria to Rome to be cast to the beasts
for Christ's sake. When journeying under guard through Asia he addressed to the
cities near places of his sojourn exhortations and epistles. Thus in Smyrna, the
city of Polycarp, he wrote to Ephesus, Magnesia, and Tralles. He wrote to the Romans,
begging them not to impede his martyrdom. Of this epistle Eusebius appends § v.
at length. Then he tells how Ignatius, having left Smyrna and come to Troas, wrote
thence to the Philadelphians and Smyrnaeans and to Polycarp. One sentence from
Smyr.
iii. Eusebius copies as containing a saying of Christ not otherwise handed down.
The Apostolical Constitutions, in their uninterpolated form as known to us
through the Syriac trans. of the Didascalia, in several places coincide very
strikingly with the shorter Greek or 7 Vossian epistles. An epistle which passes
under the name of Athanasius, and which if not by him is by a contemporary writer,
quotes a passage from ad Eph. vii. 2, as written by Ignatius, who after the
apostles was bp. of Antioch and a martyr of Christ. (See, as to the genuineness
of this epistle, Cureton, lxviii.; Zahn, i. 578.) St. Basil (ed. Ben. ii. 598) quotes,
without naming Ignatius, the familiar sentence from ad Eph. xix. 1, concerning
Satan's ignorance of the virginity of Mary. St. Jerome's testimony is dependent
on that of Eusebius. St. Chrysostom (Op. vol. ii. 592) has a homily on St.
Ignatius which relates that he was appointed by the apostles bp. of Antioch; was
sent for to Rome in a time of persecution to be there judged; instructed and admonished
with wonderful power all the cities on the way, and Rome itself when he arrived;
was condemned and martyred in the Roman theatre crying, Ἐγὼ
τῶν θηρίων ἐκείνων ὀναίμην; and his remains were transferred after death
with great solemnity to Antioch. (Zahn [i. 33–49] does not believe that the genuine
writings of Chrysostom shew that he was acquainted with the writings of Ignatius.
But see the other side powerfully argued by Pearson, i. 9; Denzinger, 90; Lipsius,
ii. 21.) Theodoret frequently cites the 7 Vossian epistles, and mentions Ignatius
as ordained by St. Peter and made the food of beasts for the testimony of Christ.
Severus, patriarch of Antioch (513–551), has a long catalogue of sayings from Ignatius,
in which every one of the 7 epistles is laid under contribution. These are to be
found in Syr. in Cureton, in Gk. in Zahn (ii. 352). Cureton
II. We possess also a multitude of Acts of the martyrdom of St. Ignatius, which, if we could accept them, would supply very particular accounts of his life and death. Of these Ussher published 3 in whole or part: one in Lat. from two related MSS.; another in Lat. from the Cottonian library; a third in Gk. from a MS. at Oxford. The Bollandists published a Latin martyrdom in the Acta SS. for Feb. 1; Cotelerius a Gk. one by Symeon Metaphrastes. Ruinart, and afterwards Jacobson (Pat. Ap. ii.), printed a Gk. MS. from the Colbertine collection (MS, Colb.); J. S. Assemani found a Syriac one which may be the same as that partly printed by Cureton (i.). Aucher, and afterwards Petermann (p. 496), published an Armenian one. Dressel printed a Gk. version of the 10th cent. (MS. Vat.). The 9 are reducible to 5, possessing each a certain independence. But of these MS. Colb. and MS. Vat. are by far the most valuable, being completely independent, while the remaining versions are mixtures of these two.
MS. Colb. (see Zahn, ii. p. 301) relates the condemnation of Ignatius by Trajan in Antioch, and incorporates the Ep. to the Romans. This MS. bears marks of interpolation, and its chief value lies in its incorporation of the Ep. to the Romans. The other epistles the author of the MS. has not read carefully. We conclude that this martyrdom, written in the 4th cent., assumed its present form after the first half of the 5th.
MS. Vat. (Zahn, ii. 307) omits all judicial proceedings in Antioch. Ignatius is sent for by Trajan to Rome, as a teacher dangerous to the state; an argument takes place before the senate between the emperor and the saint; the lions kill him, but leave the body untouched, and it remains as a sacred deposit at Rome. Thus MS. Vat. seems to have arisen on the basis of an account of the journey and death of the saint, extant at the end of the 4th cent. On the whole, the martyrdoms are late and untrustworthy compositions, wholly useless as materials for determining the question of the epistles; we are thrown back on Eusebius.
III. Eusebius in the Chronicle (ed. Schöne, ii. 152, I58, 162) omits (contrary to his custom) the durations of the episcopates of Antioch. We can, therefore, place Ignatius's death any time between Ab. 2123, Traj. 10, and 2132, Traj. 19. In H. E. iii. 22, Eusebius, in a general way, makes the episcopates of Symeon and Ignatius contemporary with the first years of Trajan and the last of St. John and (iii. 36) with Polycarp and Papias. We may date his epistles, journey, and death in any year from 105; to 117. Funk fixes it at 107.
In 1878 Harnack published a tract (Die Zeit des Ign. Leipz.) impugning the tradition that Ignatius was martyred under Trajan. The argument rests upon the acts of the martyrdom being proved by Zahn, with the general assent of all his critics, to be untrustworthy; the date of the saint's death thus resting wholly on the testimony of Eusebius, who shews that he had no data except the untrustworthy information of Julius Africanus (Harnack, pp. 66 sqq.). But it is very improbable that Eusebius had no tradition save through Africanus, or the latter no tradition save four names.
The theory of Volkmar; which the author of Supernatural Religion (i. 268) regarded as "demonstrated," was that the martyrdom of Ignatius happened not in Rome but in Antioch, upon Dec. 20, 115 (on which day his feast was kept), in consequence of the excitement produced by an earthquake a week previously; but it is now known from the ancient Syriac Menologion, published by Wright (Journ. Sac. Lit. Jan. 1866, p. 45), that the feast was originally kept not upon Dec. 20, but upon Oct. 17. (Zahn, i. 33, and Lightfoot, ii. 352, note §, are to be corrected in accordance with this discovery.)
The other details in the martyrdoms and elsewhere are but expansions from hints supposed to be found in the letters, of which we find an instance in the long dialogue between Ignatius and Trajan upon the name Θεοφόρος. There is no reason to suspect the genuineness of this addition to the saint's name. It is given untranslated in the 4th cent. Syriac version. The interpolator found it in his copy, for it stands in all his epistles except that to Polycarp and in all the MSS. of the shorter translation, both Greek and Latin. The 4th-cent. writers, regarding it as a title of honour, do not quote it; in the 6th it came to be regarded as a name.
The tradition that Ignatius was martyred at Rome can be traced higher than the records of Eusebius and Origen. The designation of world-famed, which Eusebius gives him, shews the general tradition; and the words of Origen are to the same effect. The testimony of Irenaeus which Eusebius adduces as perfectly agreeing with the tradition known to him, dates but 70 years after the fact. True, these expressions come from writers who knew the epistles; but the mere existence of the epistles at such a date, even if they were spurious, would be sufficient proof of the existence of the tradition; and it is impossible that such a story should have arisen so soon after Trajan, if it had contradicted known facts or prevalent customs of his reign.
Eusebius clearly wrote with the collection of letters before him, and knew of no other collection besides the 7 he mentions. These he arranges according to place and time of writing, gives his quotation from Romans as out of "the Epistles," and cites Irenaeus's quotation from Ignatius, as proof of that writer's knowledge of them, although Irenaeus did not mention the author's name.
IV. The gradual presentation of the various Ignatian documents to the modern
world is related in the introduction to Cureton's Corpus Ignatianum and is
briefly as follows. Late in the 15th and in the beginning of the 16th cents. 12
epistles, purporting to be by Ignatius, were given to the world, first in Latin
translations, then in the original Greek, together with three others manifestly
spurious, which existed in Latin alone. The epistles which bear non-Eusebian titles
were soon suspected of spuriousness, and it was proved that the text of the Eusebian,
as then known, was
Cureton in 1839 transcribed from Syriac MSS. in the Brit. Mus. a fragment of the martyrdom of Ignatius and of the Ep. to the Romans therein contained. In 1847 he discovered, among Syriac MSS. acquired in the meantime, three epistles of Ignatius, viz. to Polycarp, to the Ephesians, and to the Romans, transcribed in the 6th or 7th cent. These epistles are in a form considerably shorter even than the shorter recension of the earlier time. Cureton believed this the sole genuine text, and argued the point very ably, but with a confidence which in its contrast with the present state of belief should be a warning to all who are tempted to be too positive on this difficult controversy. Many scholars at the time accepted the Curetonian theory, and Bunsen wrote a voluminous work in its defence. The Armenian version, first printed, though very incorrectly, in 1783, is mentioned by Cureton, who failed to perceive the effect its testimony was to have upon his own argument. The correct publication and due estimate of the Armenian version are due to Petermann. According to him, it was rendered out of Syriac in the 5th cent., and agrees with Ussher's Latin MS. in that, while it contains several post-Eusebian epistles united with the Eusebian, the latter are free from any systematic interpolations such as are in the longer recension.
V. Date of the Longer Recension.—The latest ancient writer who cites only the Eusebian epistles in the uninterpolated text is the monk Antonius in the early part of the 7th cent. (Cureton, p. 176; Zahn, ii. 350). Severus of Antioch, 6th cent. (Cureton, 212; Zahn, 352) cites all the Eusebian epistles in a text free from interpolations.
We cannot doubt that in Ussher's MS. and in the Armenian translation we have (minute textual criticism apart) the 7 epistles as the Fathers from Eusebius to Severus of Antioch and as the interpolator had them. The arguments of Ussher upon this point remain unanswered. But the Armenian, with the Syriac translation from which it sprang, brings back the composition of the six additional epistles to a.d. 400 at latest; and these are undoubtedly the work of the same hand which interpolated the others. On the other hand, the interpolation cannot have been before 325, or Eusebius would have cited or alluded to it; moreover, it shews undoubted marks of dependence on his history. The period of the interpolator is thus fixed at the latter part of the 4th cent. His doctrine, as Ussher shewed (p. 221), is stark Arianism.
Several names in Pseudo-Ignatius are borrowed from the period a.d. 360 to 380 (Philost. iii. 15; Theod. i. 5, v. 7; Socr. iii. 25, iv. 12). The titles of the new letters are also easily accounted for in the same period. Pseudo-Ignatius interests himself against the Quartodecimans; proving that they must have been still strong when he wrote, which was not the case at the conclusion of the 4th cent. These oppositions point to the period 360–380. Thus all historical indications point to the 2nd half of the 4th cent. as the date of the interpolations.
Zahn conjectures the interpolator to have been Acacius, the scholar, biographer, and successor of Eusebius at Caesarea, who, as Sozomen (iv. 23) informs us, was regarded as heir to the learning as well as the position of that divine. The roughness of the known character of Acacius (c. 360) agrees with the abusiveness of Pseudo- Ignatius.
Different Syriac translations of Greek works give similar citations from Ignatius
in somewhat varying language; probably because the authors cited from memory an
existing Syriac version. Zahn contends that the Armenian version came from the one
Syriac translation in the 5th cent., and from it the extracts were taken, perhaps
somewhat later, which Cureton mistook for the original epistles. The connexion in
which Cureton's epistles were found is that of a series of extracts from Fathers
whose remaining works are not to be supposed rendered doubtful by their absence
from this Syriac MS., and Petermann (xxi.) has corrected Bunsen's supposition that
the concluding words of the MS. imply that the epistles of Ignatius, as known to
the writer, were all comprised in what he copied. Zahn (pp. 199, 200) compares the
Syriac extracts numbered i. and ii. in Corp. Ignat., taken as they were,
beyond doubt, from the existing Syriac translation, with S. Cur. (i.e. Cureton's
Syriac Epp.); and apparently succeeds in making out that the same translator,
whose work is presented in a fragmentary form in S. Cur., meets us in these extracts.
E.g. the expression θηριομαχεῖν, and
many other peculiar words, are similarly rendered; though no. i. seems sometimes
to preserve better the text from which it was copied. We might cull from S. Cur.
itself certain proofs that it was not the original. Moreover, there are certain
passages in it which are plainly not complete in themselves. It is surely a quite
sufficient motive to suppose that the epitomator intended to make one of those selections
of the best parts of a good work, which in all ages have been practised upon the
most eminent writers without disrespect. Hefele (see Denzinger, pp. 8, 196) thinks
he can discern the practical ascetic purpose of the selection, and we observe that
very naturally the abbreviator begins each epistle with a
VI. The Ep. to the Romans differs from the other six Eusebian letters in being used by some authors who use no others and omitted by some who cite the others. Zahn suggests that it did not at first belong to the collection, but was propounded by itself, with or without a martyrdom. This seems supported by the fact that it escaped the interpolations which the other epistles suffered at the hand, probably, of Acacius.
VII. The circumstances of the journey and martyrdom of Ignatius, gathered from the seven epistles and from that of Polycarp, are as follows: He suffers under a merely local persecution. It is in progress at Antioch while he is in Smyrna, whence he writes to the Romans, Ephesians, Magnesians, and Trallians. But Rome, Magnesia (xii.), and Ephesus (xii.) are at peace, and in Troas he learns that peace is restored to the church in Antioch. Of the local causes of this Antiochene persecution we are ignorant, but it is not in the least difficult to credit. The imagined meeting of the emperor and the saint is not found in the epistles; it is "the world" under whose enmity the church is there said to suffer. All now recognize that, according to the testimony of the letters, Ignatius has been condemned in Antioch to death, and journeys with death by exposure to the beasts as the settled fate before him. He deprecates interposition of the church at Rome (quite powerful enough at the end of the 1st cent. to be conceivably successful in such a movement) for the remission of a sentence already delivered. The supposition of Hilgenfeld (i. 200) that prayer to God for his martyrdom, or abstinence from prayer against it, is what he asks of the Romans seems quite inadmissible, and we could not conceive him so assured of the approach of death if the sentence had not been already pronounced. The right of appeal to the emperor was recognized, and could be made without the consent of the criminal, but not if the sentence had proceeded from the emperor himself. Thus the Colbertine Martyrdom, which makes Trajan the judge at Antioch, contradicts the epistles no less than the Vatican which puts off the process to Rome. MS. Colb. brings Ignatius by sea to Smyrna; but Eusebius, who had read the epistles, supposes the journey to be by land, and he is clearly right. The journey "by land and sea" (ad Rom. v.) may easily refer to a voyage from Seleucia to some Cilician port, and thence by road. The ordinary way from Antioch to Ephesus was by land, and Ignatius calls the messenger to be sent by the Smyrnaeans to Antioch θεοδρόμος (Pol. vii.). Ignatius did not, as was usual, pass through Magnesia and Ephesus, but left the great road at Sardis and came by Laodicea, Hierapolis, Philadelphia, and perhaps Colossae, as he had certainly visited Philadelphia and met there the false teachers from Ephesus (Zahn, 258 seq. also 266 seq.). The churches written to were not chosen at random, but were those which had shewn their love by sending messengers to him. The replies were thus, primarily, letters of thanks, quite naturally extending into admonitions.
We find him in the enjoyment of much freedom on his journey, though chained to
a soldier. In Philadelphia he preaches, not in a church, but in a large assembly
of Christians; in Smyrna he has intercourse with the Christians there and with messengers
of other churches. He has much speech with the bishops concerning the state of the
churches. That of Ephesus he treats with special respect, and anticipates writing
a second letter (ad Eph. xx.); that of Tralles he addresses in a markedly
different manner (ad. Tr. 2, 12). He must, therefore, have had lime in Smyrna
to acquaint himself with the condition of the neighbouring churches. If the writing
of epistles under the circumstances of his captivity should cause surprise, it must
be remembered that they are only short letters, not books. The expression
βιβλίδιον, which in
VIII. The chief difficulty in accepting the epistles as genuine has always arisen from the form of church government which they record as existing and support with great emphasis. They display the threefold ministry established in Asia Minor and Syria, and the terms Ἐπίσκοπος and πρεσβύτερος are applied to perfectly distinct orders—a state of things and use of language which are argued to be wholly incompatible with a date early in the 2nd cent. Hence Daillé derived his "palmary argument" (c. xxvi., answered by Pears. ii. 13).
It is noteworthy that the testimony of the epistles on this point extends no further than the localities named. To the Romans Ignatius only once names the office of a bishop, and that in reference to himself; and in Polycarp's Ep. to the Philippians there is no mention of any bishop, while the deacons and presbyters are addressed at considerable length. The standpoint of the epistles is perfectly consistent with the supposition that episcopacy existing from the times of the apostles in Asia Minor and Syria and believed by the Christians there to be a divinely ordained institution, made its way gradually into other parts of the church, and that those who most valued it might yet know that it did not exist in churches to which they wrote, or not be assured that it did, and might feel it no part of their duty to enter upon a controversy concerning it.
Zahn fairly observes that there is no attempt, even in those epistles where obedience to the bishop is most urged, to recommend it in opposition to other forms of church government. Not only is the supposition that Ignatius was introducing episcopacy utterly out of the question, but none of the epistles bear the slightest trace of any recent introduction of it in the places in which it exists. The presbyterate is everywhere identified with the episcopate in its claims to obedience, and those who resist the one resist the other. It is extremely hard to reconcile these characteristics with the supposition that the letters were forged to introduce the rule of bishops or to uplift it to an unprecedented position in order to resist the assaults of heresy.
A good deal of uncertainty remains as to the relations which the smaller congregations outside the limits of the cities held in the Ignatian church order to the bishops of the cities. No provision appears for episcopal rule over country congregations whose pastors are not in the "presbytery"—an uncommon expression in antiquity, but used 13 times by Ignatius.
The duties the epistles ascribe to bishops are very similar to those which St.
Paul (
It is certainly somewhat startling to those accustomed to regard bishops as the successors of the apostles that Ignatius everywhere speaks of the position of the apostles as corresponding to that of the existing presbyters, while the prototype of the bishop is not the apostles, but the Lord Himself. It would be hasty, however, to infer that Ignatius denied that the office and authority of the apostles was represented and historically succeeded by that of the bishops. The state of things visibly displayed when the Lord and His apostles were on earth is for Ignatius the type of church order for all time. (See Bp. Harold Browne, The Strife and the Victory, 1872, p. 62.) If, however, the epistles had been forged to support episcopacy, they would not have omitted an argument of such weight as the apostolical authority and succession.
The duty of submission is with Ignatius the first call upon each member of the
church, and exhortations to personal holiness go hand in hand with admonitions to
unity and obedience. The word ὑποτάσσεσθαι
denotes the duty of all, not (be it marked) towards the bishop alone, but towards
authority in all its steps
Sprintzl ingeniously argues (p. 67) that the supremacy of the bp. of Rome is taught by Ignatius, on the ground that, first, he teaches the supremacy of the Roman church over others (Rom. prooem.), and secondly, the supremacy of the bishop in every church. But the explanation of the passage in Romans is very doubtful, and the marked omission of any mention of the bp. of Rome seems inconsistent with any supremacy apart from the natural position of his church.
The emphatic terms in which these letters propose the bishop as the representative of Christ have always presented a stumbling-block to many minds, even apart from the question of date. But before we pronounce these expressions exaggerated, we must remember that obedience to the bishop is valued by the writer for the sake of unity, while unity is for him the only fence against the heresy to which small and disunited bodies are subject (Phil. 4., 8; Mgn. 1, etc). Identification of the position of the church ruler with that of the Lord would be more easy to a writer of an age very close to Christ than to one of later date. When the divine nature of the Lord and His elevation in heaven came through lapse of time to overshadow the remembrance of His life on earth, it seemed a superhuman claim on the part of any office to say that it represented Him. But it would naturally be otherwise when the recollection of His human intercourse with men was fresh; for why should not men represent one so truly man? Thus the strong expressions may really be a mark of early date.
IX. In Sm. 8 is first found the phrase Catholic church—an expression pronounced by Lipsius (iii.) to prove of itself the later date of the epistles. Such a decision is very precarious, even if, with Lipsius, we reject the testimony of the Martyrdom of Polycarp to the use of the expression. Sprintzl remarks that the phrase "Where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic church" naturally follows upon the preceding statement of the relation of the bishop to the particular church: what the bishop is to it, that Christ is to the Catholic church at large. Thus to Ignatius the church of each place is a miniature of the church at large (Sm. 8) and its unity is guarded by all the sanctions of the Christian faith. The one faith is, in the epistles, the bond of the church. "The gospel" is that which the apostles proclaimed (Phil. 5); not the four written gospels, but the substance of the message of salvation.
We find in the epistles the germ of the great ideas of worship afterwards developed in the church. The altar-idea and the temple-idea as applied to the church are there (Eph. 5; Mgn. 7; Phil. 4). The Eucharist holds its commanding place (Rom. 7; Phil. 4, and probably Eph. 5), though what its rites were at this early period is hard to answer from the letters. Ἀγάπη (Sm. 8) is applied to the Eucharist, and ἀγαπᾶν (Sm. 7) means to celebrate it. In Ignatian phraseology Εὐχαριστία is used where the blessing of Holy Communion is denoted, Ἀγάπη means the whole service of which the consecration is only a moment. In Sm. 7 those who speak against the gifts of God are plainly those who deny τὴν εὐχαριστίαν σάρκα εἶναι τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. Christians observed the Lord's Day, not the Jewish Sabbath (Mgn. 8, 9).
X. As to the theology of the epistles, there have been great differences of opinion.
The more significant theological statements are uncontroversial, though called out
by heresies to which the writer opposes his conception of the nature of Christ.
The originality and reality of the revelation in Christ is the great point with
him. Hence follows the unreasonableness of Judaizing, which he sometimes presses
in terms apparently inconsistent with the recognition of Jewish Christians as really
believers. But probably, like St. Paul, he is treating the question from the Gentile
standpoint alone. Prophets and the law are worthy of all honour in Christ;
πάντα ὁμοῦ καλά ἐστιν ἐὰν ἐν ἀγάπῃ πιστεύητε.
The prophets were Christians in spirit, and Christ raised them from the dead (Mgn.
9). They were believers in Christ; yea, even the angels must believe in His blood
(Sm. 6). But for this practical and real salvation finding its expression
in history the heretics would substitute a shadowy representation of religious notions
in a merely apparent and unreal life of Christ. Therefore we find Ignatius constantly
adding the word ἀληθῶς to his records of the
acts of Christ (Sm. 3, 4; Tr. 10). Ἐν
σαρκί is an equivalent phrase. The Blood is named with or instead of the
Flesh to shew that the Lord had in death the same bodily constitution as in life,
of which the faithful partake in the Eucharist. Being real flesh, Christ was the
New Man, and the revelation of God in the earth (Eph. 18). He is an eternal
Person, but He is God's Son, as born of Mary and of God. When the writer speaks
of an outcoming of Christ from God, he means the Incarnation, and not anything previous.
Though he uses the epithet ἀΐδιος with
Λόγος, yet he does not seem to mean that it
is as Λόγος that the Lord is eternal.
It is as incarnate and as man that He is the Logos of God. His twofold nature furnishes
the explanation of the opposite attributes ascribed to Him (Eph. 7; Pol.
3). Baur and Lipsius have discovered Patripassianism in the last-quoted passage.
But this accusation is inconsistent with all the rest of the epistles, and seems,
indeed, to have been since abandoned by Lipsius. In opposition to Baur's assertion
that except in one suspected place there is no mention of Christ as Son of God,
Zahn finds himself able to enumerate 29 such cases. The epistles lay vast stress
upon the Godhead of the Lord; it is because of this that His birth is the entrance
of the New Man, and His death the resurrection of the faithful. To them He stands
in a personal and practical relation, which makes Him their God. His present invisible
relation to them involves an increase of the activity of His Godhead, and of its
revelation to men (ad
XI. The question what special heresies are denounced in the epistles possesses, in relation to their date, an importance scarcely below that of episcopacy. All, except Romans, contain warnings against heresy, and the exhortations to unity and submission to authority derive their urgency from this danger. It was long a question whether two forms of heresy, Judaic and Docetic, or only one, Judaeo-docetic, were aimed at. But already in 1856, despite the arguments of Hilgenfeld (i. 230), it appeared to Lipsius (i. 31) that the question was decided in the latter sense. The heretics were wandering teachers, ever seeking proselytes (Eph. 7), and all the denunciations of heresy are directed against that mixture of Judaism with Gnosticism, represented by some whom Ignatius met in his journey (Mgn. 8, 10, 11; Tr. 9; Sm. 1). The idea of Ritschl (Entst. der altk. Kirche, p. 580) that they were Montanist teachers met with little favour.
Cureton and others have thought to find direct allusions to the teaching of Valentinus in the epistles (but see Pearson II. vi.). But the allusion Λόγος ἀπὸ Σιγῆς προελθών (Mgn. 8) is not applicable to Valentinus.
Basilides is probably early enough, and disciples of his might have been wandering in Asia Minor; Cerinthus too was of this age. I. and II. John contain warnings against Docetism, which Polycarp (Ep. 7) applies to the heretics of his own time, which was also that of Ignatius. Of all the heretics whom Bunsen and others have supposed the epistles to denounce, Saturninus alone can be proved to have held the doctrines they condemn.
XII. From the epistles, as Hilgenfeld (i. 225–226) truly remarks, different critics, according to their bias, have derived in some cases the very highest, and in some the very poorest, notion of the writer's character. The letters are indeed more characteristic than any we have between St. Paul and the great Fathers of the 4th cent.; but they give no record of the writer's surroundings or of his ways in his diocese when the times were quiet. His name is Latin; his style very Semitic. He had not seen the Lord or the apostles, and was not, as MS. Colb. makes him, a fellow-pupil with Polycarp of St. John. It is perhaps somewhat precarious to infer with Zahn, from his strong terms of self-reproach (Eph. 21; Mgn. 14), that he had led an un-Christian or anti-Christian life in early years. His longing for death is extreme, but is really for life under another and better form. We do not know that he courted martyrdom before his judges, since we only meet him after he has been condemned and is well used to the idea. All his exhortations have the one burden and object, closer union with Christ. He bids others seek, and seeks himself, that union in permanence and perfection which the Holy Eucharist gives here in part. He does not imagine death in itself to have any value (Rom. 4; Tr. 3, 4; Eph. 12; Sm. 4). The prayers he asks are not for his death, but for his due preparation (Eph. 21; Mgn. 14; Tr. 12, 13). For an interesting summary of the moral aspect of the Ignatian epistles in respect to the personality of the writer and to the ideal which his teaching presents, see Sprintzl, pp. 244 sqq.
XIII. The great majority of critics, whether adverse to the genuineness of the epistles or not, have recognized that the seven epistles professing to be of Ignatius, as shewn by the individuality of the author there displayed, and the one of Polycarp, form an indivisible whole. Romans, indeed, is the brightest and most interesting of the letters. This is because its chief subject is his personal eagerness for martyrdom; he is writing to the place where he expects to suffer, and to people who can help or hinder his object.
The Ep. of Polycarp contains a witness for the whole body of epistles, which (if it be genuine) renders almost all others superfluous; since it mentions letters written to Smyrna by Ignatius, and by Polycarp collected and sent to Philippi; and intimates the existence of others. Thus those who believe the Ignatian letters to be a production late in the 2nd cent. are forced to consider the Ep. of Polycarp a fraud also, in whole or in part. For its satisfactory defence see Lightfoot, Cont. Rev. 1875. With it we may consider the genuineness of the Ignatian epistles proved. For a forger late in the 2nd cent., it would have been impossible to avoid mentioning Polycarp's connexion with the apostles, or alluding to the epistles to the seven Asiatic churches in Revelation; they are never mentioned. In all historical fictions of antiquity, reiterated pains are taken to make the facts to be maintained understood. In Ignatius they are hard to reach; the writer is not thinking of readers who have all to learn from him. Lastly, no ancient fiction has succeeded in individualizing character to the degree here displayed; e.g. in the picture of the false teachers. The improbabilities on which the author of Supernatural Religion, and even, though less decidedly, Hilgenfeld (17), rely to prove the whole story an undoubted fabrication, are recognized by M. Renan as established facts, even though he does not believe that the epistles we possess are those to which the story refers. Finally, by the great work of Bp. Lightfoot the genuineness of the seven Vossian epistles may be regarded as completely established. The Epp. of Ignatius in the longer and shorter recensions and the Syr. version were in Patr. Apost. ed. G. Jacobson (Clar. Press); and a trans. of the Epp. together with the Martyrdom and spurious Epp. are in the Ante-Nic. Lib.
Authorities.—Ussher, Dissertatio de Ig. et Pol. (1644), in Works
by Elrington, vii. 87–295; Joannis Dallaei, de Scriptis quae sub Dion. Areop.
et Ig. Ant. nominibus circumferuntur, lib. ii. (Genev. 1666); Pearson, Vindiciae
Ignatianae (ed. nov. Oxf. 1852); Zahn, i. Ignatius von Antiochien, p.
629 (Gotha, 1873), ii. Patrum Apostolicorum Opera, fasc. ii. (Lips. 1876);
Hilgenfeld, i. Die apostolischen Väter (Halle, 1853), ii. in his Zeitsch.
1874, pp. 96 seq.; Lightfoot, i. in Phil. pp. 208–210, ii. in Cont. Rev.
(Feb. 1875); Petermann, S. Ign. Ep. (Lips. 1849); Harnack, Die Zeit des
Ignatius (Leipz. 1878); Cureton, Corpus Ignatianum (Lond.
Cureton (Corp. Ign.) or (better still, except for Syriac scholars) Zahn (ii.) will furnish the student with all the documents and ancient testimonies. The special treatise of Zahn on Ignatius is, as Bp. Lightfoot remarks, little known in England, and is of an exhaustive character. The reader will understand that, while we have not hesitated to dissent from it where necessary, we have freely availed ourselves of its pages. The Epistles of Ignatius have been pub. in a cheap trans. by J. R. Srawley (S.P.C.K. 2 vols.)
Innocentius (12) I., bp. of Rome, after Anastasius, from May 402,
to
The circumstances of his time and the character and talents of Innocent render his pontificate important. Christianity had now for nearly a century been the religion of the emperors; paganism was fast becoming a system of the past; the capture of Rome by Alaric during his pontificate, regarded as the divine judgment on the heathen city and causing the dispersion and ruin of the remains of the heathen nobility, completed the downfull of the ancient order. With the ascendancy of the church had grown that of the hierarchy, and especially of the head of that hierarchy in the West, the Roman bishop. The need of centres of unity and seats of authority to keep the church together amid doctrinal conflicts; the power and importance hence accruing to the patriarchal sees, and especially to Rome as the one great patriarchate of the West, the see of the old seat of empire and the only Western one that claimed apostolic origin; the view now generally received of the bp. of Rome as the successor of the prince of the apostles; the removal of the seat of empire to Constantinople, leaving the pope, when there was but one emperor, the sole Western potentate, and when there were two, as in Innocent's time, the fixing of the imperial residence at Ravenna instead of Rome,—such were among the causes of the aggrandizement of the Roman see. The Western church had been comparatively free from the controversies which had divided the East, nor had the popes taken much personal part in them; but they had almost invariably supported the orthodox cause, received and protected the orthodox under persecution, and, after watching with quiet dignity the Eastern struggle, had accepted and confirmed the decisions of orthodox councils. Hence Rome appeared as the bulwark of the cause of truth, and its claim to be the unerring guardian of the apostolic faith and discipline gained extensive credence. Innocent himself was eminently the man to enter into, and make the most of, the position he was called to occupy. Unstained in life, able and resolute, with a full appreciation of the dignity and prerogatives of his see, he lost no opportunity of asserting its claims, and under him the idea of universal papal supremacy, though as yet somewhat shadowy, was already taking form. At his accession the empire had for seven years been divided between the two sons of Theodosius, Arcadius and Honorius; the latter, now 18 years of age, under the control of the great general Stilicho, ruling in the West. Two years after Innocent's accession (a.d. 404) he fixed his residence at Ravenna.
I. WEST. (i) Illyria.—Immediately
after his election Innocent wrote to Anysius, bp. of Thessalonica, informing him
of the event and giving him the oversight of the churches of eastern Illyria. The
prefecture of Illyria had been dismembered since 388, the Eastern part, including
Dacia and Macedonia, being assigned to the Eastern empire, but popes Damasus and
Siricius had continued to claim ecclesiastical jurisdiction over the separated portion,
delegating their authority to the bishops of Thessalonica. Innocent thus made no
new claim, nor did he hereby assert any authority over the East generally (Innoc.
Ep. 1; Galland. Bibl. Patr.). When Rufus, some years after, succeeded
Anysius as bp. of Thessalonica, a letter was at once sent to him, reversing the
vicariate commission, defining its extent, and reminding him that his jurisdiction
was derived from the favour of the apostolic see only. In 414 we find Innocent exercising
authority of a summary kind, without the intervention of the bp. of Thessalonica,
in East Illyria. The bishops of Macedonia had sent him a synodal letter, desiring
directions as to: (1) Whether persons ordained by one Bonosus, a deceased heretical
bishop, might be admitted to the priesthood. (2) Whether persons who had married
widows might be ordained and made bishops, for which allowance they pleaded the
custom of their church. (3) They had asked leave to raise to the episcopate one
Photinus, who had been condemned by Innocent's predecessors, and to depose a deacon
called Eustatius. Some at least of these questions had already been decided by Innocent,
for he expresses surprise and displeasure at their being again mooted. He then authoritatively
decides them. Those who had married widows he debars from ordination, citing the
prohibition of such marriages to the high-priest under the Mosaic law. Those ordained
by Bonosus are debarred the priesthood by the law of the Roman church (lex nostrae
ecclesiae), which admitted to lay communion persons baptized by heretics, but
did not recognize their orders. The Nicene canon about the Novatianists, he says,
applied to them only, and the condonation by Anysius had only been a temporary expedient.
The question whether those who had married one wife before and another after baptism
were to be accounted deuterogamists, and so incapable of ordination, he discussed
at length also in other epistles.
(ii) Gaul.—Victricius, bp. of Rouen, having been in Rome towards the end of 403 (Ep. ad Victric. § 14, and Paul. Nolan. Ep. ad Victric. xxxvii. 1), applied to the pope soon after for information as to the practice and discipline of the Roman church. Innocent sent him a letter containing 14 rules, of which he says that they are no new ones, but derived by tradition from the apostles and fathers, though too generally unknown or disregarded. He directs Victricius to communicate them to the bishops and others, with a view to their future observance. Among them were: (1) No bishop may ordain without the knowledge of his metropolitan and the assistance of other bishops. (3) Ordinary causes against bishops are to be determined by the other bishops of the province, saving always the authority of Rome. (4) Greater causes, after the judgment of the bishops, are to be referred to the apostolic see, "as the synod [referring, probably, to the canons of Sardica] has decreed." (6, 7) No layman who has married a widow, or been twice married, may be ordained. (8) No bishop may ordain any one from another diocese without leave of its bishop. (9) Converts from Novatianism and Montanism are to be received by imposition of hands only, without iteration of baptism; but such as, having left the church, had been rebaptized by heretics, are only to be received after long penance. (10) Priests and Levites who have wives are not to cohabit with them. This rule is supported by argument, resting mainly on the prohibition of intercourse with their wives to priests under the old law before officiating. Christian priests and Levites, it is argued, ought always to be prepared to officiate. (11) Monks, taking minor orders, may not marry. (12) Courtiers and public functionaries are not to be admitted to any clerical order; for they might have to exhibit or preside over entertainments undoubtedly invented by the devil, and were liable to be recalled to his service by the emperor, so as to cause much "sadness and anxiety." Victricius is reminded of painful cases he had witnessed in Rome, when the pope had with difficulty obtained from the emperor the exemption even of priests from being recalled to his service. (13) Veiled virgins who marry are not to be admitted even to penance till the husband's death; but (14) such as have promised virginity, but have not been "veiled by the priest," may be reconciled after penance.
In 405 Innocent was similarly consulted by another bp. of Gaul, Exsuperius of Toulouse, whom he commends for referring doubtful questions to the apostolic see, and gives him the following directions: (1) Priests or deacons who cohabit with their wives are to be deprived, as pope Siricius had directed. The prohibition of conjugal intercourse to the priests in O.T. before officiating is adduced as before; also St. Paul's injunction to the Corinthian laity to abstain for a time, that they might give themselves unto prayer; whence it follows that the clergy, to whom prayer and sacrifice is a continual duty, ought always to abstain. When St. Paul said that a bishop was to be the husband of one wife, he did not mean that he was to live with her, else he would not have said, "They that are in the flesh cannot please God"; and he said "having children," not "begetting" them. The incontinence of clergy whom the injunction of pope Siricius had not reached may, however, be condoned; but they are not to be promoted to any higher order. (2) To the question whether such as had led continually loose lives after baptism might be admitted to penance and communion at the approach of death, Innocent replies that, though in former times penance only and not communion was accorded in such cases, the strict rule may now be relaxed, and both given. (3) Baptized Christians are not precluded from inflicting torture or condemning to death as judges, nor from suing as advocates for judgment in a capital case. Innocent, however, elsewhere precludes Christians who had been so engaged from ordination (Ep. xxvii. ad Felicem). (4) To the question how it was that adultery in a wife was more severely visited than in a husband, it is replied that the cause was the unwillingness of wives to accuse their husbands, and the difficulty of convicting the latter of transgression, not that adultery was more criminal in one case than in the other. (5) Divorced persons who marry again during the life of their first consort and those who marry them are adulterers, and to be excommunicated, but not their parents or relations, unless accessory. Lastly, a list is given of the canonical books of Scripture, the same as are now received by the church of Rome; while certain books, bearing the names of Matthias, James the Less, Peter, John, and Thomas, are repudiated and condemned.
(iii) Spain.—In 400 had been held the first council of Toledo, mainly
to deal with Priscillianists returning to the church. Two such bishops, Symphorius
and Dichtynius, with others, had been received by the council; but certain bishops
of Baetica still refused to communicate with them. A Spanish bishop, Hilary, who
had subscribed the decree of the council of Toledo, went with a priest, Elpidius,
to Rome, to represent this to the pope; complaining also of two bishops, Rufinus
and Minicius, who had ordained other bishops out of their own province without the
knowledge of the metropolitan; and of other prevalent irregularities with respect
to ordinations. The complainants do not appear to have been commissioned by any
synod, or other authority of the Spanish church, to lay these matters before the
pope, but Innocent took the opportunity to address a letter, after a synod held
at Rome, to the bishops of the Toledo council, advising or directing them; though
without asserting, as he does to other churches, the authority of the Roman see.
He condemns those who refused to communicate with reconciled Priscillianists, and
directs the
(iv) Africa.—In 412 or 413 Innocent wrote to Aurelius, bp. of Carthage, requesting him to announce in synod the day for keeping Easter in 414, with the view of its being announced, as was then customary, to the church by the bp. of Rome (Ep. xiv. Galland.). Towards the end of 416 he received synodal letters from councils at Carthage and Milevis in Numidia, and from St. Augustine (who had taken part in the latter council), with four other bishops, on the Pelagian controversy; to all of which he replied in Jan. 417. This correspondence illustrates the relations then subsisting between the West African church and Rome. (For such relations at an early period see STEPHANUS; CYPRIANUS; SIXTUS II.) The synodal letters inform Innocent of the renewal of the condemnation of Pelagius and Coelestius pronounced five years previously at Carthage, and very respectfully request him to add the authority of the apostolical see to the decrees of their mediocrity ("ut statutis nostrae mediocritatis etiam apostolicae sedis auctoritas adhibeatur"); setting forth the heresies condemned, and arguments against them. They recognize the weight that the pope's approval would carry, but do not at all imply that the validity of their own condemnation depended on it. The five bishops imply some doubt as to his probable action, having heard that there were some in Rome who favoured the heretic; and they await the result with suspense, fear, and trembling. Innocent, in replying, assumes much greater dependence on the see of Rome on the part of the Africans than their language had implied, and asserts very large claims to general authority. He commends the bishops of the Carthaginian synod for referring the matter to his judgment, as knowing what was due to the see of the apostle from whom all episcopal authority was derived; and for having observed the decrees of the Fathers, resting on divine authority, according to which nothing done, even in remote and separated provinces, was to be considered settled till it had come to the knowledge of the Roman see and been confirmed by its authority, that all waters proceeding from the fountain of their birth, the pure streams of the uncorrupted head, might flow through the different regions of the whole world. The abundant stream of Rome, flowing, the bishops hoped, from the same fountainhead as the smaller stream of Africa, becomes in Innocent the fountain-head from which all streams must flow. He addresses the bishops of the Milevetan synod in the same strain. He then proceeds to condemn the Pelagian heresy in strong terms and to anathematize all its abettors and supporters. To adduce proofs, he says, is unnecessary, since his correspondents had said all that was wanted. He declines to accede to their suggestion that he should make overtures to Pelagius, or send for him to Rome. It is for the heretical, he says, to come to me of his own accord, if ready to retract his errors; if not ready, he would not obey my summons; if he should come, repudiate, his heresy, and ask pardon, he will be received (Epp. Augustine, xc.–xcv.; Epp. Innoc. clxxxi.–clxxxiii. Galland.).
In a letter to Decentius, bp. of Eugubium in Umbria (dated a.d. 416), the claims of the Roman see are no less strongly asserted than in the letters to the African bishops. Innocent tells him that no one can be ignorant of the obligation of all to observe the traditions, and those alone, which the Roman church had received from St. Peter, the prince of the apostles, and which that church ever preserved—especially as no churches had been founded in Italy, Gaul, Spain, Africa, Sicily, or the interjacent islands, except by St. Peter or his successors. The letter proceeds to require observance of various Roman usages. (1) The pax in the Eucharist must be given after communion, not before. (2) The names of such as offer oblations at the Eucharist are not to be recited by the priest before the sacrifice, or the canon. (3) Infants after baptism may not be confirmed by unction except by the bishop; but priests may anoint other parts of the body than the forehead, using oil blessed by the bishop. (4) Saturday as well as Friday in each week is to be observed as a fast, in commemoration of the whole time Christ was in the grave. (5) Demoniacs may receive imposition of hands from priests or other clergy commissioned by the bishop. (6) St. James's direction that the sick are to call for the elders of the church does not preclude the bishop from administering the unction; but not only priests, but any Christian may anoint, using chrism prepared by the bishop. Penitents, however, to whom the other sacraments are denied, may not receive unction, "quia genus sacramenti est." It appears plain from the way the unction of the sick is spoken of that it was then used with a view to recovery, not as a last rite. (7) One Roman custom, that of sending, on the Lord's day, the Eucharist consecrated by the bishop to the presbyters throughout the city, that all on that day at least may partake of one communion, is not to be observed where it involved carrying the sacrament to great distances. Even in Rome it is not taken to the priests in the various cemeteries (Epp. xxv. Galland.).
II. EAST.—In 404 Innocent began
to intervene in the affairs of the East in the matter of St. Chrysostom, who had
been deposed and driven from Constantinople after the synod of the Oak in 403, and
finally expelled on June 20, 404. A letter reached Innocent from Chrysostom himself,
another from the 40 bishops who remained in his communion, a third from his clergy.
That from Chrysostom
This appeal of St. Chrysostom and his friends involved no acknowledgment of any authority of the Roman bishop over the Eastern church. They apply to him not as a superior or a judge, but as a powerful friend whose support they solicit. Chrysostom's letter, which in Roman editions appears as addressed to the pope alone, was really written to the three principal bishops of the West. Its contents leave no doubt of this. Honorius, in his letters to his brother, speaks of the Western bishops generally having been applied to, and quotes their views as of equal moment with that of the bishops of Rome. Innocent in his replies makes no claim to adjudicate, nor does he make any assertion of the universal supremacy of his see, such as appears in his letters to the Africans and to Decentius, but recommends a council of Easterns and Westerns as the proper authoritative tribunal. For a view of papal claims over the East less than a century later see FELIX III. and ACACIUS (7).
After the death of Chrysostom the pope and all the West remained for some time out of communion with Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch. The church of Antioch was the first to be reconciled, when bp. Alexander in 413 replaced the name of Chrysostom in the diptychs of his church, and sent a legation to Rome to sue for restoration of communion. This was cordially granted in a synodal letter signed by 20 Italian bishops. Innocent wrote to Alexander congratulating him warmly and desiring a frequent interchange of letters. At the same time Acacius of Beroea, one of Chrysostom's bitterest opponents, was received into communion by Innocent through Alexander, to whom the letter of communion was sent for transmission. Atticus of Constantinople was reconciled a few years later. Moved partly by the threatening attitude of the populace, and partly by the advice of the emperor, he consented, with a bad grace, to place Chrysostom's name on the diptychs, and was received into communion. The church of Alexandria was the last to come to terms. Theophilus's nephew Cyril, succeeding him Oct. 18, 412, was urged by Atticus to yield, and did so at last, though not till 417, ten years after the death of Chrysostom. Throughout Innocent appears to have acted with dignity, fairness, firmness, and moderation. Alexander having, later, consulted the pope as to the jurisdiction of his patriarchal see of Antioch, Innocent replied that in accordance with the canons of Nice (Can. vi.) the authority of the bp. of Antioch extended over the whole diocese, not only over one province. Diocese is here used, in its original sense, to denote a civil division of the empire comprising many provinces. The Oriental diocese here referred to included 15 provinces, over the metropolitans of which the patriarchal jurisdiction of Antioch is alleged to extend.
Two more letters, written in the last year of his life, further illustrate Innocent's
attitude towards the churches of the East. St. Jerome had been attacked in his cell
at Bethlehem by a band of ruffians and had narrowly escaped; the two noble virgins,
Eustochium and her niece Paula, living in retirement under his spiritual direction,
had been driven from their house, which had been burnt, and some of their attendants
killed. The party of Pelagius was suspected. Innocent wrote to Jerome, offering
to exert "the whole authority. of the apostolic see" against the offenders, if they
could be discovered, and to appoint judges to try them; and to John, bp. of Jerusalem,
who was no friend to Jerome, in an authoritative tone, reproving him severely for
allowing such
III. ALARIC.—There were three Gothic invasions of Italy—the first under Alaric, the second under Radagaisus, the third led by Alaric himself, who laid siege to Rome a.d. 408. Innocent was within the city, the emperor at Ravenna. Famine and plague having ensued during the siege, Zosimus, the heathen historian, alleges that Pompeianus, the prefect of the city, having been persuaded by certain Etruscan diviners that their spells and sacrifices, performed on the Capitol, could draw down lightnings against the enemy, Innocent was consulted and consented, but the majority of the senators refused (v. 40). Sozomen mentions the circumstance but does not implicate Innocent (ix. 6). It seems highly improbable that Innocent would sanction such rites of heathenism. In 409 the offer of a ransom led Alaric to raise the siege, and two deputations were sent to the emperor at Ravenna to induce him to sanction the terms agreed on. The first having failed, Innocent accompanied the second, and thus was not in the city when it was finally taken on Aug. 24, 410. Alaric's invasion was regarded as a judgment on heathen rather than Christian Rome, and as a vindication of the church, the pope's providential absence being compared by Orosius to the saving of Lot from Sodom. Undoubtedly the event was a marked one in the supersession of heathenism by Christianity. The destruction of the old temples, never afterwards restored, the dispersion and ruin of families which clung most to the old order, the view that judgment had fallen on old heathen Rome, which its deities had been powerless to protect, all helped to complete the triumph of the church and to add importance to the reign of Innocent. Soon after this great event Augustine (a.d. 413) began his famous work, de Civitate Dei, though he took 13 years to complete it, in which he sees a vision of the kingdom of God rising on the ruins of the kingdom of the world—a vision which gradually took more distinct shape in the idea already more or less grasped by Innocent, of a Catholic Christendom united under the Roman see.
Innocent's Epistolae et Decreta are printed in Galland's Bibl. Pat. t. viii. and in Migne, Patr. Lat. t. xx. Cf. Innocent the Great by C. H. C. Pirie-Gordon (Longmans; 4 maps and 8 genealogical tables).
Irenaeus (1), bp. of Lyons. Very little is known of his personal history except that he was a native of Asia Minor; in early youth had seen and heard bp. Polycarp at Smyrna; afterwards came into Gaul, and during the persecution of 177 carried, as presbyter of Lyons, a letter from the Gallican confessors to the Roman bp. Eleutherus (174 or 175–189); after the death of bp. Pothinus of Lyons (177) became his successor (Eus. H. E. v. 5), and was still bishop in the time of bp. Victor, who succeeded Eleutherus at Rome (189–198 or 199); and that he took a leading part in all ecclesiastical transactions and controversies of the time, St. Jerome speaks of him (de Vir. Ill. 35) as having flourished in the reign of Commodus (180–192). His birth is assigned to widely distant epochs. The earliest and the latest dates proposed are 50 years apart (97–147). Various considerations lead us to fix on c. 126, or possibly c. 136, as the latest admissible date.
Of his youthful literary training and culture we can only judge from his writings, which shew some acquaintance with the Greek poets and philosophers; he cites Homer, Hesiod, Pindar, and Plato. Of his Christian training he tells us that, besides instructions from Polycarp, he had other teachers, "Presbyters" (of Asia Minor), whom he designates as mediate or immediate disciples of the apostles (Haer. ii. 22, 5; iv. 27, 1; 32, 1; v. 5, 30, 1; 33, 3; 36, 1). Whether he was personally acquainted with Papias, whom he mentions so frequently, is uncertain. If he was in Rome a.d. 156 he doubtless continued his studies there. The time of his removal into Gaul is unknown, but there were close ties between the missionary church of Gaul and the mother-churches of Asia Minor. At the time of the persecution, to which the aged bp. Pothinus fell a victim in the 17th year of Marcus Aurelius, a.d. 177 (cf. my Chronologie der römischen Bischöfe, p. 185), Irenaeus was a presbyter at Lugdunum. That Irenaeus wrote the epistle of the Gallican confessors to the churches of Asia Minor and Phrygia, which so vividly describes the persecution (ap. Eus. H. E. v. 1), is an uncertain conjecture. There is indeed a fragment preserved by Oecumenius and assigned to Irenaeus (Fragm. Graec, xiii. ap. Harvey, ii. 482 seq.), which really stands in very close connexion with that epistle, mentioning in a similar way the calumny about "Thyestean banquets," which rested on depositions wrung from tortured slaves, the endeavours of the persecutors to force the martyrs Sanctus and Blandina to make alike confession, and Blandina's answer, which, though not identical with that in the epistle, is nearly related to it. Irenaeus's mission to Rome was undertaken to intercede with bp. Eleutherus for the Montanists of Asia Minor in the name and on behalf of the Gallican confessors (Eus. H. E. v. 3, 4). That another object of the journey was that Irenaeus himself might obtain episcopal consecration at Rome is an unproved assertion of some Roman Catholic authors. The common assumption that there was then no episcopal see but Lyons in all Gaul is hardly warranted by the fact that in the narrative of the persecution at Vienne a deacon only and no bishop is mentioned. A better argument is that Eusebius (H. E. v. 23) appears to speak of Irenaeus as bishop of all the churches of Gaul. But neither can be regarded as a sure proof.
As bp. of Lyons Irenaeus was distinguished for his zeal for the conversion of
the heathen (cf. the Acts of St. Ferreolus and his companions, Boll. Acta SS.
16 Jun. iii.), and yet more by his conflicts with heretics and his strenuous endeavours
to maintain the peace of the church, in true accord with his name
Εἰρηναῖος (Peace-man). His great work Against
all Heresies was probably written during his episcopate. The preface informs
us that he then first wrote as an ecclesiastical writer. We subsequently find him
exerting himself to protect the churches of his native country (Asia Minor) from
Roman pretensions and aggression. The Roman bp. Victor was
How long Irenaeus was bishop is uncertain. His death is commonly assigned to 202 or 203. This rests on the assumption that he was martyred under Septimius Severus. But such a martyrdom is by no means established. Tertullian, Hippolytus, Eusebius, Epiphanius, Ephrem, Augustine, Theodoret, are silent. In the Syriac fragments Irenaeus is frequently spoken of as "a disciple of Polycarp, bishop and martyr," but not himself honoured with the martyr's title either there or in any quotations from his writings. The first witness for his martyrdom is found in Jerome's commentary on Isaiah, written c. 410, where (c. 64) Irenaeus is spoken of as vir apostolicus episcopus et martyr; but when elsewhere treating ex professo of his life and writings (de Vir. Ill. c. 35), Jerome is silent as to his martyrdom. As Dodwell conjectures, the words et martyr may be an interpolation. If not, Jerome must have learnt the alleged fact subsequently to 392, when the de Viris Illustribus was written. There is no witness for it earlier than the 5th cent.
Writings.—The chief was the great work in five books against Gnosticism entitled Ἔλεγγος καὶ ἀνατροπὴ τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσευς, Detectio et eversio falso cognominatae agnitionis. (The full Greek title is found in Eus. H. E. v. 7; Phot. Bibl. Cod. 120 and elsewhere; cf. also frequent references to it by Irenaeus in the praefationes to bks. ii. iv. v. and the conclusion of bk. iv.) It is commonly cited under the briefer title πρός αἱρέσεις (contra Haereses) We possess it entire in the Latin version only, which, however, must have been made from the Greek original very soon after its composition, since the Latin was used by Tertullian some ten years after, in his tractate adv. Valentinianos. Its translator was a Celt (witness the barbarous Latinity); probably one of the clergy of Lyons. Most of the original work being now lost, the slavish literality of the translator imparts to his version a very high value. Many obscurities of expression, arising in part from a misunderstanding of the Greek idiom, admit an easy solution when translated back into Greek. Beside this Latin version, which appears to have soon superseded the Greek original in the Western church, there was a Syriac translation, of which numerous fragments are extant and were first put together by Harvey in his ed. of Irenaeus (ii. 431 seq.). They are derived from the Brit. Mus. collection of Nitrian MSS., some of which are as old as the 6th, 7th, and 8th cents. (cf. Harvey, ii. 431, note). To these are added (Nos. xxi. xxxi. and xxxii.) fragments of an Armenian interpolated version first published by Pitra in his Spicilegium Solesmense, t. i. (Paris, 1852). Of these No. xxi. only is taken from the work Against Heresies. The almost entire agreement between these Syriac fragments and the Old Latin version further witnesses its genuineness and fidelity. The Greek original, said to have been still extant in the 16th cent., was made great use of by Hippolytus (or whoever wrote the Philosophumena), Epiphanius, and Theodoret. To the numerous extracts in these writers, esp. the first two, we owe the greater part of the original Greek of bk. i.—the preface and cc. 1–21 entire, and numerous fragments besides. Of the other books, the Greek has come down to us in isolated passages, mostly through citations by Eusebius. The ed. of Wigan Harvey (2 vols. Camb. 1857) is based on a careful collation of the Codices Claromont. and Arundel. His Prolegomena contain minute investigations into the origin, characteristics and main phenomena of Gnosticism, as well as concerning the life and writings of Irenaeus.
Against Heresies was written in Gaul. (Irenaeus says so expressly, lib. i. praef. 3, cf. i. 13, 7. We follow Massuet's division of chapters.) The date of composition is determined iii. 3, 3, in which he speaks of Eleutherus as then twelfth in succession to the apostles on the episcopal chair of Rome (νῦν δωδεκάτῳ τόπῳ τὸν τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς ἀπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων κατέχει κλῆρον Ἐλεύθερος). According to this, the third book was written at the earliest a.d. 174 or 175, at the latest a.d. 189 (cf. Chronologie der röm. Bischöfe, pp. 184 sqq.). The commencement and completion of the work were possibly some years apart, but we cannot put the date of bks. iv. and v. so late as the episcopate of Victor (189–198 or 199). We may tentatively assume 182, the mid-period of Eleutherus's episcopate, or (since the first two books alone appear to have been written immediately after each other—cf. the prefaces to bks. ii. and iii.–v.) we may propose from a.d. 180 to 185 as the date of the whole work. To assign a more exact date is hopeless. That Irenaeus wrote as bishop, and not earlier than 178 as presbyter, is by far most probable, though it cannot be drawn with absolute certainty from the words of the preface to bk. v. to which Massuet appeals.
As the first external motive for its composition, Irenaeus himself mentions
(lib. i. praef.; ii. 17, 1; iii. praef.) the request of a friend for some instruction
as to the heretical opinions of the Valentinians and how to refute them. The recent
spread of the Valentinian sect through the Rhone district had already led Irenaeus
to acquaint himself particularly
His sources were primarily the writings of the heretics themselves. In the preface of bk. i. he speaks of the ὑπομνήματα of disciples of Valentinus, and observes that he has been in personal communication with some of them. More particularly it is the school of Ptolemaeus, an ἀπάνθισμα τῆς Οὐαλεντίνου σχολῆς, whose dogmatic system he sets himself to describe. The detailed account (c. Haer. i. 1–7) describes its development in the Western or Italian form, and this from several writings, one of which Clemens Alexandrinus also made use of in the excerpta ex scriptis Theodoti, cc. 44–65. From another source were derived additional details, cc. 11 and 12, of various opinions within the Valentinian system and of Valentinus himself, Secundus, Ptolemaeus, and others; c. 13, 1–5, cc. 14 and 15 are concerned with Marcus, his magic arts and theories about the symbolism of letters and numbers, concluding with a citation of some Iambic Senarii, written against him by a "Divinae aspirationis Senior et Praeco veritatis" (ὁ θεόπνευστος πρεσβύτης καὶ κήρυξ τῆς ἀληθείας). The same authority is further designated, after the quotation, as "amator Dei senior," which Epiphanius expresses by ὁ θεοφιλὴς πρεσβύτης.
Two other sources, from which Irenaeus may have derived acquaintance with Gnostic opinions, have been conjectured by Harnack (Zur Quellenkritik der Geschichte des Gnosticismus, p. 56) for the information in bks. iii.–v. concerning the details of Marcion's system, which with the Valentinian is the heresy most frequently referred to in that portion. These were Marcion's own writings and a refutation of Marcion by a presbyter of Asia Minor.
It would be of great interest to obtain more exact impressions of those other presbyters to whose words and writings Irenaeus makes frequent reference. Besides the "God-loving elder," from whom he borrows the Iambic Senarii against Marcus, Irenaeus cites on various occasions from "presbyters and disciples of the apostles" ; under which title, besides Polycarp, bp. Papias of Hierapolis must certainly be included. From bk. iv. of Papias's Λογίων κυριακῶν ἐξηγήσεις Irenaeus cites the saying traditionally attributed to our Lord on the alleged testimony of St. John concerning the glories of His millennial kingdom (v. 33, 3 sqq.).
Of the writings of Polycarp there is no certain trace in Irenaeus, but he held in faithful remembrance his oral utterances. He knows indeed several writings of the bp. of Smyrna (Ep. ad Florin. ap. Eus. v. 20) and specially mentions Polycarp's Ep. to the Philippians (Haer. iii. 3, 4). Of the works of Justin Martyr Irenaeus knew and used—besides the Syntagma against all Heresies, and the possibly identical Syntagma against Marcion—the first Apologies, without, however, citing it (Quellen der ältesten Ketzergeschichte, p. 63). From which of Justin's works the citation, v. 26, 2, is derived cannot be decided. With far greater confidence we may assume Irenaeus to have used the Memoirs of Hegesippus (iii. 3, 3; 4, 3, cf. Quellen der alt. Ketzergesch. p. 73), and he makes one citation from the Ep. of Ignatius to the Romans (v. 28, 4), but without mentioning his name.
Irenaeus's great work is divided into five books. Bk. i. contains a detailed
account of the Valentinian system, together with a general view of the opinions
of the other sects. Bk. ii. undertakes to exhibit the unreasonableness and self-contradiction
of the doctrines of Valentinianism. His chief object here is to combat the doctrine
of the Demiurge or Creator as a subordinate existence outside the Pleroma, of limited
power and insight, and separated from the "Father" by an infinite chasm. He also
controverts the Valentinian doctrine concerning the Pleroma and its antithesis the
Kenoma, the theory of Emanations, of the Fall of Achamoth, and the formation of
the lower world through the sufferings of the Sophia; and finally, at great
length, the Gnostic teaching concerning souls, and the distinction between Psychici
and Pneumatici. Bks. iii. iv. and v. contain the refutation of Gnostic doctrines
from Holy Scripture, preceded by a short dissertation on the sources of Christian
truth. The one foundation of the faith is the gospel transmitted first by oral tradition
and subsequently committed to writing. The Gnostics allow neither the refutation
of their doctrines out of Scripture nor disproof from tradition. Against the one
they appeal to a secret doctrine handed down among themselves, against the other
to their own higher knowledge (gnosis). Irenaeus meets them by stating the characteristics
of genuine apostolic tradition as ensuring the right interpretation of Holy Scripture.
The chief media and transmitters of this tradition are the apostolic churches
and their episcopal succession from the apostles themselves (Haer. iii. 1–4).
He proceeds to give the proof from
Of other writings of Irenaeus, fragments only, or bare names, have been preserved. Whether he ever carried out the intention, announced i. 27, 4 and iii. 12, 12, of writing a special treatise against Marcion, cannot be determined. Eusebius (H. E. v. 8) mentions this intention, and elsewhere (H. E. iv. 25) reckons Irenaeus, with Philip of Gortyna and Modestus, among authors who had written against Marcion. Of his Epistle to Florinus, Eusebius has preserved a considerable fragment. FLORINUS was an older contemporary of Irenaeus and a disciple of Polycarp. He was afterwards a presbyter at Rome, and was deposed, apparently for heresy (Eus. H. E. v. 15). The epistle of Irenaeus, addressed to him, bore also, according to Eusebius (H. E. v. 20), the title περὶ μοναρχίας ἢ περὶ τοῦ μὴ εἶναι τὸν Θεὸν ποιητὴν κακῶν, which implies that he had adopted Gnostic opinions. The "God" whom he apparently regarded as the author of evil was the Gnostic Demiurge. He afterwards, according to Eusebius, inclined to Valentinianism; whereupon Irenaeus addressed him in another treatise, περί ὀγδοάδος, from which Eusebius quotes the concluding words, conjuring the copyists to make an accurate and faithful transcript of his words. The epistle περὶ μοναρχίας is regarded by Leimbach (Zeitschrift für lutherische Theologie, 1873, pp. 626 seq.) and Lightfoot (Contemp. Rev. 1875, May, p. 834) as one of Irenaeus's earliest writings. Leimbach would date it between 168 and 177, but his arguments are trivial. Of far greater importance is Lightfoot's argument that the treatise περὶ ὀγδοάδος was probably written before the great work Against Heresies, since its detailed treatment of the Valentinian system would have made a special tractate on the Ogdoad superfluous. But Lightfoot seems to have overlooked the fragmentary portion of an epistle to Victor of Rome, preserved among the Syriac fragments of Irenaeus (Fragm. xxviii. ap. Harvey, ii. p. 457), which is introduced with the words, "And Irenaeus, bp. of Lyons, to Victor, bp. of Rome, concerning Florinus, a presbyter who was a partisan of the error of Valentinus, and published an abominable book, thus wrote:" whereupon follows the fragment itself. From these words it appears that the epistle from which the fragment was taken could not have been written till after the first three books Against Heresies, probably not till after the completion of the whole, and, at the earliest, c. 190.
If Eusebius is right in making the deposition of the Roman presbyter Blastus
contemporaneous with that of Florinus, the epistle addressed to the former by Irenaeus
and entitled περὶ σχίσματος (Eus. H. E.
v. 20) must belong to the same period. Blastus was, according to Eusebius, the head
of the Roman Montanists (H. E. v. 15)—cf. also Pacianus, Ep. ad Sympronian.
c. 1—and, according to Pseudo-Tertullian (Libell. adv. Omn. Haereses, 22),
a Quartodeciman. Both are probably correct. We know that the Montanists of Asia
Minor (like the Christians there) kept Easter on Nisan 14 (cf. Schwegler, Montanismus,
p. 251); it is therefore quite credible that Blastus, as a Montanist, may have conformed
to Quartodeciman practice, and, as a member of the Roman presbytery, may have sought
to introduce it into Rome. But if Blastus be the one referred to in another Syriac
fragment (Fragm. xxvii. ap. Harvey, ii. 456), he was not an Asiatic but an
Alexandrian; and on this supposition his Quartodecimanism must have come from his
close connexion with the Montanists of Asia Minor, since the Paschal calendar of
Alexandria was the same as that of Rome. One can, moreover, quite understand bp.
Victor's responding to any attempt on Blastus's part to create a schism in the Roman
church by introducing the Asiatic custom, with deposition from the presbyteral office.
Such a breach of discipline in his own diocese (the actual spectacle of some Roman
Christians keeping Easter with the Asiatics on Nisan 14, and in opposition to the
ancestral custom of the bps. of Rome) would naturally excite him to uncompromising
harshness towards the brethren of Asia Minor generally; so that on these refusing
to conform to the Roman custom, he at once cut off the churches of the Asiatic province
and the neighbouring dioceses from his church-communion (cf. my art. in Zeitschrift
für wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1866, pp. 192 seq., and Chronologie der
röm. Bischöfe, p. 174). These ecclesiastical troubles moved the man of peace,
Irenaeus, to send letters of remonstrance to both Blastus and bp. Victor. To the
former, which according to Eusebius bore the title
περὶ σχίσματος, may possibly be assigned the Syriac fragment (xxvii. ap.
Harvey, ii. 456) introduced with the following words: "Irenaeus, bp. of Lyons, who
was a contemporary of Polycarp, disciple of the apostle, bp. of Smyrna and martyr,
and for this reason is held in just estimation, wrote to an Alexandrian that it
is right, with respect to the Feast of the Resurrection, that we should celebrate
it upon the first day of the week." But inasmuch as we know from Eusebius (H.
E. v. 24) that Irenaeus wrote on the same subject to several persons, it is
possible that this Alexandrian may have been another than Blastus. Of the letter
to Victor Eusebius (ib.) has preserved a considerable
Of other writings of Irenaeus Eusebius mentions (H. E. v. 26) a short tractate, πρὲς Ἕλληνας, which bore also the title περὶ ἐπιστήμης, an ἐπίδειξις τοῦ ἀποστολικοῦ κηρύγματος, addressed to a certain Marcian; and a βιβλίον διαλέξεων διαφόρων, in which he is said to have cited Hebrews and the Wisdom of Solomon. Jerome, apparently copying Eusebius, makes, however, a distinction (de Vir. Ill. 35) between the λόγος πρὸς Ἕλληνας and the περὶ ἐπιστήμης ("scripsit . . . contra Gentes volumen breve et de Disciplina aliud"). The tractate on Apostolical Preaching addressed to Marcian appears to have been a catechetical work on the Rule of Faith. The βιβλίον διαλέξεων διαφόρων appears, in accordance with the early usage of the word διαλέξεις (cf. Harvey, i. p. clxvii. sqq.), to have been a collection of homilies on various Scripture texts. Rufinus incorrectly renders διαλέξεις by Dialogus; Jerome by Tractatus. From these homilies were probably taken the numerous Gk. fragments found in various catenae, containing expositions of various passages of the Pentateuch and the historical books of O.T. and of St. Matthew and St. Luke (Fr. Graec. xv.–xxiii., xxv.–xxix., xxxi., xxxiii., xxxiv., xxxix., xl., xlii.–xlvii.), as well as the Syriac fragment of an exposition of the Song of Solomon (Fr. Syr. xxvi. ap. Harvey, ii. 455) and the Armenian homily on the Sons of Zebedee (Fr. Syr. xxxii. ap. Harvey, ii. 464 sqq.). To the same collection would also belong a tractate on the History of Elkanah and Samuel, mentioned in a Syriac manuscript (Harvey, ii. 507 note).
His Theology and Influence on Ecclesiastical Development.—Irenaeus, with
Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian, on the one side, and Clemens Alexandrinus and Origen
on the other, was a main founder of the ancient Catholic church, as it rose amid
conflicts with Gnosticism and Montanism, out of the church of the post-apostolic
era. Baur and the Tübingen school were wrong in explaining the development of primitive
Catholic Christianity as the fruit of a compromise effected by the Pauline and Petrine
parties soon after the middle of the 2nd cent. to overcome the new opposition. The
earliest post-apostolic form of Christianity was no mere product of conflicting
antitheses of the apostolic time, or of their reconciliation. The Jewish-Christian
communities of Palestine and Syria formed, even towards the end of the 1st cent.,
a small and vanishing minority as compared to the swelling dimensions of the Gentile
church. That to some extent Jewish-Christian influences did operate upon Gentile
Christianity during the former half of the 2nd cent. need not wholly be denied;
yet the one feature in which we are most tempted to trace them—the conception of
the gospel as a new law—is quite as much the outcome of an internal development
within the Gentile church itself. The ultimate triumph of Christian universalism,
and the recognized equality between Jewish and Gentile members of the church of
the Messiah, was a fruit of the life-long labours of St. Paul. The new Christian
community, largely Gentile, regarded itself as the true people of God, as the spiritual
Israel, and as the genuine heir of the church of the O.T., while the great mass
of Jewish unbelievers were, as a penalty for their rejection of the true Messiah,
excluded from the blessings of the kingdom of God. To this new spiritual Israel
were speedily, in part at least, transferred the forms of the O.T. theocracy, and
all the Jewish Scriptures were received as divinely inspired documents by the new
church. But, whereas St. Paul had emphasized the antithesis between law and gospel,
the Gentile churches after his time attached themselves more closely to the doctrinal
norm of the older apostles, and laid stress on the continued validity of the law
for Christians; though, as it was impossible to bind Gentiles to observe the ceremonial
law, its precepts were given, after the example of the Jewish religious philosophy
of Alexandria, a spiritual interpretation. Already, in Hebrews, we find the
relations between O. and N. T. viewed under the aspect of Type and Anti-type, Prophecy
and Fulfilment. The later Gentile Christianity learned to see everywhere in O.T.
types of the gospel revelation, and thus combined freedom from the Mosaic ceremonial
law with the maintenance of the entire continuity of the O. and N. T. revelation.
The Moral Law, as the centre and substance of the Mosaic revelation, remained the
obligatory norm of conduct for Gentile Christians; Christ had not abrogated the
law of Moses, but fulfilled and completed it. The theological learning of the time
confines itself too exclusively to a typological interpretation of O.T. So much
the greater, on the other hand, is the influence exercised upon these writers by
heathen philosophic culture. In the Apologists of the middle portion of the 2nd
cent.—Justin, Tatian, Theophilus, Athenagoras—this influence appears specially strong.
Justin makes constant endeavours to comprehend Christianity
The widespread appearance of the manifold forms of Gnosticism in the 2nd cent. is a most significant proof of the far-reaching influence exercised by pagan thought and speculation on the Gentile church of that age. The danger from the influx on all sides of foreign thought was all the greater because the Gentile churches had as yet but a feeble comprehension of the ideas specially belonging to Christianity. The conflict with Gnosticism gradually gave fresh vigour to that revival of fundamental Christian and Pauline thought which distinguishes the theology of Irenaeus and of other early "Catholic" doctors at the end of the 2nd and beginning of the 3rd cent. from the simpler and poorer view of Christian truth presented in the works of the early Apologists. The perils with which the Gnostic speculation menaced the Christian system were, on the one hand, concerned with that which formed a common groundwork for Christianity and Judaism—i.e. first and specially the Monotheistic principle itself, and then the doctrines of Divine Justice, Freedom of the Will, and Future Retribution; on the other hand, they had regard to the traditions peculiar to Christianity concerning the historical person and work of Jesus Christ, the genuine human realism of His life and sufferings, the universal application of His redeeming work to all believers, and the external and historical character of that final restitution to which Christians looked forward. The Monotheistic idea, the divine μοναρχία, was assailed by the Gnostic doctrine of the Demiurge, the Pleroma, and the series of Aeons; and the universally accepted doctrine of our Lord's Incarnation and Messiahship by the various forms of Gnostic docetism. Further, the whole ethical basis of Christian religion was destroyed by the distinctions which Gnostic teachers made between two or three separate classes of mankind, and by their view of redemption as a purely theoretical process, or as the impartation of true knowledge (gnosis) to those only who by their own originally pneumatic nature had from the beginning been predestined to reception into the heavenly realm of light. Instead of the Christian doctrine of Freewill and consequent responsibility, they taught an iron heathenish metaphysical Necessity, which arbitrarily determined the fortunes of men; instead of a future divine recompense according to the measure of faith and works, a one-sided over-estimation of mere knowledge as the one condition of ultimate salvation; instead of the original Christian notion of the final consummation as a series of great outward visible occurrences, the resurrection of the flesh, a day of final judgment, and the setting up on earth of a millennial kingdom, they taught the spiritualistic conception of a saving deliverance of pneumatic souls and their translation into the upper world; whereas for the Psychici was reserved only a limited share in such knowledge and salvation, and for the material ("hylic" or "choic") man and for the earthly bodies of men, nothing but an ultimate and complete annihilation. It cannot be denied that both the Gentile Christianity of that era and the Catholic theology of following times appropriated various elements nearly related to these Gnostic speculations. A Catholic gnosis also appeared, which differed essentially from that heretical gnosis in intending to maintain unimpaired the received foundations of Christian faith. Yet, in truth, the idealistic speculations of the Alexandrine school were separated from those of the heretical gnosis by very uncertain lines of demarcation, and were afterwards, in some essential points, rejected by the church. Irenaeus, in contradistinction to the Alexandrine doctors, appears to have been less concerned with setting up a Catholic in opposition to the heretical gnosis, than with securing the foundations of the common Christian faith by strengthening the bands of existing church unity. He recognizes certain subjects which, as lying outside the rule of faith delivered to all, might be safely entrusted to the deeper and more searching meditations and inquiries of the more enlightened, but these related only to a clearer understanding of the details of the history of divine revelation, the right interpretation of parables, insight into the divine plan of human salvation (why God should bear with such long-suffering the apostasy of angels and the disobedience of man at the Fall), the differences and unity of the two Testaments, the necessity for the Incarnation of the Logos, the second coming of Christ at the end of time, the conversion of the heathen, the resurrection of the body, etc. (Haer. i. 10, 3). These questions would arise in the course of the Gnostic controversy, but the form in which Irenaeus presents them assumes everywhere a clear antithesis to Gnostic speculation and a firm retention of the Catholic rule of faith. Only in quite an isolated form is once named the question why one and the same God should have created the temporal and the eternal, the earthly and the heavenly; while Irenaeus insists strongly on the narrow bounds of human knowledge and insight, and on the impossibility for mortal man to know the reasons for everything (ii. 25, 3; 28, 1), and is never weary of chastising the arrogant presumption of the Pneumatici who exalt themselves above the Creator, while their impotence in the presence of His works is manifest to all (ii. 30, 1 sqq.).
His theoretical refutation of Gnostc opinions, e.g. in bk. ii., is full
of acute remarks. His main purpose is to repel the Gnostic assault on the divine
monarchia. He shews that by the separation of the Creator from the highest God,
the absolute being of God Himself is denied. Neither above nor beside the Creator
Himself can there be any other principle, for so God Himself would cease to be the
In the interest of the same absolute divine Perfection and Unity, Irenaeus controverts the Valentinian doctrine of the Aeons. Besides noting the arbitrary way in which the Pleroma is made to consist of 30 Aeons, neither more nor less (ii. 12, 1; 15, 1; 16, 1), he finds fault with the anthropomorphic conceptions behind the whole theory of emanations. The fact that the Propator Himself is reckoned as an Aeon, the unemanate, unborn, illimitable, formless One placed in the same class with emanations and births and limitations and forms, destroys the absolute perfection of the divine Nature (ii. 12, 1). Again, the separation from the Godhead of its own indivisible elements, the conception of the divine Ἔννοια, the divine Νοῦς, the divine Λόγος, etc., as so many hypostases, which in various stages have issued from its bosom, is an unwarrantable transfer of human passions and affections to the divine, which, on the contrary, is all Ἔννοια, all Νοῦς, all Λόγος, and knows of no such division from itself (ii. 13). He subjects to acute criticism the manner in which each Aeon is supposed to have been produced: was it without substantial separation, as the ray proceeding from the sun, or was it hypostatical, as one human being is personally distinct from all others, or was it by organic growth, as the branch from the tree? He asks whether these emanations are all of the same substance with those from which they proceed and contemporaneous with them, or have come forth in different stages? Whether they are all simple and alike, as spirits and lights, or composite and corporeal and of various forms? (ii. 17, 1 sqq.). He insists on carrying to their literal consequences the mythological conceptions which regarded the Valentinian Aeons as so many distinct personalities, produced according to human analogy among themselves; and he offers the alternative, that they must either be like their original Parent the Father and therefore impassible as He is (in which case there could be no suffering Aeon like the Valentinian Sophia), or different from Him in substance and capable of suffering, upon which the question arises, how such differences of substance could come to exist in the unchangeable Pleroma.
So acute a polemic must have equally served the interests of philosophy by its maintenance of the absolute character of the divine idea and of religion by its assertion of the divine monarchia. Irenaeus, like other opponents of Gnosticism, was clearly convinced that the whole system betrayed influences of heathen thought. The theory that everything must return to the originals of its component parts, and that God Himself is bound by this Necessity, so that even He cannot impart to the mortal immortality, to the corruptible incorruption, was derived by the Gnostics from the Stoics; the Valentinian doctrine of the Soter as made up from all the Aeons, each contributing thereto the flower of his own essence, is nothing more than the Hesiodic fable about Pandora.
Yet the Gnostics wished and meant to be Christians, and indeed set up a claim
to possess a deeper knowledge of Christian truth than the Psychici of the church.
Like their opponents, they appealed to Scripture in proof
Irenaeus in his controversy with the Gnostics
The learned church antiquarian Hegesippus had, c. 170, undertaken long journeys to assure himself of the general agreement of Christian communities in their doctrinal traditions; in each apostolic church he had set himself to inquire for the unbroken succession of its pastors and their teaching, and records with satisfaction the result of his investigations: "In every succession in every city it is still maintained as the law announces and as the prophets and the Lord." And again, "So long as the sacred choir of the apostles still lived, the church was like a virgin undefiled and pure, and not till afterwards in the times of Trajan did error, which so long had crept in darkness, venture forth into the light of day" (ap. Eus. H. E. iv. 22; iii. 32). Irenaeus is specially emphatic in everywhere contrasting the vacillation and variety of heretical opinions with the uniform proclamation of one and the same apostolic witness in all the churches of the world (i. 8, 1; 10, 1). Truth, he remarks, can be but one; while each heretical teacher proclaims a different doctrine of his own invention. How impossible is it that truth can have remained so long hidden from the church and been handed down as secret doctrine in possession of the few! She is free and accessible to all, both learned and ignorant, and all who earnestly seek her find. With almost a shout of triumph he opposes to the unstable, ever-changing, many-headed doctrinal systems and sects of Gnosticism, with their vain appeals to obscure names of pretended disciples of the apostles or to supposititious writings, the one universal norm of truth which all the churches recognise." The church, though dispersed through the whole world, is carefully guarding the same faith as dwelling in one and the same house; these things she believes, in like manner, as having one soul and the self-same heart; these, too, she accordantly proclaims, and teaches, and delivers, as though possessing but one mouth. The speeches of the world are many and divergent, but the force of our tradition is one and the same." And again: "The churches in Germany have no other faith, no other tradition, than that which is found in Spain, or among the Celts, in the regions of the East, in Egypt and in Libya, or in these mid parts of the earth." He compares the church's proclamation of the truth to the light of the sun, one and the same throughout the universe and visible to all who have eyes. "The mightiest in word among the presidents of the churches teaches only the same things as others (for no one here is above the Master), and the weak in word takes nothing away from what has been delivered him. The faith being always one and the same, he that can say much about it doth not exceed, he that can say but little doth not diminish" (i, 10, 2). "The tradition of the apostles made manifest, as it is, through all the world can be recognized in every church by all who wish to know the truth" (iii. 3, 1). But this light from God shines not for heretics because they have dishonoured and despised Him (iii. 24, 2). Cf. also the first of Pfaffian fragments (Fr. Graec. xxxv.).
The argument from antiquity is also employed by Irenaeus on behalf of church tradition. If controversies arise about matters of faith, let recourse be had to the most ancient churches in which the apostles themselves once resided and a decisive answer will then be found. This oral apostolic tradition exists even in the churches among barbarous nations, in whose hearts the Spirit, without ink or parchment, has written the old and saving truth (iii. 4, 1 and 2). But while thus the genuine tradition may, in the apostolic churches, be traced back through the successions of the elders to the apostles themselves, the sects and their doctrines are all of later origin. There were no Valentinians before Valentinus, no Marcionites before Marcion. Valentinus himself and Kerdon (Marcion's teacher) did not appear in Rome till the time of Hyginus the ninth bishop after the apostles, Valentinus flourished under Pius, Marcion under Anicetus (iii. 4, 3). All these founders of sects were much later than the apostles (iii. 21, 3) and the first bishops to whom they committed the care of the churches (v. 20, 1). In contradistinction to their ψευδώνυμος γνῶσις the true gnosis consists in the doctrine of the apostles and the maintenance of the pure and ancient constitution of the church (τὸ ἀρχαῖον τῆς ἐκκλησίας σύστημα) throughout the world (iv. 33, 7). The main point then, on which all turns, is the clear proof of a pure transmission of apostolic teaching through immediate disciples of the apostles themselves and their disciples after them. What is the tradition of the elders (πρεσβῦται, πρεσβύτεροι), i.e. the heads of apostolic churches who stood in direct communication with the apostles themselves or with their disciples?—is the question, therefore, which Irenaeus is everywhere asking. These elders are the guardians and transmitters of the apostles' teaching. As in the preceding generation Papias had collected the traditions of "disciples of the Lord," so now Irenaeus is collecting reminiscences of their disciples, mediate or immediate, a Polycarp, a Papias, etc., and as Hegesippus had been careful to inform himself as to the succession of pastors from apostolic times, so Irenaeus, in opposition to the doctrines of the Gnostics, appeals not only to the ancestral teaching maintained in churches of apostolic foundation, such as Rome, Smyrna, Ephesus, but also to the lists of those men who, since the apostles, had presided over them (iii. 3).
The main representatives therefore of genuine apostolical tradition are for Irenaeus
the bishops of the churches as successors of the apostles and guardians of their
doctrines. In the episcopate, as a continuation of the apostolic office, he finds
the one sure pledge of the church's unity and the maintenance of her doctrine. Although
the expression ἐκκλησία καθολική, which came
into vogue towards the end of the 2nd cent., does not occur in his writings, the
thing itself is constantly before him, i.e. the conception of one true church
spread over the earth, and bound together by the one true Faith, in contrast to
the manifold and variegated and apostate forms of "heresy." Its external bond of
unity is the episcopal office. The development of monarchical episcopacy was a primary
consequence of the conflict with Gnosticism, and its origination out of simpler
constitutional forms betrays itself in a mode of expression derived indeed from
earlier times, but still common to Irenaeus, with Tertullian, Clemens Alexandrinus,
Hippolytus, and others, the use, namely, of the official titles,
πρεσβύτεροι and
ἐπίσκοποι, to designate alternately the same
persons. Πρεσβύτεροι in this context are, in
the first place, "elders," i.e. "ancients" or fathers, who represent the
immediate connexion of the early church with the apostolic time. This name or title
is then transferred to the heads of churches, inasmuch as they in succession to
the apostles have been faithful transmitters of what was handed down to them. The
true unbroken apostolical succession and praeconium ecclesiae is therefore
attributed to the same persons, now as πρεσβύτεροι
now as ἐπίσκοποι (iii. 3, 2, cf. iii. 2, 2;
iv. 26, 2, 4, 5; Ep. ad Victorem ap. Eus. H. E. v. 24); nay, in so many words,
the "successio episcopalis" was assigned to the πρεσβύτεροι
(iv. 26, 2). By these "presbyters," however, we are certainly to understand heads
of churches (especially those of apostolic foundation), who alone were capable of
acting as the guardians and maintainers of church unity. The episcopate is for Irenaeus
no mere congregational office, but one belonging to the whole church; the great
importance attached by his contemporaries to the proofs of a genuine apostolical
succession rests on the assumption that the episcopate was the guardian of the church's
unity of teaching, a continuation, in fact, of the apostolic teaching-office, ordained
for that purpose by the apostles themselves. The bishop, in reference to any particular
congregation, is a representative of the whole Catholic church, the very idea of
catholicity being indebted for its completion to this more sharply defined conception
of the episcopal office. In the episcopate thus completely formed the Catholic church
first manifested herself in organic unity as "the body of Christ." As formerly the
apostles, so now the bishops, their successors, are the "ecclesia repraesentativa."
Only through the episcopate as the faithful guardian and transmitter of the apostolical
tradition do such congregations retain their hold on visible church unity and their
possession of the truth (cf. iv. 33, 7). The significance of the episcopal office
rests therefore on the fact of an apostolical succession, and on this historical
connexion of the bishops with the apostolic era depends the certainty of their being
possessed of the true tradition. That this assurance is not illusory is proved by
the actual uniformity of church teaching throughout the world, the agreement of
all the apostolic churches in the confession of the same truth (iii. 3, 3). Beyond
this historical proof of the church's possession of the true teaching through her
episcopate, the argument is not carried further by Irenaeus. The later dogma of
a continua successio Spiritus Sancti, i.e. of an abiding special gift of
the Holy Spirit attached to the episcopate of apostolical succession, has nevertheless
some precursive traces in his writings. Though the Holy
The unity of the Catholic church, thus secured by the continuance of the apostolic office, is regarded by Irenaeus as mainly a doctrinal unity. Of her guardianship of sacramental grace he gives hints only. Yet he is certainly on the way to that conception when he singles out the continuance of spiritual gifts as a special note of the true church, meaning thereby not merely the charisma veritatis. but also the gifts of prophecy and miracle (ii. 32, 4; cf. iii. 11, 9). He is not less decided in opposing schismatics, who destroy the church's unity (iv. 26, 2; 33, 7), than heretics who corrupt her doctrine. In internal divisions among the faithful he never wearies in urging the interests of peace. Neither in the Montanistic movement nor in the Paschal controversy does he see grounds for the severance of church communion. At the same time he determinedly opposes that separatist temper, which, denying the presence of the Spirit in the church, would claim His gifts exclusively for its own sect or party. Even if we are not warranted in identifying with the Montanists those "false prophets" of whom he speaks (iv. 33, 6) as with lying lips pretending to prophesy, any more than those who (iii. 11, 9) deny the gospel of St. John—all the more applicable to them is the following description: "Men who bring about schisms, devoid of true love to God, seeking their own advantage rather than the unity of the church; wounding and dividing for petty reasons the great and glorious body of Christ, and so far as in them lies destroying it; speaking peace, but acting war, and in sober truth straining out the gnat and swallowing the camel. For no reformation which they could bring about would outweigh the evils produced by their schism" (iv. 33, 7). The great importance attached by Irenaeus to the maintenance of church unity rests for him on the assumption that the church being sole depositary of divine truth is the only trustworthy guarantee of human salvation. While himself sharing, with the Montanists, not only the hope of the millennial kingdom but also the expectation of its outward visible glory (v. 32–36) and delighting in reminiscences of what the "elders" (Papias) have handed down concerning it as from the lips of the apostle St. John (v. 33, 3), Irenaeus does, on the other hand, with his conception of the church as an outward visible institution of prime necessity for human salvation, pave the way for that catholic ideal, which, in contrast to the dreams and aspirations of Montanism, would substitute for a glorious vision of the future the existing church on earth as God's visible kingdom. When the visible church as an outward institution comes to be regarded as the essential medium of saving grace, all its forms and ordinances at once acquire a quasi-legal or sacramental character. The church is for Irenaeus an earthly paradise, of the trees of which every one may eat, while heresy has only the forbidden tree of knowledge, whose fruits are death-bringing (v. 20, 2). As the church's faith is the only faith which is true and saving (iii. praef.), so is he alone a Christian man who conforms to the church's institutions and laws (cf. iii. 15, 2; v. 20, 1). The church's sacrifices, the church's prayers, the church's works alone are holy (iv. 18, 1 sqq.; ii. 32, 5).
This essentially legal conception of Christianity was also that of the
generation which followed the apostles. The great Catholic doctors gave to this
legal conception of the
The new precepts which characterize Christianity are, in the first place, the ordinances and institutions of the church. Among other distinguishing notes of the new law Irenaeus further emphasizes that Christians believe not in the Father only but also in the Son, that they do as well as say, and that they abstain from evil desires as well as from evil works (iv. 13, 1). Even while largely using Pauline language in speaking of Justification by Faith (iv. 5, 5; 9, 1; 16, 2; 21, 1), his legal conception is still there. Faith is opposed by Irenaeus to the ψευδώνυμος γνῶσις of the heretics, and essentially consists in the reception of the Regula Fidei, the Rule of Faith; it is therefore simply defined as obedience to the will of God (iv. 16, 5), i.e. a moral duty, and not, as for St. Paul, the subjective form in which a new religious life and relation is first constituted.
This legal conception leads Irenaeus further to insist on the freedom of the will, and on salvation as conditioned by a man's own ethical self-determination. All Catholic practical theology tends to limit the free forgiveness of sins to the moment of baptism, and after that to make salvation dependent on a godly life and the performance of good works. In the same spirit Irenaeus quite innocently puts in juxtaposition justification by obedience to the natural precepts and justification by faith "naturalia legis per quae homo justificatur quae etiam ante legislationem custodiebant qui fide justificabantur et placebant Deo" (iv. 13, 1). He is led thus strongly to insist on the moral law by his opposition to the Gnostic teaching that the spiritual man is exempted from it and obtains salvation through his higher gnosis. His energetic assertion of the freedom of the will has also a polemical object—to refute the Valentinian dualistic doctrine, which made the salvation of the spiritual man the result of his original pneumatic nature (cf. esp. iv. 37). But this perfectly justifiable opposition leads Irenaeus to put too much in the background the doctrine of divine grace as the only source of human salvation. He even puts it as a divine requirement that in order to the Spirit's resting upon them, Christians must, beside their baptismal vocation, be also adorned with works of righteousness (iv. 36, 6). This seems inconsistent with the Pauline teaching that it is only by the gift of the Spirit that Christians are enabled to do good works at all. But, on the other hand, he says that the Spirit dwells in men as God's creation, working in them the will of the Father and renovating into the newness of Christ (iii. 17, 1). As dry ground, without dew from heaven, can bear no fruit, so neither can the soul perform good works without the irrigation of the water of life (iii. 17, 2).
If in his legal conception Irenaeus may be said to anticipate the mode of thought
which characterizes the Catholicism of a later time, the same cannot be said of
his teaching on the sacraments. Indeed the sacramental side of Catholic theology
did not take shape till through and after the Montanistic and Novatianist controversies.
Whereas both these parties insisted on finding the church's sanctity in the spiritual
endowments and personal holiness of individual members, "Catholics" sought for the
note of holiness mainly in the church's sacramental ordinances, or in marvellous
operations of the Holy Spirit in certain functions of her public life. The chief
organ of these operations would be the episcopate, which thus came to be viewed
as not merely the guardian of doctrinal purity, but also the bearer of supernatural
grace and powers, and following the type of the O.T. priesthood as a kind of mediator
between God and men. This
The chief significance of Irenaeus as a theologian consists in his doctrine concerning
the Person and Work of Christ. The doctrine of Christ's Godhead was for the
Gentile Christianity of the post-apostolic age the theological expression of the
absolute significance of that divine revelation which was enshrined in His person
and work. While the Gnostics regarded Christ as only one among numerous eradiations
of the divine essence, thereby imperilling on the one hand the truth of the divine
monarchia, and on the other the absolute and final character of the gospel revelation,
the opposing doctrine of the Godhead of the Logos, and of His Incarnation in Jesus
Christ, provided the exact theological truth and formula of which the Christian
conscience felt the need, in order to gather into one the scattered elements which
the multitude of Gnostic Aeons were dividing. Following the guidance of St. John's
gospel, the more philosophically cultured teachers of the church—Justin, Theophilus,
Tatian, Athenagoras, the Alexandrine Clemens, Origen, Tertullian, and Hippolytus—found
in the doctrine of the Divine Logos the classical expression which they needed for
the unique and absolute character of the gospel revelations. It was in antithesis
both to the Gnostic doctrine of Aeons and the psilanthropism of the Ebionites that
the Divine Logos or Eternal Thought of God Himself was conceived of as the personal
organ of all divine revelation Which had issued from the inner life of the Divine
Paternity. His manifestation in the flesh is therefore the climax of all the revelations
of God in the world. This Logos-doctrine Irenaeus adopted. The invisible Father
is visible in the Logos (iv. 20, 7). The divine "Pleroma" (Irenaeus borrows the
Gnostic term to express the fulness of divine perfection, ii. 1, 3 seq.) is revealed
therein. God Himself is all Intelligence, all Thought, all Logos; what He thinks
He utters, what He utters He thinks; the all-embracing divine intelligence is the
Father Himself, Who has made Himself visible in the Son (ii. 28, 5). The infinite,
immeasurable Father is, in the words of some old teacher of the church, become measurable
and comprehensible in the Son ("immensus Pater in Filio mensuratus"), for the Son
is the "measure of the Father," the manifestation of the Infinite in finite form
(iv. 4, 2). In contrast with Tertullian, Irenaeus's first great purpose and object
is to emphasize the absoluteness and spirituality of God, and therefore to reject
anything like a physical emanation (prolatio) of the Logos, lest God should
be made into something composite, and something other than His own infinite thought
(principalis mens), or His own Logos (ii. 28, 5). The older teachers of the
Logos-doctrine conceived the generation of the Logos after the analogy of the temporal
process from thinking to speaking, and assumed that His issuing from the Father
as a distinct person, i.e. the outspeaking of the inward divine thought,
first took place at the creation. Tertullian represented the same conception in
a more sensuous form. The Father is for him the whole Godhead, the Son "portio totius";
and on this point he expressly recognizes the resemblance between his view and that
of the Gnostics (c. Drax. 8). Irenaeus, on the other hand, is driven by his
own opposition to the Gnostic doctrine of Aeons to reject anything like a
προβολή or prolatio from the Godhead
as a limitation of His infinity or an anthropomorphism. He is therefore the first
doctor of the church who maintained with the utmost distinctness the eternal coexistence
of the Son with the Father ("semper coexistens Filius Patri," ii. 30, 9; iii. 18,
1). His frequent designation of the Son and Holy Spirit as the "Hands of God" is
a figurative expression to denote Their being not so much emanations of the Godhead
as organs of its creative energy. To presumptuous endeavours to comprehend the way
in which the Son comes from the Father he opposes our human ignorance, and mocks
at the vain attempts of those who would transfer human relations to the Infinite
and Unchangeable One ("quasi ipsi obstetricaverint prolationem enunciant," ii. 28,
6). These polemics, if directed primarily against the
His conception of the Logos as the one great and absolute organ of all divine revelations leads Irenaeus, as it did Justin Martyr and the other Apologists, to refer back to His agency all the pre-Christian manifestations of God (iv. 20, 7 seq.). But Irenaeus is the first Christian doctor who expressly applies this thought, in his conflict with the Gnostics, to the origination of the Mosaic law (iv. 9). "Both Testaments proceeded from one and the same head of the family (paterfamilias), our Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, Who spake (of old) to Abraham and to Moses " (cf. iv. 12, 4). But Irenaeus nowhere maintains the precepts of the old ceremonial law as obligatory upon Christians.
The fulfilment of all previous revelations is attained in the personal manifestation of the Logos in the flesh. By the Incarnation of the Son the divine purpose in creation, the union (adunatio, communio, commixtio) of God and man, has been accomplished, and the end is brought back to the beginning (iv. 20, 2, 4; 33, 4; v. 2, 1, et passim).
Together with the Logos the Spirit of God is often spoken of as an organ
of divine revelation. It is not, however, easy to determine their right relation
one to the other. The designation of the Holy Spirit as Wisdom (Sapientia)
reminds us of the Alexandrine phraseology, which λόγος
and σοφία are also distinguished without the
distinction being fully worked out or consistently adhered to. Irenaeus uses the
term "Sapientia" of the Divine Spirit always. But the comprehension of his meaning
is made somewhat difficult by his sometimes speaking of our communion with the Son
as mediated by the Spirit (v. 26, 2), and sometimes of the historical manifestation
of the Logos as the means whereby men become partakers of the Spirit of the Father
(iv. 38, 2). The solution probably is that Irenaeus uses the term "Spirit of God"
in now a narrower, now a wider sense. In the narrower sense the Spirit is the organ
of Divine Revelation in the heart and consciousness of man, and so distinguished
from the Logos as the universal organ of Divine Revelation to all creatures and
all worlds (v. 1, 1; cf. iii. 21, 4; iv. 33, 1, 7, etc.). In the wider sense the
Spirit is the inner Being of God Himself in contradistinction to the material universe
and the σάρξ (caro) or human corporeity.
The former sense is always to be assumed where the Spirit is distinguished from
the Logos as another divine hypostasis, "progenies et figuratio Dei" (iv. 7, 4;
20, 1 seq.); the latter, where the Spirit is spoken of as "the bread of immortality"
(iv. 38, 1) and the life-giving principle from which endless life wells forth (v.
12, 2). It is with this latter meaning that Irenaeus, speaking of the humanity of
Jesus Christ, expresses a thought, often recurred to by later theologians, that
the Spirit is the anointing (unctio, χρίσμα)
and bond of unity between the Father and the Son. The Holy Spirit is in fact, for
him, also the uniting principle between God and man. God through the Spirit imparts
Himself to man; man through the Incarnation enters into God (v. 1, 1). This last
thought leads us on to the grand conception which Irenaeus entertains of the development
of the whole human race from Adam up to Christ. Man was not from the first, according
to Irenaeus, made perfect and immortal, but designed, in God's purpose concerning
him, to become so. But this can only be through the Spirit of God, and in order
that man may be made partaker of the Spirit and thereby united to God, it was necessary
that the Logos should become incarnate (iv. 38, 1 sqq.). The image of God (εἰκὼν
τοῦ Θεοῦ), for which man was created, could not become visible before the
Incarnation, and so man lost this image, the likeness of God, the possession of
the Spirit (v. 16, 2), falling into sin by his own fault, and thereby coming not
only under the power of natural death, but rendered incapable of exhibiting the
image of God (v. 12, 2; 23, 1 seq.). Thus though Irenaeus regards sin, not like
the Gnostics as a necessity of nature, but as man's own free act, he yet works out
the thought that God has permitted the existence of evil because only by the contrast
could goodness be appreciated, like health after sickness, light after darkness,
life after death (iv. 37, 7; 39, 1). Without sin there would have been no consciousness
of need, no desire for union with God, no thankfulness for His mercy (iii. 20, 1
seq.). The chief aim of Irenaeus in these disquisitions is again his conflict with
Gnostic error, especially that of Marcion, who explained the origin of evil in the
universe by the theory of two Gods—the highest and an inferior one. Irenaeus appropriates
the language of the prophet (
The Incarnation is for Irenaeus not merely an historical fact, but has for its
basis the eternal divine predestination of man. It was only by God becoming man
that man could attain the predestined end of his original creation. The perfecting
of humanity in Christ is also a realisation of the true idea of humanity—the Logos
first assimilating Himself to man, and then man to Himself ("semet
With this thought of the recapitulatio of the human race in Christ is
combined another of equal depth and significance—that of the victory over sin
and deliverance of sin's captives from the power of Satan by the obedience
of Christ. This deliverance or redemption was necessary before the divine purpose
of the union of God and man could be accomplished. For if man, created by God for
life, but corrupted by the serpent, had not returned to life, but been wholly subjected
to death's power, God would then have been defeated, and the devil's iniquity proved
itself stronger than His holy will. But God, triumphant and magnanimous, has by
the second Adam (Christ) bound the strong man and spoiled his goods, and deprived
death of its prey, and brought back man once slain to life. He who by false promises
of life and the likeness of God had bound man in the chains of sin has now been
justly made captive in his turn, and his prisoner, man, set free (iii. 23, 1 seq.;
cf. 18, 7; iv. 21, 3). The power of the devil over man consisted in man's sin, and
the apostasy into which the devil had seduced him (v. 21, 3), but now the disobedience
of one man has been repaired by one man's obedience (iii. 18, 7; 21, 10). The first
Adam was initium morientium, the second Adam initium viventium, Who
needed to be both God and man, no less in order to become the saviour than to be
the perfecter of mankind (iii. 22, 4; v. 1, 3). Only One Who was Himself man could
overcome man's enemy, and bind in his turn him by whom man had been bound; in this
way alone could the victory over the enemy be altogether just. So, on the other
hand, only One Who was also God could accomplish a redemption which should be stable
and sure (iii. 18, 7; v. 21, 3). Christ must be truly man to be as man truly tempted,
must be born of a woman to deliver those who by a woman had been brought under the
devil's power, and must truly live and suffer as a man in order as man to fight
and triumph. Again, He must also be the Logos in order to be glorified, in order
as the strong one to overcome the enemy in whose power the whole human race found
itself (iii. 18, 6, 7; 19, 3; iv. 33, 4; v. 17, 3; 21, 1; 22, 1); and finally, that
man might learn that it is not through himself but only through God's mercy that
he obtains incorruption (v. 21, 3). The recapitulation of mankind in Christ consists
therefore not only in man's original destiny being accomplished by the beginner
of a new humanity, but also in His taking up and conducting to a triumphant issue,
at the end
It must be allowed that Irenaeus gives no complete dogmatic theory with regard to the nature of Christ's work of redemption, for his theological speculations nowhere appear as an independent system, but are simply developed in polemical contrast to those of the heretical gnosis. By this conflict with Gnosticism the currents of Christian religious thought were once more put in rapid movement and problems which had exercised St. Paul were again before the church.
A new letter of St. Irenaeus of considerable importance was discovered in 1904 by an Armenian scholar in the Church of the Virgin at Erivan in Russian Armenia, and trans. into German with notes by Dr. Harnack (1907). It was written to his friend Marcian and possibly intended as a manual for catechising (Drews, Der lit. Charakter der neuernt deckten Schrift des Iren. 1907). For an account of it see Essay VI. in Dr. Knowling's Messianic Interpretation (S.P.C.K. 1911).
Literature.—The Vita Irenaei of Feuardent and that of Peter Halloix; the Dissertationes in Irenaeum of Dodwell and those of Massuet; the Prolegomena of Harvey (Preliminary Matter, I. Sources and Phenomena of Gnosticism; II. Life and Writings of St. Irenaeus); Tillemont, Mémoires, iii. 77 sqq. and 619 sqq.; Lipsius, Die Zeit des Irenaeus von Lyon und die Entstehung der altkatholischen Kirche in Sybel's Histor. Zeitschrift, xxviii. pp. 241 sqq.; Lightfoot, The Churches of Gaul, in Contemp. Review, Aug. 1876, pp. 405 sqq.; the posthumous work of Dean Mansel, The Gnostic Heresies of the First and Second Centuries (London, 1875). Some translations of Irenaeus are in the Ante-Nic. Fathers, and bk. iii. of adv. Haer. has been trans. by H. Deane with notes and glossary (Clar. Press). A critical ed. of adv. Haer. is pub. by the Camb. Univ. Press in 2 vols.
Irenaeus (7), count of the empire and subsequently bp. of Tyre, while
a layman took a zealous interest in theological controversies and was ardently attached
to the cause of his personal friend Nestorius. In 431 Irenaeus unofficially accompanied
Nestorius to the council of Ephesus (Labbe, Concil. iii. 443) employing his
influence in behalf of his friend to the great irritation of Cyril and his party
(ib. 749, 762; Baluze, 496, 524). When, five days after Cyril had hastily
secured the condemnation of Nestorius, the approach of John of Antioch and the Eastern
bishops was announced, Irenaeus, accompanied by a guard of soldiers, hurried out
to apprise them of the high-handed proceedings of the council. He was followed by
deputies from the council, who, as Memnon relates, were at the count's instigation
maltreated by the soldiers, and prevented from having an audience with John (Labbe,
ib. 764; Mercator, ii. praef. xxvii.). To counteract the influence of Dalmatius
and the monastic party at Constantinople, the
The decree of Theodosius which banished Nestorius, Aug. 435, pronounced the same sentence against Irenaeus and a presbyter named Photius, as propagators of his impiety. Stripped of his honours, his property confiscated, he was deported to Petra (Baluz. p. 884, c. clxxxviii, clxxxix.), and passed 12 years in his Arabian banishment without once participating in Christian ordinances. His time was spent in the preparation of a history of the troubled scenes in which he had taken part, known as the Tragoedia Irenaei. The invectives in this work against Theodoret, Ibas, and all who had questioned Nestorius's perfect orthodoxy, render it probable that it was written early in his banishment, and that the lapse of tune brought calmer thoughts. His doctrinal views seem also to have received some modification during this period, for at its close the banished heretic suddenly reappeared as the unanimous choice of the bishops of the province of Phoenicia for the vacant metropolitical see of Tyre, their choice being ratified by the leading members of the episcopate of Pontus and Palestine and accepted with warm commendation by Proclus of Constantinople. The date of his ordination as bp. of Tyre must have been before the end of 446. Since the reconciliation of John of Antioch and Cyril, a kind of truce had existed between the two parties—the Egyptians and Orientals—which this elevation of a leading Nestorian sympathiser to the episcopate rendered no longer possible. Irenaeus had been consecrated by Domnus, the patriarch of Antioch, who, therefore, was the first object of attack. He was plied with missives from the dominant clerical party at Constantinople, asserting that the election of a convicted heretic and a digamus was ipso facto null and void and charging him under severe threats to proceed to a fresh election. The emperor's name was adroitly kept in the background; but it was implied that the malcontents were acting with his sanction. Domnus turned for counsel to Theodoret, who replied that "it was better to fall under the ill-will of man than to offend God and wound one's own conscience." But the ruin of Irenaeus had been resolved on, and Theodosius was compelled to seal with his imperial authority the act of deposition. An edict was issued (Feb. 17, 448), renewing those formerly published against the Nestorians and commanding that Irenaeus should be deposed from his see, deprived of the dress and title of priest, compelled to live as a layman in his own country and never set foot again in Tyre. Domnus, unwilling to consecrate a successor, sought to temporize, until fear of ulterior consequences prevailed over his scruples, and Photius was made bp. of Tyre, Sept. 9, 448 (Actes du Brigand. pp. 134, 143), and Irenaeus disappears entirely from the scene. The Latrocinium in 449 confirmed his deposition, after that of Ibas and Daniel of Charrae, and passed an anathema on him (Martin, Actes du Brigandage, pp. 82–86; Evagr. H. E. i. 10). As Irenaeus is not mentioned at the council of Chalcedon, he was probably no longer alive.
During the latter part of his career Irenaeus enjoyed the friendship and confidence of Theodoret, who speaks highly of his orthodoxy, magnanimity, liberality towards those in adversity, especially those who had known better times, and of his other virtues (Ep. 35, 110), and wrote him frequent letters.
Irenaeus's great historical work, the Tragoedia, has unfortunately perished and is only known to us from an ill-executed Latin translation of large portions of it, made subsequently to the time of Justinian by a partisan of "the Three Chapters." The anonymous translator, who has given very little more than the letters and other documents, invaluable for the light thrown on the transactions of the period, together with the summaries of Irenaeus and some interpolations and explanations of his own, sometimes barely intelligible, entitled his work Synodicon.
Tillem. Mém. eccl. xiv. 606–608, 613, 614 et passim; xv. 264–266, 578, 579 et passim; Cave, Hist. Lit. i. 437; Le Quien, Or. Christ. ii. 807; Labbe, Concil. tom. iii. passim; Baluze, Nov. Coll. Concil. passim; Abbè Martin, Le Brigandage d’Ephèse, pp. 82–95, 183.
Isaacus (7) I., St. (Sahag the Great, Parthev the Parthian),
catholicos of the church of Greater Armenia for 40 or 51 years, 390–441. Moses
of Khorene states that he belonged to the house of the founder of the Armenian
church, Gregory the Illuminator. His long patriarchate is remarkable for the
invention of the Armenian characters by Mesrob, the translation of the Scriptures
into the Armenian language, and the commencement of the golden age of Armenian
literature; for the revision of the Armenian liturgy, first translated from
the Greek by Gregory, which has continued unaltered ever since in the Armeno-Gregorian
church; and for the destruction of the independence of Armenia. At the commencement
of his patriarchate Isaac visited the Persian king at Ctesiphon; where, on behalf
of his sovereign, he acknowledged Armenia to be tributary to Persia. Owng to
the troubled state of the country he was virtually ruler for several years.
In 428, from which date Armenian chronology becomes more certain (St. Martin,
Mém. sur l’Arménie, i. 320, n.), the Persian king deposed Ardaces IV.,
the last of the Armenian Arsacidae, and Isaac retired into Western Armenia,
either by order of the Persian monarch or through the enmity of the satraps
of his own country, whom it is said he had offended by refusing to join in their
plans. Whilst in Western Armenia (428–439) he sent Mesrob to Constantinople
with letters to Theodosius II., and the general Anatolius, who was commissioned
by the emperor to build the city of Theodosiopolis (called Garin by the Armenians,
Erzeroum by the Turks), near the sources of the Euphrates, as a place of refuge
for Isaac. Meanwhile the Persian kings set up others as patriarchs in his, stead,
but at length
Isaacus (14) Ninivita, anchorite and bishop towards the end of the 6th cent. An anonymous Life prefixed to his works states that he was by birth a Syrian, and, with his brother who became abbat, entered the great monastery of St. Matthew at Nineveh. Afterwards he retired to a lonely cell, where he long remained. Isaac's fame as an anchorite became so great that he was raised to the bishopric of Nineveh, which, however, he resigned on the very day of his consecration, owing to an incident which convinced him that his office was superfluous in a place where the gospel was little esteemed. Feeling also that episcopal functions interfered with the ascetic life, he finally retired to the desert of Scete or Scetis, where he died. Lambecius (Comment. lib. v. pp. 74 sqq.), Cave (Hist. Lit. i. 519) and others confuse him with another Isaacus Syrus.
Works.—Ebedjesu (Cat. p. 63) writes that "he composed seven tomes on spiritual guidance, and on divine mysteries, judgments, and government." A considerable number, though not all, of these discourses are extant in Syriac, Arabic, and Greek MSS. in the Vatican and other libraries. Fifty-three of his homilies were rendered from Greek into Latin, c. 1407, by a monk who freely abridged and altered the order of his original. In this form they appear in the various Bibliothecae Patrum, as a continuous treatise entitled de Contemptu Mundi, uniformly but wrongly attributed to Isaacus Antiochenus.
He is much quoted by the old Syrian writers. His style teems with metaphor; his
matter is often interesting, both theologically and historically. He treats mainly
of the ascetic life, its rules and spiritual experiences. Watching, fasting, silence,
and solitude are means to self-mastery. There are three grades of anchorites—novices,
proficients, and the perfect. The worth of actions is gauged by the degree of the
love of God which inspires them. By the thoughts which stir within, a man may learn
to what grade of holiness he has risen. There are three methods by which every rational
soul can approach unto God—viz. love, fear, divine training. He who has gotten love
feeds on Christ at all times, and becomes immortal (
Zingerle (Mon. Syr. i. 97 sqq.) has published Serm. 31, On the natural offspring of the virtues, and Serm. 43, On the various grades of knowledge and faith. Other titles are, On the differences of revelations and operations in holy men; In how many ways the perception of things incorporeal is received by the nature of man (B. M. cod. 694, 14 and 24); That it is wrong without necessity to desire or expect any sign manifested through us or to us (do. 695, 46).
A short tract, de Cogitationibus (περὶ λογισμῶν), attributed to this Isaacus, is given in Migne, vol. lxxxvi., along with the de Contemptu Mundi. A book, de Causa Causarum or Liber Generalis ad Omnes Gentes, treating of God and the creation and government of the universe, has been assigned to this Isaacus; it really belongs to Jacobus Edessenus (fl. 710), see Pohlmann, Zeitschr. d. Morgenland. Gesellsch. (1861), p. 648.
Cf. Wright's Cat. Syr. MSS. in Brit. Mus. vol. ii. pp. 569–581; de Contemptu Mundi in Migne, Patr. Curs. Gk. lxxxvi. pp. 811–885; Assem. Bibl. Orient. i. 444–463, iii. 104, etc.; Cave, Hist. Lit. i. 519; Fabric. Biblioth. Graec. xi. 114–122 Harl.; Casimir Oudin, Comment. de Scriptor. Eccl. i. coll. 1400–1405; Ceillier, xii. 100.
Isaacus (21), a Donatist who, together with Maximianus, met his death
at Carthage in consequence of the cruel punishment inflicted by order of the
proconsul of Africa, a.d. 348. The history
is related by a fellow-Donatist named Macrobius; and though he does not mention
the name of the proconsul, doubtless the tragedy took place in connexion with
the mission into Africa of Paulus and Macarius. The narrative is told in barbarous
Latin and a rhetorical style so turgid as to suggest the suspicion of exaggeration
in the details. But these, horrible as they are, agree too well with what we
know to have taken place in other cases. Maximianus suffered first, but Isaac
provoked the anger of the judges by his taunting exclamations and was forthwith
compelled to undergo a treatment no less brutal. Having been first scourged
with "plumbata," a whip armed with leaden bullets, and then beaten with sticks,
they were both cast into prison, but Isaac disappointed
Notwithstanding the inflated style of the narrative (very different, as Mabillon remarks truly, from that of the existing accounts of the deaths of true Catholic martyrs), and notwithstanding the very slight notice St. Augustine takes of the event, into which he acknowledges that he had made very little inquiry, and also despite his evident success in convicting some accounts of Donatist martyrdoms of inaccuracy, if not of direct falsehood, there seems no reason for doubting the substantial truth of this narrative, especially as Marculus, in Dec. of the same year, suffered death for a similar cause and with similar circumstances of cruelty. Neither can we doubt that the cause for which these men suffered was essentially one of religion. True, St. Augustine compares such cases to that of Hagar, and elsewhere argues in favour of the duty of the state as the guardian of truth to repress heresy and insinuates that those guilty of this offence are punished not so much on account of religion as of treason or disloyalty; but we must bear in mind that (1) the proceedings here related took place six years before St. Augustine's birth, and had not been repeated in his time, and that thus he was no witness either to the truth or falsehood of the narratives; (2) the behaviour and language of Isaac remind us more of an angry partisan than a Christian martyr; (3) the glaring faults of the narrative in style and temper do not extenuate the treatment which, after every allowance for exaggeration, the sufferers must have endured. Aug. Tr. in Joann. xi. 315; c. Cresc. iii. 49, 54; Mabillon, Vet. Anal. p. 185; Mon. Vet. Don. No. 29, pp. 237, 248, ed. Oberthür; Ceillier, v. 106; Morcelli, Africa Christiana, ii. 249.
Isaacus (28). Several eminent solitaries of the Egyptian deserts in the 4th cent. bore this name. The references are scattered up and down in the Vitae Patrum, and it is not always clear which Isaac is intended. The following seem to be distinct persons.
(i) Abbat Isaacus, presbyter of the anchorites in the Scetic desert (ἡ Σκῆτις, Copt. Schiêt), S.W. of Lake Mareotis. At 7 years of age he withdrew from the world, a.d. 358, and attached himself to Macarius of Alexandria, the disciple of St. Anthony. Palladius relates of abbat Isaac that he knew the Scriptures by heart, lived in utter purity, and could handle deadly serpents (κεράσται) without harm. He lived in solitude for 50 years, his followers numbering 3150. Certain anecdotes in the Apophthegmata Patrum appear to belong to him. "Abbat Isaac was wont to say to the brethren, Our fathers and abbat Pambo wore old bepatched raiment and palm husks (σεβένια); nowadays ye wear costly clothing. Hence! It was ye who desolated the district." (Scetis was overrun, c. 395, by the Mazices, a horde of merciless savages.)
Cassianus, who was in Scetis a.d. 398,
conversed with Isaacus, to whom he assigns the 9th and 10th of his Conferences (Collationes),
which treat of prayer. In the former Isaacus distinguishes four kinds of prayer,
according to
The 10th Conference begins by relating how the patriarch Theophilus of
Alexandria scandalized the Scetic anchorites by his Paschal Letter denouncing Anthropomorphism,
and how the aged abbat Serapion, though convinced of his error, could not render
thanks with the rest, but fell a-weeping and crying, "They have taken my God from
me!" Cassianus and the other witnesses asked Isaacus to account for the old man's
heresy. Isaacus made it a survival of heathen ideas of Deity in a simple and unlettered
mind (cc. 1–5). Isaacus proceeds to shew how to attain to perfect and unceasing
prayer. That will be realized when all our love and desire, every aim, effort, thought,
all that we contemplate, speak of, hope for, is God; when we are united with Him
by an enduring and indissoluble affection. C. 10 gives as a prayer suited to all
emergencies the verse
When 50 years old Isaacus was expelled from his desert by Theophilus of Alexandria, albeit that prelate had made bishops of seven or eight of his anchorites. Isaacus turned for succour to St. Chrysostom and Olympias. He was still living in a.d. 408.
Sources.—Pallad. Dialog. de Vita Chrysost. in Patr. Gk. xlvii. 59, 60; Cassiani Massil. Collat. 9, 10, in Migne, xlix. 770 sqq.; Apophthegmata Patr. ib. lxv. 223; a number of anecdotes headed περὶ τοῦ Ἀββᾶ Ἰσὰακ τοῦ πρεσβυτέρου τῶν Κελλίων, but referring to several persons, cf. de Vit. Patr. lib. iii. col. 752, in Migne, lxxiii.; Tillem. Mém. viii. 650, 617, 648, and 813, n. vi.; Ceillier, viii. 174–177.
(ii) Isaacus, presbyter and abbat of the Nitrian desert, sometimes called
Presbyter of the Cells (Κελλία N. of Nitria).
The chief
It appears that, after the persecution of Theophilus, Isaacus had returned to his desert. In the Apoph. Patr., Migne, t. lxv. 223, 239, there are other anecdotes concerning him (cf. Tillem. Mém. viii. 623–625).
(iii) Isaacus, called Thebaeus, an anchorite of the Thebaid, probably not identical with (ii), although Cronius, the master of the Cellia, at one time lived in the Thebaid (Vit. Patr. lib. vii. col. 1044, Migne, t. lxxiii.). Alardus Gazaeus, the Benedictine annotator of Cassianus, writes (Collat. 9 ad init.) that there were two chief anchorites named Isaac; one who lived in the Scetic desert, and another called Thebaeus, often mentioned in the Vitae Patrum and in Pratum Spirituale, c. 161.
Once Isaac ("de Thebaida," Vit. Patr. v.) had banished an offending brother from the congregation. When he would have entered his cell, an angel stood in the way. "God sends me to learn where you wish Him to bestow the solitary whom you have condemned." The abbat owned his fault and was forgiven, but was warned not to rob God of His prerogative by anticipating His judgments. Isaac Thebaeus used to say to the brethren, "Bring no children hither. Four churches in Scetis have been desolated, owing to children."
Sources.—Apoph. Patr. col. 240, in Migne, lxv.; de Vit. Patr. lib. v. in Migne, lxxiii. (version of an unknown Greek author by Pelagius, c. 550), coll. 909, 918; de Vit. Patr. iii. col. 786 (prob. by Rufinus).
(iv) Isaacus, disciple of St. Apollos, probably lived at Cellia. He was accomplished in every good work. On his way to the church he would hold no converse with any, and after communion he would hurry back to his cell, without waiting for the cup of wine and the food (παξαμάτης) usually handed round among the brethren after service. "A lamp goes out, if one hold it long in the open air; and if I, kindled by the holy oblation, linger outside my cell, my mind grows dark" (Apoph. Patr. col. 241).
Isaacus (29) Senior, mentioned in an anonymous Life of Ephraim the Syrian among the more distinguished disciples of Ephraim who were also Syriac writers. He is cited by Joannes Maro (Tract. ad Nest. et Eutych.), by Bar-hebraeus (Hist. Dynast. 91), and by many other Syriac and Arabic authors, most of whom, however, confuse him with Isaac presbyter of Antioch (Assemani, B. O. i. 165). Gennadius in his de Scriptor. Eccl. c. 26, says: "Isaac wrote, concerning the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation of the Lord, a book of very dark disputation and involved discourse; proving that there are three Persons in the one Godhead, each possessing a proprium peculiar to himself. The proprium of the Father is that He is the origin of the others, yet Himself without origin; that of the Son is that, though begotten, He is not later than His begetter; that of the Holy Ghost is that It is neither made nor begotten, and yet is from another. Of the Incarnation he writes that two Natures abide in the one Person of the Son of God." This chapter precedes those about Marcarius and Evagrius Pontinus, who lived ante 400. It is hence inferred that Isaac flourished about the end of the 4th cent. (Cave, i. 415, places him c. 430 (?), but some put him a century earlier.)
The work of Isaac, not unfairly described by Gennadius, is entitled Libellus Fidei SS. Trinitatis et Incarnationis Domini. It is a brief treatise, and is printed in Migne, Patr. Gk. xxxiii. In a codex Pithoeanus, teste Sirmond, the title is Fides Isaacis (or Isacis) ex Judaeo. Hence Isaac Senior has been identified by Tillemont (viii. 409) with Isaac the converted Jew who calumniated pope Damasus. Assemani thinks that the silence of Gennadius and his epitomizer Honorius renders it doubtful that Isaac Senior, the author of the Libellus Fidei, was a Jew. Cf. also Galland. vii. Prol. p. xxv.; Ceillier, vi. 290; Mansi, iii. 504 B; Pagi, Crit. ad ann. 378, xx.
Isaacus (31) Antiochenus, born at Amid (Diarbekir) in Mesopotamia,
called "the Great" and "the Elder," a priest of Antioch in Syria, said to have
visited Rome. His teacher was Zenobius the disciple of St. Ephraim, not (as
Cave) Ephraim himself. The Chronicle of Edessa speaks of him as an archimandrite,
without specifying his monastery, which was at Gabala in Phoenicia. He died
c. 460. He is sometimes confused with Isaacus of Nineveh. Bar-hebraeus
(Hist. Dynast. p. 91) unjustly brands him as a heretic and a renegade.
He was author of numerous works in Syriac, of which the chief were polemics
against the Nestorians and Eutychians, and of a long elegy on the overthrow
of Antioch by the earthquake of 459. He also wrote a poem on the Ludi Seculares,
held by Honorius in his sixth consulship (a.d.
404), and another on the sack of Rome by Alaric (a.d.
410). Jacobus of Edessa reckons him among the best writers of Syriac. His poems
are extant in MSS. in the Vatican and other European libraries. Many of them
are wrongly ascribed to St. Ephraim, and included amongst his works in the Roman
edition. In
The library of the British Museum possesses about 80 of the discourses, hymns, prayers, etc., of St. Isaacus in MSS., ranging from the 6th to the 12th cent. Dr. Bickell, in the preface to his edition of the works of Isaac, gives a list of 178 entire poems, and of 13 others imperfect at the beginning or end (179–191); three prose writings dealing with the ascetic life (192–194); five sermons in Arabic, on the Incarnation, etc. (195–199); and a sermon in Greek, on the Transfiguration, usually assigned to St. Ephraim (200).
See S. Isaaci Antiocheni opera omnia ex omnibus quotquot exstant codd. MSS. cum varia lectione Syr. Arab. primus ed. G. Bickell, vol. i. 1873, ii. 1877; Gennadius, Vir. Illustr. 66; Assem. Bibl. Orient. i. 207–234; Cave, Hist. Lit. i. 434; Ceillier, x. 578; Wright's Cat. Syr. MSS. Brit. Mus. General Index, p. 1289.
The poems of Isaac are important for the right understanding of the doctrines of the Nestorians, Eutychians, Novatianists, Pelagians, and other sects; besides being authorities for the events, manners, and customs of the writer's age.
Ischyras (2) (Ischyrion, Soz.), Egyptian pseudo-presbyter and finally bishop; a slanderer of Athanasius. His story, which begins under the predecessor of Athanasius, is made out from scattered passages in the Apol. c. Arian., and a slight outline is given by Socrates (i. 27). He belonged to a hamlet in the Mareotis too small for a church of its own (§ 85, ed. Migne) and there had a conventicle attended by seven persons at most (77, 83). He did not bear a good moral character (63) and was once charged with insulting the emperor's statues (vol. i. 185 B, n.). The Alexandrian synod of 324 disallowed his orders and pronounced him a layman (74, 75), disproving his pretensions to have been ordained by bp. Meletius, in whose breviarium his name did not appear (11, 28, 46, 71). He had given out that he was a presbyter of the pseudo-bishop COLLUTHUS (2), but no one out of his own family believed him, as he never had a church, and no one in the neighbourhood looked on him as a clergyman (74, 75). He never attended ecclesiastical assemblies as a presbyter (28). In spite of the synod, he continued to act as a presbyter, and was doing this in the cottage of Ision when Athanasius, being on a visitation in the Mareotis, sent his presbyter Macarius to bid him desist. When Macarius reached the house, Ischyras was reported ill in his cell or in a corner behind the door (28, 63, 83), certainly not officiating at the Eucharist (41). This occurrence may be assigned to c. 329, between the latest date (June 8, 328) possible for the consecration of Athanasius and Nov. 330, when the troubles broke out. Ischyras on his recovery went over to the Meletians, in conjunction with whom he framed his accusation against Macarius (63), and through Macarius against Athanasius. In the spring of 331 (see vol. i. p. 184, and Hefele, ii. 13) the three Meletians accused Macarius at Nicomedia of having broken a chalice, overturned a holy table, and burnt service books on the occasion of his visit. As his friends became ashamed of him (63), Ischyras confessed the fabrication to the archbishop and implored forgiveness (16, 28, 63, 74). This would be in mid-Lent 332. In the summer of 335 Ischyras, having meanwhile been gained over by the Eusebians, revived the accusation before the council of Tyre (13), and accompanied the synodal commission to the Mareotis to investigate its truth (17). For his reward his Eusebian patrons procured (85) an imperial order for the erection of a church for him at a place called Pax Secontaruri, and the document recognized him as a "presbyter." They afterwards obtained for him the episcopal title (16, 41), and he figures as bp. of Mareotis among the bishops assembled at Sardica in 343 (Socr. ii. 20; Soz. iii. 12, here "Ischyrion"). He afterwards withdrew to Philippopolis. (Hilar. Frag. iii. in Patr. Lat. x. 677 A; Mansi, iii. 139), at which synod his name is corruptly written Quirius. No other instance of a bp. of Mareotis occurs. Le Quien, Or. Chr. ii. 530.
Isdigerdes (1) I. (Jezdedscherd, Yazdejirdus, Yezdegerdes;
Ἰσδιγέρδης and Ἰσδεγέρδης
by the Greeks; in Armenian Yazgerd; on his coins, יזדכרתי, i.e. Izdikerti),
king of Persia, surnamed Al Aitham (the Wicked), known in history as Isdigerd
I., though an obscure and uncertain predecessor of the same name makes Mordtmann
reckon him as Isdigerd II. Rawlinson thinks the best evidence favours 399 for
the commencement of his reign, and 419 or 420 for his death. He was son of Sapor
III., succeeding his brother Vararanes IV., and succeeded by his son Vararanes
V. He reigned at Ctesiphon. With the Romans he appears to have lived in peace;
Agathias (Hist. iv. 26, p. 264, ed. Bonn, 1828) and Theophanes (Chron.
i. 125, 128, p. 69, ed. Bonn, 1839) relate how the emperor Arcadius on his death-bed
directed his son Theodosius to be put under Isdigerdes's tutelage. (Petavius,
Rat. Temp. pt. i. l. vi. c. 19, p. 249 Lugd. 1710; Greg. Abul-Pharajius,
Hist. Comp. Dyn. i. p. 91, Oxf. 1663.) For a time he was almost a Christian,
and as
Isdigerdes (2) II., king of Persia, the son and successor of Vararanes V. All modern writers place his death A.D. 457, but differ somewhat as to the length of his reign. For its commencement Rawlinson thinks the best evidence is for 440. Soon after he declared war against the Roman empire. Theodosius II. shortly made peace with him, and Isdigerd then undertook a war, which continued many years (443–451), against the Tatars of Transoxiana. He attempted to force the Zoroastrian religion on Christian Armenia. In this he was ably seconded by his vizier Mihr-nerses, whose proclamation, still extant, embodies the Zoroastrian objection to Christian doctrine [Mesrobes]. It was answered in a council of eighteen Armenian bishops, headed by the patriarch Joseph, at Ardashad in 450. This document, also extant, is a lengthened apology for Christianity and contains a detailed confession of faith, with a resolution of adhering to it couched in these terms: "Do thou therefore inquire of us no further concerning these things, for our belief originates not with man. We are not taught like children; but we are indissolubly bound to God, from Whom nothing can detach us, neither now nor hereafter, nor for ever, nor for ever and ever" (Hist. of Vartan, tr. by Neumann, 1830). Isdigerd's attempt to convert Armenia to Zoroastrianism was manifestly dictated by a desire to detach the country from the Christian Roman empire. In 451 he attacked the Armenians. They endeavoured to secure the help of the emperor Marcian, who was, however, paralysed through fear of Attila and the Huns. In 455 or 456 the Persians triumphed in a great battle, wherein the patriarch Joseph and many nobles were taken prisoners and martyred. Agathias, iv. 27; Tabari, Chronique, iii. 127; Clinton, Fasti Romani, i. p. 546; Tillem. Emp. vi. 39; Saint-Martin, Mém. sur l’Armén. vol. i. p. 322; Pathkanian, Histoire des Sassan. in Journal Asiatique (1866), pp. 106–238; Mordtmann, Zeitschrift der deutschen Morgenlandischen Gesellschaft, t. viii. 70; Rawlinson's Seventh Or. Monarchy (1876), c. xv. p. 301, where other authorities will be found. Pathkanian's article gives a list of writers who have treated of this period. Isdigerd II. was succeeded by Perozes.
Isidorus (18), archbp. of Seville, 600–636. Notwithstanding his prominent place in Spanish ecclesiastical history, the known facts of his life are few, and considerable uncertainty attaches to many points. It appears certain that his father was of the province of Cartagena, and that for some reason his parents left there for Seville either before or very shortly after his birth. It is not certain, therefore, whether Isidore was born at Seville or Cartagena, but probably at the latter. Arevalo (i. 122) decides for Seville; so Dupin: Florez (Esp. Sag. ix. 193, x. 120) is in favour of Cartagena. All things tend to shew that his parents died when he was very young. He was the youngest of the family. Leander, the eldest, was archbp. of Seville c. 579–599 and Fulgentius was bp. of Astigi or Ecija in the province of Seville. Isidore was archbp. of Seville for nearly 40 years, and died in 636. Leander received the pall from Gregory the Great in 599. Gams fixes 600 as the year of Leander's death, and consequently of Isidore's succession (ii. 41). To date the birth of Isidore c. 560 will not be far wrong. His early manhood was probably passed in a monastery, where he could pursue the studies which afterwards made him famous. Most probably he never belonged to a coenobite order.
We meet his name in connexion with the so-called decree of Gunthimar, the Gothic
king, and a supposed synod of Toledo in 610 assigning metropolitan rank to the see
of Toledo. In the list of subscriptions appended to the Decretum in the conciliar
collections (e.g. Mansi, x. 511) Isidore stands second, following the king.
He next appears as presiding over the second council of Seville in Nov. 618 or 619,
in the reign of king Sisebut (Mansi, x. 555). The church of Seville is spoken of
as the "holy Jerusalem." The governor of the city, Sisisclus, and the treasurer
Suanilanus were present. The decrees set forth fully the doctrine of the Person
of Christ against the Acephali, supporting it with appeals to Scripture, the Apostles'
Creed, and the Fathers. This document was signed by 8 bishops, of whom Isidore subscribed
first as
The fourth council of Toledo was held in 633, in the extreme old age of Isidore and shortly before his death, soon after Sisenand came to the throne. It met in the basilica of St. Leocadia, and was composed of prelates from Gaul and Narbonne, and from all the provinces of Spain. The king, with his court magnates, was present, and threw himself on the earth before the bishops, and with tears and sighs entreated their intercession with God, and exhorted them to observe the ancient decrees of the church and to reform abuses. The council issued 75 decrees, for a summary of which see D. C. A. ii. 1968. They were signed by the six metropolitan archbishops of Spain. This council was the only one in which they were all present, and was the most numerously attended of all Spanish synods. Isidore signed first as the oldest metropolitan and oldest bishop present (Mansi, x. 641). The council probably expressed with tolerable accuracy the mind and influence of Isidore. It presents a vivid picture of the church of Spain at that period. The position and deference granted to the king is remarkable, and nothing is said of allegiance to Rome. The church is free and independent, yet bound in solemn allegiance to the acknowledged king. The relations of the church to the Jews are striking, and the canons shew that there were many Jews in the Spanish community and that the Christian church had not yet emancipated itself from the intolerance of Judaism. This council was the last great public event of Isidore's life. He died three years afterwards. As he felt his end approaching he distributed his goods lavishly among the poor, and is said to have spent the whole day for six months in almsgiving. In his last illness he performed public penance in the church of St. Vincentius the martyr, gathered around him the bishops, the religious orders, the clergy, and the poor, then, as one bishop invested him with the penitential girdle, and another strewed ashes on his head, he made a pious and eloquent prayer, translated in full by Gams, received the Body and Blood of Christ in the sacrament, took affectionate leave of all present, retired to his cell, and in four days died.
Isidore was undoubtedly the greatest man of his time in the church of Spain. He was versed in all the learning of the age, and well acquainted with Greek, Latin, and Hebrew. His works shew him as a man of varied accomplishments and great versatility of mind; and the prominent place he long filled in his own country sufficiently indicates his general ability and character. His eloquence struck all who heard him with astonishment, and he represented in himself all the science of his time. His language is studiously scriptural. He is quoted as holding predestinarian views, but his language seems hardly to go so far. At the 8th council of Toledo in 653, the epithet Egregius was applied to him, and confirmed at the 15th council of Toledo, 688. Popes and councils vied in doing him honour, till Benedict XIV. permitted the office of St. Isidore to be recited with the antiphon "O doctor optime," and the gospel, "Vos estis sal terrae."
His works are many and multifarious. (1) His Etymologies or Origins was, according to Braulio and Ildefonsus, his last work. It is in 20 books, and treats of the whole circle of the sciences in a very concise, methodical, and convenient manner. It is for the period a really wonderful work, and the authors quoted in it shew his wide classical reading. The subjects of the books are: i. Grammar in 44 chapters, containing an immense amount of information in a convenient form. ii. Rhetoric and dialectics, in 31 chapters. iii. The four mathematical sciences: i.e. arithmetic, 9 chapters; geometry, 5 chapters; music, 9 chapters; and astronomy, 48 chapters; algebra not being yet invented. iv. Medicine, in 13 chapters. v. Laws, 27 chapters; Times, 12 chapters. vi. Ecclesiastical books and offices, 19 chapters. vii. Of God, angels, and the orders of the faithful, 14 chapters. viii. The church and divers sects, 11 chapters. ix. Languages, nations, kingdoms, warfare, citizens, and relationships, 7 chapters. x. An alphabetical index and explanation of certain words. A vast amount of erroneous ingenuity is displayed in deriving all the words of the Latin language from itself: e.g. "Nox, a nocendo dicta, eo quod oculis noceat. Niger, quasi nubiger, quia non serenus, sed fusco opertus est. Unde et nubilum diem tetrum dicimus. Prudens, quasi porro videns: perspicax enim est, et incertorum praevidet casus. Cauterium dictum quasi cauturium quod urat," etc. xi. Of men and portents, in 4 chapters. xii. Animals, in 8. xiii. The universe (mundus), in 22. xiv. The earth and its parts, in 9. xv. Buildings, land-surveying, roads, etc., in 16. xvi. Mineralogy, stones, weights, measures, and metals, in 27. xvii. Agriculture, in 11. xviii. War and various games, in 69. xix. Ships, architecture, clothes of various kinds, in 34. xx. Food, domestic and agricultural implements, carriages, harness, etc., in 16. The treatise, which in the Roman edition occupies two quarto vols., is a singular medley of information and ignorance, and presents a remarkable picture of the condition of life and knowledge at the time. In bk. v., under the head of "De discretione temporum," is a chronological summary of sacred and secular history from Adam to Heraclius, concluding in these striking words: "Eraclius xvii nunc agit imperii annum: Judaei in Hispania Christiani efficiuntur. Residuum sextae aetatis soli Deo est cognitum." The whole period (after an idea common in Augustine) is divided into six ages, ending with Noah, Abraham, Samuel, Zedekiah, Julius Caesar, Heraclius. In bk. vi. is an introductory account of the several books of the Bible. It is probably not possible to overrate the value and the usefulness of this treatise to the age in which Isidore lived, and indeed for many ages it was the best available handbook.
(2) Libri Differentiarum sive de Proprietate Sermonum.—Bk. i. treats of
the differences of words, often with acuteness and accuracy. Bk. ii. treats in 40
sections and 170 paragraphs of the differences of things, e.g. between Deus
and Dominus, Substance and Essence, etc.
(3) Allegoriae quaedam Sacrae Scripturae.—A spiritual interpretation of the names of Scripture characters: 129 from O. T. and 121 from N. T.; the latter being often from our Lord's parables, miracles, etc., as the ten virgins, the woman with the lost piece of money, the man who planted a vineyard, and the like. The angered king who sent his armies and destroyed those murderers and burnt up their city is interpreted of God the Father, who sent Vespasian Caesar to destroy Jerusalem. He shews an intimate acquaintance with Scripture and with the wonderful way it had then permeated the teaching and life of the church. The treatise is of intrinsic interest.
(4) Somewhat similar to the last is de Ortu et Obitu Patrum qui in Scriptura Laudibus Efferuntur; 64 chapters on O.T. characters and 21 on New, from Adam to Maccabaeus and from Zacharias to Titus. The genuineness of this treatise has been much doubted.
(5) Proomeia in Libros Vet. et Nov. Test.—Very brief introductions to the several books of O. and N.T., including Tobias, Judith, Esdras, and Maccabees, "ex quibus quidem Tobiae, Judith, et Maccabaeorum, Hebraei non recipiunt. Ecclesia tamen eosdem intra canonicas scripturas enumerat."
(6) Liber Numerorumqui in sanctis Scripturis occurrunt.—A mystical treatment of numbers from one to sixty, omitting some after twenty.
(7) Quaestiones tam de Novo quam de Veteri Testamento.—A series of 41 questions on the substance and teaching of Scripture with appropriate answers. Some are very interesting.
(8) Secretorum Expositiones Sacramentorum, seu Quaestiones in Vetus Tastamentum.—A mystical interpretation of the principal events recorded in the books of Moses, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Ezra, Maccabees. The preface states that he has gathered the opinions of ancient ecclesiastical writers, viz. Origen, Victorinus, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, Fulgentius, Cassianus, and pope Gregory the Great. Gen. is treated of in 31 chapters, Ex. in 59, Lev. in 17, Num. in 42, Deut. in 22, Josh. in 18, Judg. in 9 (including 1 on Ruth), I. Kings (i.e. Sam.) in 21, II. Kings in 6, III. Kings in 8, IV. Kings in 8, Ezra in 3, Mac. in 1. The mystical method of interpretation is pursued to an excessive degree.
(9) De Fide Catholica ex Veteri et Novo Testamento contra Judaeos.—Addressed to his sister Florentina and apparently written at her request. It treats of the person of Christ from His existence in the bosom of the Father before the world was till His ascension and return to judgment; and the consequences of the Incarnation, viz. the unbelief of the Jews, the ingathering of the Gentiles, the conversion of the Jews at the end of the world, and the cessation of the Sabbath.
(10) Sententiarum Libri iii.—A kind of manual of Christian faith and practice, treating of God and His attributes. It discourses also upon the world, the origin of evil, angels, man, the soul, and senses of the flesh, Christ and the Holy Spirit, the church and heresies, the heathen nations, the law, seven rules or principles for the understanding of Scripture, the difference between the two Testaments, symbol and prayer, baptism and communion, martyrdom, the miracles wrought by the saints, Antichrist and his works, the resurrection and judgment, hell, the punishment of the wicked, and the glory of the just. Great use is made throughout of the works of Augustine and Gregory.
(11) De Ecclesiasticis Officiis treats of the services of the church, and of clerics, their rules and orders, the tonsure, the episcopal office, vicars episcopal, presbyters, deacons, sacristans and subdeacons, readers, psalmists, exorcists, acolytes, porters, monks, penitents, virgins, widows, the married, catechumens, exorcism, salt, candidates for baptism, the creed, the rule of faith, baptism, chrism, imposition of hands, and confirmation.
(12) Synonyma de lamentatione animae peccatricis.—One of the most curious of Isidore's works; a kind of soliloquy between Homo and Ratio. Homo begins by lamenting his lost and desperate condition in consequence of sin, and Ratio undertakes to direct him aright to a higher and holier condition issuing in the bliss of eternal felicity.
(13) Regula Monachorum.—This treatise led some to suppose Isidore a Benedictine monk, the only order then established in the West; but Gams thinks the proof not sufficient.
(14) Thirteen short letters follow: to bp. Leudefred of Cordova; to Braulio, to whom he speaks of giving a ring and a pall; to Helladius of Toledo on the fall of a certain bp. of Cordova; to duke Claudius, whom he congratulates on his victories; to Massona, bp. of Merida; and to archdeacon Redemptus.
(15) De Ordine Creaturarum.—This book has been doubted by some, and, though Arevalo maintains it to be genuine, he prints it in smaller type. Gams reckons it as Isidore's. It treats of faith in the Trinity, spiritual creation, the waters above the firmament, the firmament of heaven, the sun and moon, the devil and the nature of demons, the nature of waters and course of the ocean, Paradise, the nature of man after sin, the diversity of sinners and their place of punishment, purgatorial fire and the future life.
(16) De Natura Rerum Liber.—One of the most celebrated of Isidore's treatises,
dedicated to king Sisebut (acc. a.d. 612),
one of the best kings of Spain, whose death was universally lamented by the Goths.
Isidore discourses of the days, the night, the seasons, the solstice and equinox,
the world and its five zones, heaven and its name, the planets, the waters, the
heavens, the nature, size, and course of the sun, the light and course of the moon,
the eclipse of sun and moon, the course of the stars, the position of the seven
planets, the light of the stars, falling stars, the names of the stars and whether
they have any soul, thunder, lightning, the rainbow, clouds, showers, snow, hail,
the nature and names of the winds, the signs of storms, pestilence, the heat, size,
and saltness of the ocean, the river Nile, the names of sea and rivers, the position
(17) Chronicon.—A very brief summary of the principal events from the creation of the world to the reign of the emperor Heraclius and of king Sisebut. Hertzberg gives an elaborate analysis of the sources of Isidore's two chronicles in the Forschungen zur deutschen Gesch. xv. 289.
(18) Historia de regibus Gothorum, Wandalorum et Suevorum.—The Goths, according to Isidore, were descended from Gog and Magog, and of the same race as the Getae. They first appeared in Thessaly in the time of Pompey, and in that of Valerian devastated Macedonia, Greece, Pontus, Asia, and Illyricum. The history is brought down to 621, the reign of king Swintila. Isidore praises the Goths highly; and Spaniards of his time esteemed it an honour to be reckoned Goths. This brief sketch is invaluable as our chief authority for the history of the West Goths. Of the Vandals we learn less from him, and his sketch of the Suevi is very brief, the former compressing 123 years into a single page, and the latter 177 in the same space. The Vandals entered Spain under Gunderic and were destroyed on the fall of Gelimer; the Suevi entered under Hermeric in 409 and became incorporated with the Gothic nation in 585.
(19) De Viris Illustribus liber.—Many Greeks and Latins had treated of the Christian writers before Isidore, but he determined to give a brief outline of those whom he had read himself. The list embraces 46 names, and Braulio has added that of Isidore himself in the celebrated "Praenotatio librorum S. Isidori a Braulione edita." Among the 46 are Xystus the pope, Macrobius the deacon, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Hosius of Cordova, Eusebius of Dorylaeum, Chrysostom, Hilary of Arles, Gregory the pope, Leander his own brother, and Maximus of Saragossa. This is a valuable summary of important facts in ecclesiastical history, but too often disfigured by the fierce and illiberal polemical spirit of the day—vide, e.g., his remarks on the death of Hosius.
Other minor works assigned, some doubtfully, to Isidore need not be enumerated.
His Latin is not pure. He uses many Spanish words, and Arevalo has collected no fewer than 1,640 words which would not be understood by the ordinary reader or would strike him as strange. The style is feeble and inflated, having all the marks of an age of decadence. He was a voluminous writer of great learning, well versed in Holy Scripture, of which he manifests a remarkable knowledge, had a trained and cultivated mind, but was rather a receptive and reproductive writer than one of strong masculine and original mind. He was a very conspicuous ornament of the Spanish church and shed great glory on the age he adorned. He did much to hand on the light of Christianity and make it effectual to the amelioration of a semi-barbarous nation, and his character contrasts favourably with those of a later period.
A full list of the Lives of Isidore up to his time may be seen in Chevalier's Sources historiques du Moyen-âge, p. 1127, including those of Henschen in Boll. Acta SS. 4 Apr. i. 327; Arevalo in his ed. of Isidore's Works; Floret, Esp. Sag. ix. 173 (ed. 1752); Dupin, Eccl. Writ. t. ii. p. 1 (ed. 1724); Ceillier, xi. 710; Cave, i. 547; Gams, Kirchengeschichte von Spanien (3 vols. 8vo, Regensburg, 1862–1874; the great want of this excellent work is an adequate index; the first vol. alone has a "Register"). Arevalo's ed. of Isidore's works has been reprinted by the Abbé Migne in his Patr. Lat. lxxxi.–lxxxiv., with the addition of an eighth vol., containing the Collectio Canonum ascribed to Isidore; vols. lxxxv.-lxxxvi. of Migne contain Liturgia Mozarabica secundum Regulam Beati Isidora. There is an excellent ed. of the de Natura Rerum Liber by G. Becker (Berlin 1857). Prof. J. E. B. Mayor has given a list of editions and authorities in his Bibliographical Clue to Latin Literature, p. 212.
De Reg. Gothorum, Vandalorum, et Suevorum.—The histories, of all Isidore's works, have the most practical value for the present day. The Historia Gothorum is still to us, as it was to Mariana, one of the main sources of Gothic history. Upon the histories in general was based all the later medieval history-writing of Spain. A most valuable contribution was made to our knowledge of the exact place of the histories in historical work by Dr. Hugo Hertzberg (Göttingen, 1874) in his Die Historien und die Chroniken des Isidorus von Sevilla: Eine Quellenuntersuchung, Erster Th., die Historien. Dr. Hertzberg's great merit lies in the clearness with which he shews exactly how Isidore worked, what were the kind and amount of his material, and the method employed in working it up.
Dr. Hertzberg's general conclusions are, that Isidore neither possessed large material nor used what he had well. In no case did he take all that earlier chronicles offered him, but only extracts; his choice and arrangement of statements are often bad, and the proper chronological order frequently disregarded. Notwithstanding these drawbacks, the permanent historical value of certain portions of the Hist. Goth. is very great. From the reign of Euric, where Idatius breaks off, Isidore becomes for a time our only informant. He alone preserves the memory of Euric's legislation, while our knowledge of Visigothic history under Gesalic, Theudis, Theudigisel, Agila, and Athanagild rests essentially on his testimony. In the prominent reigns of Leovigild and Recared, Joh. Biclarensis becomes our great source, but Isidore's additions are important. From Recared to Suinthila he is again our best and sometimes our only source. The Hist. Vand. is, however, historically valueless, as we possess the sources from which it is a mere extract, and the same may almost be said of the Hist. Suev. Just where Isidore might have drawn most from oral testimony and thus supplied a real gap in our historical knowledge, viz. in the 100 years of Suevian history between Remismund and Theodemir, he fails us most notably. The whole missing cent. is dismissed in one vague sentence which tells us nothing.
For a complete catalogue of the nine MSS. of the longer form of the text, and
the
Isidorus (24). [Basilides.]
Isidorus (31) Pelusiota, an eminent ascetic, theologian, and spiritual director in 5th cent., born at Alexandria (Photius, Bibl. 228). His family was probably of high rank. The wide range of his reading, as shewn by his familiarity with Greek poets, historians, orators, and philosophers, witnesses to the best Alexandrian education. He also felt the full influence of that great development of Egyptian monasticism which was encouraged by the seclusion of Athanasius during his third exile and by the persecution of the "holy solitaries" after his death, and which made so deep an impression on the as yet unconverted Augustine (Confess. viii. 6; cf. Isid. Ep. i. 173, alluding to "the blessed Ammon"). Isidore resolved to adopt the monastic life in its coenobitic form, as it had been organized by Pachomius at Tabenna and was being exhibited by various communities in the Upper Thebaid which followed his rule, by others in the Lower Thebaid, and the 5,000 inmates of the cells of Nitria (cf. Fleury, bk. xx. c. 9). The place he selected was near Pelusium, an ancient border-town at one of the Nile mouths. Jerome says it had "a very safe harbour" and was a centre of all "business connected with the sea" (Comm. in Ezech. ix. 30), but its inhabitants were proverbial for dulness (Hieron. Ep. lxxxiv. 9). It was the capital of the province of Augustamnica Prima, and as such the seat of a "corrector" or governor. When Isidore first knew it, it was "rich and populous" (Ep. iii. 260). It suffered much from the maladministration of a Cappadocian named Gigantius. Believing that monastic life was the "imitation and receptacle of all the Lord's precepts" (Ep. i. 278), Isidore became a thorough monk in his ascetic self-devotion. Whether he became abbat Tillemont considers uncertain (xv. 101). We know from Facundus (Del. Tri. Capit. ii. 4), and, indeed, virtually from himself (Ep. i. 258), that he was ordained a presbyter, very likely by bp. Ammonius (Ep. ii. 127), clearly not by his successor Eusebius, whom Isidore depicts as the centre of an ecclesiastical scandal which was to him a standing grief and offence.
Perhaps this ecclesiastical degeneracy near his own home led Isidore to generalize
somewhat too despondingly as to its prevalence all around. Alluding to Eusebius's
love of church-building he says: "It was not for the sake of walls, but of souls,
that the King of Heaven came to visit us." "Could I have chosen, I would have rather
lived in apostolic times, when church buildings were not thus adorned but the church
was decked with grace, than in these days, when the buildings are ornamented with
all kinds of marble, and the church is bare and void of spiritual gifts" (Ep.
ii. 246; cf. ii. 88). "once pastors would die for their flocks; now they destroy
the sheep by causing the soul to stumble. . . . Once they distributed their goods
to the needy; now they appropriate what belongs to the poor. Once they practised
virtue; now they ostracize [a favourite phrase with Isidore] those who do. . . .
I will not accuse all" (iii. 223). "once men avoided the episcopate because
of the greatness of its authority; now they rush into it because of the greatness
of its luxury. . . . The dignity has lapsed from a priesthood into a tyranny, from
a stewardship into a mastership [δεσποτείαν].
For they claim not to administer as stewards, but to appropriate as masters" (v.
21, to a bishop). "It is not long since the church had splendid teachers and approved
disciples;" and it might be so again if bishops would "lay aside their tyranny and
shew a fatherly interest in their people . . . but until that foundation is well
laid, I think it idle to talk about the top-stone" (v. 126). He would say to worldly
and arrogant prelates, "Abate your pride, relax your superciliousness, remember
that you are but ashes. . . . Do not use the arms of the priesthood against the
priesthood itself" (v. 131). "When those who were crowned with the priesthood led
an evangelical and apostolical life, the priesthood was naturally dreaded by the
sovereignty; but now it is the sovereignty which is dreaded by the priesthood, or
rather by those who seem to discharge it but by their conduct insult it" (v. 268,
to Cyril). "Some . . . openly reproach priests; others pay them outward respect
but in secret revile them. . . . This does not surprise me. As they do not
act like those of old, they are treated differently. Those of old corrected kings
when they sinned; these do not correct even rich subjects; and if they try to correct
some poor man, they are reproached as having been convicted of the same offences"
(v. 278). So, speaking to an ambitious deacon about
The two great church questions in which Isidore took a decided part brought him into collision with his own patriarch, Cyril of Alexandria. The first related to the recognition of St. Chrysostom's memory as worthy of the reverence of faithful Christians. Theophilus of Alexandria had practically procured his deposition and exile; the West had supported Chrysostom while he lived and afterwards had suspended communion with churches which would not insert his name in their diptychs. Antioch had yielded; even Atticus of Constantinople had done so for peace' sake. Cyril, the nephew and successor of Theophilus, held fast to his uncle's position. Isidore had loved and honoured "holy John," if he had not, as Nicephorus says (xiv. 30), been instructed by him. In a letter to a grammarian he quotes Libanius's panegyric on his oratory (Ep. ii. 42); to another Isidore he specially recommends "the most wise John's" commentary on the Romans (v. 32); in another letter, recommending his treatise "on the Priesthood," he calls him "the eye of the Byzantine church, and of every church" (i. 156); and he describes the "tragedy of John" in the bitter words: "Theophilus, who was building-mad, and worshipped gold, and had a spite against my namesake" (see Socr. vi. 9), was "put forward by Egypt to persecute that pious man and true theologian" (Ep. i. 152). Similarly he wrote to Cyril: Put a stop to these contentions: do not involve the living Church in a private vengeance prosecuted out of duty to the dead, nor entail on her a perpetual division [αἰώνιον διχόμοιαν] under pretence of piety" (i. 570, transl. by Facund.). Cyril took this advice, and the "Joannite" quarrel came to an end, probably in 417–418 (Tillem. xiv. 281; see Photius, Bibl. 232).
The other matter was far more momentous. When Cyril was at the council of Ephesus endeavouring to crush Nestorianism, Isidore wrote to him: "Prejudice does not see clearly; antipathy does not see at all. If you wish to be clear of both these affections of the eyesight, do not pass violent sentences, but commit causes to just judgment. God . . . was pleased to 'come down and see' the cry of Sodom, thereby teaching us to inquire accurately. For many of those at Ephesus accuse you of pursuing a personal feud, instead of seeking the things of Jesus Christ in an orthodox way. 'He is,' they say, 'the nephew of Theophilus,'" etc. (Ep. i. 310; cf. a Latin version, not quite accurate, by Facundus, l.c.). He had, however, no sympathy with Nestorius: in the close of the letter he seems to contrast him with Chrysostom; in the next letter he urges Theodosius II. to restrain his ministers from "dogmatizing" to the council, the court being then favourable to Nestorius. Isidore was, indeed, very zealous against all tendencies to Apollinarianism: he disliked the phrase, "God's Passion," he insisted that the word "Incarnate" should be added—it was the Passion of Christ (Ep. i. 129); he urged on Cyril the authority of Athanasius for the phrase, "from two natures" (i. 323), and he even uses the yet clearer phrase, ultimately adopted by the council of Chalcedon, "in both natures" (i. 405); but he repeatedly insists on the unity of the Person of Christ, the God-Man, which was the point at issue in the controversy (i. 23, 303, 405). He says that "the Lamb of God," as the true Paschal victim, "combined the fire of the divine essence with the flesh that is now eaten by us" (i. 219); in a letter to a Nestorianizing "scholasticus" he calls the Virgin (not simply Theotokos, but) "Mother of God Incarnate" (Θεοῦ σαρκωθέντος μητέρα," i. 54). When Cyril, two years later, came to an understanding with John of Antioch, Isidore exhorted him to be consistent and said that his most recent writings shewed him to be "either open to flattery or an agent of levity, swayed by vainglory instead of imitating the great athletes" of the faith, etc. (i. 324). Perhaps these letters were "the treatise to" (or against) Cyril, which Evagrius ascribes to Isidore. Isidore was better employed when he uttered warnings against the rising heresy of Eutychianism: "To assert only one nature of Christ after the Incarnation is to take away both, either by a change of the divine or an abatement of the human" (i. 102); among various errors he mentions "a fusion and co-mixture and abolition of the natures," urging his correspondent, a presbyter, to cling to the "inspired" Nicene faith (iv. 99).
His theology was generally characterized by accuracy and moderation. In a truly
Athanasian spirit (cf. Athan. de Decr. Nic. 22) he writes, "We are bound
to know and believe that God is, not to busy ourselves as to what
He is" (i.e. attempt to comprehend His essence; Ep. ii. 299). He is
emphatic against the two extremes of Arianism and Sabellianism. "If God was always
like to Himself, He must have been always Father; therefore the Son is co-eternal"
(i. 241, cf. i. 389; and Eunomians exceed Arians in making the Son a servant (i.
246). Sabellians misinterpret
Very many of his letters are answers to questions as to texts of Scripture. Like
Athanasius, he sometimes gives a choice of explanations (e.g. i. 114); although
a follower of Chrysostom, he shews an Alexandrian tendency to far-fetched and fantastic
interpretation, as when he explains the live coal and the tongs in
Isidore's letters naturally contain allusions to the religious customs or opinions of his age: such as pilgrimage to the shrines of the saints, as of St. Peter (ii. 5; cf. i. 160 on that of Thecla, and i. 226 on the martyrs who "guard the city" of Pelusium); the benediction given by the bishop "from his high chair," and the response "And with thy spirit" (i. 122); the deacon's linen garment, and the bishop's woollen "omophorion" which he took off when the gospel was read (i. 136); the right of sanctuary (i. 174); the wrongfulness of exacting an oath (i. 155).
His death cannot be placed later than 449 or 450 (see Tillem. xv. 116).
Two thousand letters of his, we are told, were collected by the zealously anti-Monophysite community of Acoemetae, or "sleepless" monks, at Constantinople, and arranged in 4 vols. of 500 letters each. This collection appears to be identical with the extant 2,012 letters, distributed, without regard to chronology, into 5 books (see Tillem. xv. 117, 847), of which the first three were edited by Billius, the fourth by Rittershusius, and the fifth by Andrew Schott, a Jesuit; the whole being included in the ed. pub. at Paris in 1638. Many of the letters are, in effect, repetitions. See Bouuy, De S. Isid. Pel. lib. iii. (Nîmes, 1885); also C. H. Turner and E. K. Lake in Journ. of Theol Stud. vol. vi. pp. 70, 270.
Ivo, St. (Yvo), June 19, a supposed Persian bp. in Britain,
after whom the town of St. Ives in Hunts was named. His Life was written by
the monk Goscelin when resident at Ramsey, towards the end of 11th cent., based
on a more diffused account by a previous abbat Andrew, who collected his information
while in the East on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem in 1020. Goscelin's Life is printed
in Boll. Acta SS. 10 June ii. 288. It describes Ivo as a missionary bishop,
a star of the East, a messenger of the true Sun, divinely marked out for work
in Britain. Quitting Persia, he passed through Asia and Illyricum to Rome, enlightening
every place he visited. From Rome he proceeded to Gaul, where the admiring king
and nobles would have detained him, but he pushed forward to Britain with his
three companions. There he rescued the people from idolatry. The first-fruit
of his labours was "a youth of patrician dignity named Patricius, the son of
a Senator." Passing into Mercia, Ivo settled at the vill of Slepe, 3 English
leucae (Gosc. c. 2, § 8) from Huntedun. There he laboured many years, died,
and was buried. About 100 lustra (c. 1, § 4) had passed since the bishop's death,
when a peasant of Slepe struck with his plough a stone sarcophagus, within which
were found, besides human remains, a silver chalice and insignia of the episcopal
rank. Slepe being one of the estates of the abbey of Ramsey, 8 leucae (c. 2,
§ 8) distant, abbat Eadnoth was informed of this. The same night a man of Slepe
saw in a vision one robed as a bishop, with ornaments like those in the sarcophagus,
who said he was St. Ivo and wished to be removed to the abbey, with two of his
companions, whose burial-places he described. The translation was accordingly
effected, and
Possibly there may be here a lingering tradition of old British Christianity and a reminiscence of its Oriental origin, leaving the period out of the question. It would not be surprising if a British remnant should have survived in that locality as late as the Conquest. There are indications that Britons did actually maintain themselves in E. Mercia and the fastnesses of the fens long after the conversion of the English race. Moreover, the name of Patrick gives the story a Celtic look, and the locality might have been a sort of eastern Glastonbury. The Celtic element in the first conversion of the Mercian Angles was likely to prolong the vitality of Celtic traditions. If there was Celtic blood surviving in the fens when Ramsey was founded, the Oriental colouring of the legend is accounted for. The stone sarcophagus may have been a genuine Roman relic, furnishing a material basis for the story and suggesting the occasion. If the above inferences are not unreasonable, the legend of St. Ivo contains a reminiscence that the Christian missionaries who reached Britain from the East came by way of Gaul and of the tradition of their having been sent from Rome.
Slepe is found in Domesday and is still the name of one of the manors of St. Ives.
The priory of St. Ives, the ruins of which survive, is described in Monast. Angl. ii. 631. In the time of Brompton (Twysd. p. 883) no saint in England was so eminent as St. Ivo at Ramsey for the cure of diseases.
The story was written again by John of Tynemouth in 14th cent., in whose Sanctilogium, before the MS. was burnt, it stood No. 70 (Smith, Cat. Cotton MSS. p. 29). It was one of those adopted by Capgrave in 15th cent. for his Nova Legenda (ff. 199) and so is preserved. This version states that the pope commissioned him to Britain. The MS. Lives of Ivo are mentioned by Hardy (Desc. Cat. i. 184–186), and the Life by Goscelin exists as a Bodleian manuscript in a fuller form than the recension given by the Bollandists, the Life in Capgrave being another abridgment. One of the MSS. mentioned by Hardy purports to be the very Life by abbat Andrew referred to by Goscelin.
J
Jacobus (4) or James, bp. of Nisibis in Mesopotamia, called "the Moses of Mesopotamia," born at Nisibis or Antiochia Mygdoniae towards the end of 3rd cent. He is said to have been nearly related to Gregory the Illuminator, the apostle of Armenia. At an early age he devoted himself to the life of a solitary, and the celebrity he acquired by his self-imposed austerities caused Theodoret to assign him the first place in his Religiosa Historia or Vitae Patrum—where he is entitled ὁ μέγας. During this period he went to Persia for intercourse with the Christians of that country and to confirm their faith under the persecutions of Sapor II. Gennadius (de Script. Eccl. c. 1) reports that James was a confessor in the Maximinian persecution. On the vacancy of the see of his native city he was compelled by the popular demand to become bishop. His episcopate, according to Theodoret, was signalized by fresh miracles.
In 325 he was summoned to the council of
Nicaea (Labbe, Concil. ii. 52, 76). A leading
part is ascribed to him by Theodoret in its
debates (Theod. u.s. p. 1114). He is commended
by Athanasius, together with Hosius,
Alexander, Eustathius, and others (adv. Arian.
t. i. p. 252). According to some Eastern accounts,
James was one whom the emperor
Constantine marked out for peculiar honour
(Stanley, Eastern Church, p. 203). His name
occurs among those who signed the decrees
of the council of Antioch, in Encaeniis,
A.D.
341, of more than doubtful orthodoxy (Labbe,
Concil. ii. 559), but no mention of his being
present at this council occurs elsewhere
(Tillem. Mém. eccl. t. vi. note 27, les
Arensi; Hefele, Councils, ii. 58, Eng. tr.). That the
awfully sudden death of Arius at Constantinople,
on the eve of his anticipated triumph, A.D.
336, was due to the prayers of James of
Nisibis, and that on this emergency he had
exhorted the faithful to devote a whole week
to uninterrupted fasting and public supplication
in the churches, rests only on the authority
of one passage, in the Religiosa Historia
of Theodoret, the spuriousness of which
is acknowledged by all sound critics. The
gross blunders of making the death of the
heresiarch contemporaneous with the council
of Nicaea, and of confounding Alexander of
Alexandria with Alexander of Constantinople,
prove it an ignorant forgery. In the account
of the death of Arius obtained by Theodoret
from Athanasius (Theod. H. E. i. 14; Soz.
H. E. ii. 20) no mention is made of James,
nor in that given by Athanasius in his letter
to the bishops. As bp. of Nisibis James was
the spiritual father of Ephrem Syrus, who
was baptized by him and remained by his
side as long as he lived. Milles, bp. of Susa,
visiting Nisibis to attend a synod for settling
the differences between the bps. of Seleucia
and Ctesiphon, c. 341, found James busily
erecting his cathedral, towards which, on his
return, Milles sent a large quantity of silk
Gennadius speaks of James as a copious writer, and gives the titles of 26 of his treatises. Eighteen were found by Assemani in the Armenian convent of St. Anthony at Venice, together with a request for some of his works from a Gregory and James's reply. Their titles—de Fide, de Dilectione, de Jejunio, de Oratione, de Bello, de Devotis, de Poenitentia, de Resurrectione, etc.—correspond generally with those given by Gennadius, but the order is different. In the same collection Assemani found the long letter of James to the bishops of Seleucia and Ctesiphon, on the Assyrian schism. It is in 31 sections, lamenting the divisions of the church and the pride and arrogance which caused them, and exhorting them to seek peace and concord. These were all published with a Latin translation, and a learned preface establishing their authenticity, and notes by Nicolas Maria Antonelli in 1756; also in the collection of the Armenian Fathers, pub. at Venice in 1765, and again at Constantinople in 1824. The Latin translation is found in the Patres Apostolici of Caillau, t. 25, pp. 254–543. The liturgy bearing the name of James of Nisibis, said to have been formerly in use among the Syrians (Abr. Ecchell. Not. in Catal. Ebed-Jesu, p. 134; Bona, Liturg. i. 9) is certainly not his, but should be ascribed to James of Sarug (Renaudot, Lit. Or. t. ii. p. 4). James of Nisibis is commemorated in Wright's Syrian Martyrology, and in the Roman martyrology, July 315. Assemani Bibl. Or. t. i. pp. 17 sqq., 186, 557, 652; Tillem. Mém. eccl. t. vii.; Ceillier, Ant. eccl. t. iv. pp. 478 sqq.; Fabricius, Bibl. Graec. t. ix. p. 289; Cave, Hist. Lit. t. i. p. 189.
Jacobus (13) Sarugensis, bp. of Batnae, a little town in the district of Sarug in Osrhoëne. He enjoyed an extraordinary reputation for learning and holiness and was sainted alike by orthodox and heretics. The Syrian liturgies commemorate him with St. Ephraim as "os eloquentissimum et columnam ecclesiae."
Two Lives are extant in the Vatican and one in the Brit. Mus. (Cod. dcccclx. 46, dated A.D. 1197). The oldest and best is the spirited eulogium by his disciple Georgius, perhaps a bishop of the Arabs. The other two, which are anonymous and later than 10th cent., are in close agreement with it. According to them, Jacobus was born at Kurtom on the Euphrates, A.D. 452, and was taught in one of the schools of Edessa (according to Mares the Nestorian).
The anonymous Life (Vat.) states that
Jacobus was made bp. of Batnae ("urbis
Sarug") when 67½ years old, A.D. 519, and
that he died 2½ years afterwards,
i.e. A.D.
521. Before A.D. 503, Joshua Stylites tells us,
Jacobus was a periodeutes or visitor of the
district of Batnae, a middle rank between the
episcopate and the priesthood. Cf.
Renaudot (t. ii. Liturgg. Orientt.) has
charged Jacobus with Monophysitism, a
charge which Assemani and Abbeloos shew to
be unwarranted. Timotheus of Constantinople
(fl. 6th cent. ad init.) calls him "orthodox,"
Isaacus Ninivita and Joannes Maro
quote him as such, and Joshua the Stylite, his
contemporary, calls him venerable. The
Maronites, always hostile to Nestorians and
Jacobites, honour him as a saint. Further,
he began his episcopate under Justin, by whose
orders Severus was driven from Antioch,
Philoxenos from Hierapolis, and other heretics
from Mesopotamia and Syria. Had Jacobus
been a Monophysite, he would have shared
their fate. Not a single Catholic writer of the
5th, 6th, or 7th cent., says Assemani, has so
accused him. Bar-hebraeus and the Life in
the Brit. Mus., indeed, allege that he communicated
with Severus, and Dionysius in his
Chronicon asserts that St. Jacobus of Sarug
would not communicate with Paul of Antioch,
because the latter confessed the two natures.
But Dionysius is contradictory in his dates.
Some passages of the extant hymns speak of
the single nature of Christ, but may be interpolated.
There is direct evidence that after
the council of Chalcedon the Monophysites
began to tamper with texts (cf. Evagr. iii. 91).
They even attributed whole works, written in
their own interests, to such men as Athanasius
and Gregory Thaumaturgus. Jacobus Edessenus
testifies that a certain poem was falsely
ascribed by the Jacobite sect to the bp. of
Batnae shortly after his decease (Bar-hebr.
Horr. Myst. ad
Works.—He was a very voluminous writer. Bar-hebraeus says that he employed 70 amanuenses in writing his homiletic poems, of which 760 exist, besides expositions, epistles, hymns, and psalms. Georgius, in his panegyric, gives a list of his poetic writings which treat of the great men of O.T., of angels, and of the mysteries of the Son of God. The anonymous Life (Vat.) states that his homilies (mim’rê) numbered 763. Of these many may be lost; most of those which survive are unedited.
Prose Works.—(1) An anaphora or liturgy
(Renaud. Lit. Or. ii. 556–566) beginning Deus
(2) An order of Baptism; one of four used by the Maronites (Assemani, Cod. Lit. ii. 309).
(3) An order of Confirmation (ib. iii. 184).
(4) A number of epistles—the Brit. Mus.
Cod. dclxxii. (dated A.D. 603) contains 34 in a
more or less perfect state, including (a) Ep.
to Samuel, abbat of St. Isaacus at Gabûla; on
the Trinity and Incarnation. "The Father
unbegotten, the Son begotten, the Spirit proceeding
from the Father, and receiving from
the Son." (b) Ep. to the Himyarite Christians.
(c) Ep. to Stephen bar-Sudaïl of
Edessa, proving from reason and Scripture
the eternity of heaven and hell. (d) Ep. to
Jacobus, an abbat of Edessa, explaining
(5) Six Homilies: on Nativity, Epiphany, Lent, Palm Sunday, The Passion, The Resurrection (Zingerlé, Sechs Homilien des heilig. Jacob von Sarug, Bonn, 1867).
Poetic Works.—Assemani gives a catalogue of 231, with headings and first words. Very few have been printed. The subjects are chiefly the personages and events of O. and N. T., esp. the words and deeds of Christ. Jacobus is very fond of an allegorical treatment of O.T. themes.
Wright's Cat. Syr. MSS., pp. 502–525, gives an account of upwards of 40 MSS. and fragments of MSS., containing metrical discourses, and letters and a few homilies in prose, by St. Jacobus. Jacobus Edessenus classed the bp. of Batnae with St. Ephraim, Isaacus Magnus, and Xenaias Mabugensis, as a model writer of Syriac. Assem. Bibl. Or. i. 283–340; Cave, ii. 110; Abbeloos, de Vitâ et Scriptt. S. Jacobi Batn. Sarugi in Mesop. Episc. (Lovan. 1867); Matagne, Act. Sanct. xii. Oct. p. 824; Bickell, Consp. Syr. 25, 26.
Jacobus (15) or James Baradaeus (Al Baradai, Burdoho, Burdeono, Burdeana, or Burdeaya, also Phaselita, or Zanzalus), ordained by the Monophysites bp. of Edessa (c. A.D. 541), with oecumenical authority over the members of their body throughout the East. By his indomitable zeal and untiring activity this remarkable man rescued the Monophysite community from the extinction with which persecution by the imperial power threatened it, and breathed a new life into what seemed little more than an expiring faction, consecrating bishops, ordaining clergy, and uniting its scattered elements in an organization so well planned and so stable that it has subsisted unharmed through all the many political and dynastic storms in that portion of the world, and preserves to the present day the name of its founder as the Jacobite church of the East. Materials for his Life are furnished by two Syriac biographies by his contemporary, John of Asia, the Monophysite bp. of Ephesus ordained by him, printed by Land (Anecdota Syriaca, vol. ii. pp. 249–253, pp. 364–383), and by the third part of the Eccles. History of the same author (Payne Smith's trans. pp. 273–278, 291).
The surname Baradaeus is derived from the ragged mendicant's garb patched up out of old saddle-cloths, in which, the better to disguise his spiritual functions from the unfriendly eyes of those in power, this indefatigable propagator of his creed performed his swift and secret journeys over Syria and Mesopotamia.
James Baradaeus is stated by John of
Ephesus to have been born at Tela Mauzalat,
otherwise called Constantina, a city of Osrhoëne,
55 miles due E. of Edessa, towards the
close of 5th cent. His father, Theophilus
Bar-Manu, was one of the clergy of the place.
In pursuance of a vow of his parents, James,
when two years old, was placed in that
monastery under the care of abbat Eustathius,
and trained in Greek and Syriac literature and
in the strictest asceticism (Land, Anecdot. Syr.
t. ii. p. 364). He became remarkable for the
severity of his self-discipline. Having on the
death of his parents inherited their property,
including a couple of slaves, he manumitted
them, and made over the house and estate to
them, reserving nothing for himself (ib. 366).
He eventually became a presbyter. His fame
spread over the East and reached the empress
Theodora, who was eagerly desirous of seeing
him, as one of the chief saints of the Monophysite
party of which she was a zealous
partisan. James was with much difficulty
induced to leave his monastery for the imperial
city. Arriving at Constantinople, he was received
with much honour by Theodora. But
the splendour of the court had no attractions
for him. He retired to one of the
monasteries of the city, where he lived as a
complete recluse. The period spent by him
at Constantinople—15 years, according to John
of Ephesus—was a disastrous one for the
Monophysite body. Justinian had resolved
to enforce the Chalcedonian decrees universally,
and the bishops and clergy who refused
them were punished with imprisonment,
deprivation, and exile. Whole districts of
Syria and the adjacent countries were thus
deprived of their pastors, and the Monophysites
were threatened with gradual extinction.
For ten years many churches had been destitute
of the sacraments, which they refused to
receive from what were to them heretical
hands. The extreme peril of the Monophysites
was represented to Theodora by the
sheikh Harith, and by her instrumentality the
recluse James was drawn from his cell and
persuaded to accept the hazardous and
laborious post of the apostle of Monophysitism
in the East. A considerable number of
Monophysite bishops from all parts of the
East, including Theodosius of Alexandria,
Anthimus the deposed patriarch of Constantinople,
Constantius of Laodicea, John of
Egypt, Peter, and others, who had come to
Constantinople in the hope of mitigating the
displeasure of the emperor and exciting the
sympathies of Theodora, were held by Justinian
in one of the imperial castles in a kind of
honourable imprisonment. By them James
was consecrated to the episcopate, nominally
as bp. of Edessa but virtually as a metropolitan
with oecumenical authority. The date is
uncertain, but that given by Assemani
(A.D.
541) is probably correct. The result proved
the wisdom of the choice. Of the simplest
mode of life, inured to hardship from his
earliest years, tolerant of the extremities of
James failed miserably when he attempted to govern the vast and heterogeneous body he had created and organized. The simplicity and innocence of his character, as described by his contemporary John of Ephesus (H. E. iv. 15), disqualified him for rule, and put him in the power of "crafty and designing men about him, who turned him every way they chose, and used him as a means of establishing their own powers." His unhappy dissensions with the bishops he had ordained clouded the closing portion of James's long life. The internecine strife between the different sections of the Monophysite party is fully detailed by John of Ephesus, who records with bitter lamentation the blows, fighting, murders, and other deeds "so insensate and unrestrained that Satan and his herds of demons alone could rejoice in them, wrought on both sides by the two factions with which the believers—so unworthy of the name—were rent," provoking "the contempt and ridicule of heathens, Jews, and heretics" (H. E. iv. 30). For a full account see John of Ephesus, op. cit. (Payne Smith's trans. pp. 48 sqq., 81 sqq., 274 sqq.).
One of these party squabbles was between James and the bps. Conon and Eugenius, whom he had ordained at Alexandria—the former for the Isaurian Seleucia, the latter for Tarsus—who became the founders of the obscure and short-lived sect of the "Cononites," or, from the monastery at Constantinople to which a section of them belonged, "Condobandites" (John of Ephesus, H. E. 31, v. 1–12; trans. u.s. pp. 49–69). Each anathematized the other, James denouncing Conon and his companion as "Tritheists," and they retaliated by the stigma of "Sabellian."
A still longer and more widespreading
difference arose between James and Paul,
whom he had ordained patriarch of Antioch
(H. E. i. 41, p. 81). Paul and the other three
leading bishops of the Monophysites had been
summoned to Constantinople under colour of
taking measures for restoring unity to the
church, and, proving obstinate in the adherence
to their own creed, were thrown into prison for a
considerable time and subjected to the harshest
treatment. This prolonged persecution
broke their spirit, and one by one they all
yielded, accepting the communion of John the
patriarch of Constantinople and the "Synodites,"
as the adherents of the Chalcedonian
decrees were contemptuously termed by their
opponents, "lapsing miserably into the
communion of the two natures" (ib. i. 41, ii.
1–9, iv. 15). Paul, stung with remorse for his
cowardice, escaped into Arabia, taking refuge
with Mondir, son and successor of Harith.
On hearing of his defection James at once cut
Paul off from communion; but at the end of
three years, on receiving the assurance of his
contrition, his act of penitence was laid before
the synod of the Monophysite church of the
East, and he was duly and canonically restored
to communion by James, who notified the fact
by encyclic letters (ib. iv. 15). Paul's
rehabilitation caused great indignation among the
Monophysites at Alexandria. They clamoured
for his deposition, which was carried
into effect by Peter, the intruded patriarch,
in violation of all canonical order; the patriarch
of Antioch (Paul's position in the Monophysite
communion) owning no allegiance
to the patriarch of Alexandria (ib. iv. 16).
James allowed himself to be persuaded that
if he were to visit Alexandria the veneration
felt for his age and services would bring to
an end the unhappy dissension between the
churches of Syria and Egypt, and though
he had denounced Peter, both orally and in
writing, he was induced not only to hold
communion with him but to draw up instruments
of concord and to give his formal assent
to the deposition of Paul, only stipulating that
it should not be accompanied by any excommunication
(ib. 17). The intelligence was
received with indignation and dismay in Syria
on James's return. The schism which resulted
between the adherents of James and
Paul, A.D. 576, "spread like an ulcer" through
the whole of the East, especially in Constantinople.
In vain did Paul entreat James to
discuss the matters at issue between them
calmly, promising to abide by the issue. In
vain did Mondir put himself forward as a peacemaker.
James shrank from investigation,
and caused an obstinate refusal to be returned
to all overtures of accommodation (ib. 20,
21). Wearied out at last, and feeling the
necessity for putting an end to the violence
and bloodshed which was raging unchecked,
James suddenly set out for Alexandria, but
never reached it. On the arrival of his party,
including several bishops, at the monastery of
A liturgy bearing the name of "Jacobus Bordayaeus" is given by Renaudot (Lit. Or. t. ii. pp. 332–341), who confuses him, as Baronius does (ad ann. 535), with Jacobus Baradaeus. That this liturgy is correctly assigned to the Jacobite church is proved by the special memorial of their founder, "memento Domine omnium pastorum et doctorum ecclesiae orthodoxae . . . praecipue vero Jacobi Bordaei," as well as by the special condemnation of those who "impiously blasphemed the Incarnation of the Word, and divided the union in nature (unionem in natura) with the flesh taken from the holy mother of God" (ib. 337, 338). The Catechesis, the chief dogmatical formulary of the Jacobites, "totius fidei Jacobiticae norma et fundamentum" (Cave, Hist Lit. i. 524), though adjudged to be his by Cave, Abraham Ecchellensis, and others, together with the Encomium in Jacobitas, and an Arabic Homily on the Annunciation, are discredited by Assemani on philological and chronological grounds.
Joannes (11) I., surnamed Talaia, patriarch of Alexandria and afterwards bp. of Nola. From having been a presbyter in the monastery of the Tabennesians at Canopus near Alexandria, he was known as Tabennesiotes (Pagi, Critic. s.a. 482, xix.; Mansi, vii. 1178 B). Previous to the expulsion of Salofaciolus from his see of Alexandria, and after his restoration, John held the office of oeconomus under him (Brevic. Hist. Eutych. Mansi, vii. 1063; Liberat. Breviar. c. 16 in Migne, Patr. Lat. lxviii. 1020). Shortly afterwards John was sent by the Catholics of Alexandria to the emperor Zeno, to thank him for the restoration of Salofaciolus, and to pray that when a vacancy occurred in the see they might choose his successor. He obtained an edict from the emperor complying with this request (Evagr. H. E. iii. 12), and after his return became greatly distinguished as a preacher in Alexandria (Brevic. Hist. Eutych. u.s.). Salofaciolus died A.D. 482 and the Catholics then elected John (ib.). The Monophysites elected Peter Mongus, then in exile (Liberat. c. 17; Theophan. s.a. 476). John sent the usual synodic announcement of his election to Simplicius, bp. of Rome, but neglected to direct one to ACACIUS bp. of Constantinople, only sending one to his friend Illus, who was then in that city, with instructions to make what use of it he thought fit, and accompanying it with a letter addressed to the emperor. When the magistrianus whom John employed as his messenger to Constantinople arrived there, he found that Illus had gone to Antioch, whither he followed him with the synodic. On receiving it at Antioch Illus delivered the synodic to Calandio, then recently elected to the patriarchate of that see (Liberat. cc. 17, 18). Acacius, taking offence at not receiving a synodic from John, joined the Monophysites in their appeal to the emperor against him, and prevailed upon Zeno to write to Simplicius, praying him not to acknowledge John (Simplic. Ep. 17, July 15, A.D. 482, in Mausi, vii. 951). Without waiting for the reply of Simplicius, Zeno instructed the civil authorities to expel John. Thus driven from Alexandria, Talaia went to Illus at Antioch, and thence to Rome (Liberat. c. 18). There he was favourably received by Simplicius, who at once wrote to Acacius on his behalf (Ep. 18, Nov. 6, 482, in Mansi, vii. 995). Acacius replied that he did not recognize John, but had received Mongus into communion by command of Zeno; and Simplicius rejoined, blaming Acacius in no measured terms (Liberat. c. 18). Simplicius died March 2, 483, but John was warmly supported by his successor Felix III., who cited Acacius to answer certain charges brought against him by Talaia, and wrote to the emperor praying him to withdraw his countenance from Mongus and restore John (Libell. Citationis ad Acac. Mansi, vii. 1108; Felic. Ep. 2, A.D. 483, in ib. 1032). On the return of his legates from Constantinople, Felix held a synod at Rome which excommunicated Acacius for his persistent support of Mongus (Ep. 6, July 28, 484, in ib. 1053). Felix wrote to inform Zeno of this, and to let him know that "the apostolic see would never consent to communion with Peter of Alexandria, who had been justly condemned long since" (Ep. 9, Aug. 1, 484, in ib. 1065). Felix did not obtain his end, and John seems to have remained at Rome until the death of Zeno and the succession of Anastasius, A.D. 491, to whom John had shewn kindness at Alexandria after his shipwreck. Presuming that Anastasius would not be unmindful of this, John went to Constantinople to appeal to him. On hearing of his arrival Anastasius at once ordered him to be exiled, and John made his escape and returned to Rome (Theophan. s.a. 484, p. 118; Victor Tunun. s.a. 494, in Migne, Patr. Lat. lxviii. 948). Felix died Feb. 25, 492, but his successor, Gelasius I., equally interested himself in John (Gelas. Epp. 13, 15, in Mansi, viii. 49 seq., c. 493–495).
All these efforts to procure his reinstatement were of no avail; John never returned to Alexandria, but received, as some compensation, the see of Nola in Campania, where, after many years, he died in peace (Liberat. c. 18). During his episcopate there he apparently wrote an απολογια to Gelasius, in which he anathematized the Pelagian heresy, Pelagius himself, and Celestius, as well as Julianus of Eclana. Phot. Biblioth. Cod. liv.; Le Quien, Or. Christ. ii. 417, 419; Remondini, Del Nolana Eccl. Storia, iii. 56–59; Ughelli, Ital. Sacr. vi. 251; Tillem. Mém. xvi. 313 seq.; Hefele, Concil. ii. 604 seq.
Joannes (31), bp. of Antioch (429–448).
Our knowledge of him commences with his
election as successor to Theodotus in the see
of Antioch. In 429 the bishops of the East,
according to the aged Acacius of Beroea,
congratulated themselves on having such a
leader (Labbe, iii. 386); but the troubles
which rendered his episcopate so unhappily
famous began immediately to shew themselves.
His old companion and fellow-townsman Nestorius
had just been appointed to the
see of Constantinople, and had inaugurated
his episcopate with a sermon in the metropolitan
church repudiating the term "Mother
The divergence of the Antiochene and Alexandrian schools of thought in their way of regarding the mystery of the Incarnation lay at the root of this controversy about the term, and it was brought into open manifestation by the publication of Cyril's twelve "anathematisms" on the teaching of Nestorius. Nestorius, on receiving these fulminations at the end of 430, at once sent copies of them to John, together with his two sermons of Dec. 13 and 14, in which he professed to have acknowledged Mary as the "Mother of God" (ib. p. 691, c. iv.). John declared himself horror-stricken at the Apollinarian heresy which characterized Cyril's articles. He made them known far and wide, in Cappadocia, Galatia, and through the East generally, accompanying them with earnest appeals to the bishops and the orthodox everywhere to openly repudiate the grave errors they contained (ib. p. 838, No. xxxvi. Ep. Alexandri Episc.). His letter to Firmus is preserved (Baluz. p. 691, c. iv.), in which he expresses abhorrence of the "capitula," which he considers so unlike Cyril both in style and doctrine that he cannot believe they are his, and calls upon Firmus, if they reach Pontus, to get them abjured by the bishops of the province, without naming the supposed author. He rejoices over Nestorius's public acceptance of the test-word, in the two sermons he has sent him, which has quieted the storm and restored tranquillity to the church of Constantinople. John was also careful to have Cyril's heretical formularies refuted by able theologians. [ANDREAS SAMOSATENSIS; THEODORET.]
The breach between the two patriarchs was complete. Each denounced the other as heretical. A larger arena was supplied by the general council summoned by Theodosius to meet at Ephesus at Pentecost, 431. John's arrival having been delayed more than a fortnight beyond the time fixed for the opening of the council, he wrote that Antioch was 42 days' journey from Ephesus, at the fastest. He had been travelling without interruption for 30 days; he was now within five or six stages of Ephesus. If Cyril would condescend to wait a little longer, he hoped in a very few days to arrive (ib. p. 451, c. xxiii.). Cyril would not delay. On Mon. June 22, 431, 198 bishops met in the church of St. Mary the Virgin, and in one day Nestorius was tried, condemned, sentenced, deposed, and excommunicated. Five days later, Sat. June 27, John arrived with 14 bishops. His reasons for delay were quite sufficient. His patriarchate was a very extensive one. His attendant bishops could not leave their churches before the octave of Easter, Apr. 26. The distances some of them had to travel did not allow them to reach Antioch before May 10. John's departure had been delayed by a famine at Antioch and consequent outbreaks of the populace; their progress was impeded by floods (Labbe, iii. 602); the transport broke down; many of the bishops were aged men, unfit for rapid travelling. There was nothing to support Cyril's accusation that John's delay was intentional.
Cyril sent a deputation of bishops, and
ecclesiastics to welcome John, apprise him in
the name of the council of the deposition of
Nestorius and that he must no longer regard
him as a bishop (ib. iii. 761). John, who had
already heard from count Irenaeus of the
hasty decision of the council, refused to admit
the deputation, and they complained that they
were rudely treated by the guard whom
Irenaeus had sent to do honour to and protect
the Eastern bishops. The deputation were
compelled to wait for some hours at the door
of the house where John took up his quarters,
exposed to the insults of the soldiers and the
attendants of the Orientals (ib. 593, 764)
while a rival council was being held within.
The bishops who sided with John had hastened
to his lodgings, where, "before they had
shaken the dust off their feet, or taken off
their cloaks" (Cyril. Ep. ad Colest. Labbe, iii.
663), the small synod—the "conciliabulum"
their enemies tauntingly called it—of 43
bishops, passed a sentence of deposition on
John's attempts to reduce Cyril and his adherents to submission by his own authority proved fruitless, and he had recourse to the emperor and the ecclesiastical power at Constantinople. Several letters were written to Theodosius, to the empresses Pulcheria and Eudocia, the clergy, the senate, and the people of that city (Labbe, iii. 601–609; Liberat. c. vi.) to explain the tardiness of John's arrival and to justify the sentence pronounced on Cyril, Memnon, and the other bishops. Theodosius wrote to the council, declaring their decisions null (Labbe, iii. 704). The letter reached Ephesus June 29. John and his friends welcomed it with benedictions, assuring the emperor that they had acted from pure zeal for the faith which was imperilled by the Apollinarianism of Cyril's "anathematisms." Relying on imperial favour, John strove in vain to persuade the Ephesians to demand a new bishop in the place of Memnon. Meantime, the legates of Celestine had arrived from Rome, and the council, strengthened by their presence and the approbation of the bp. of Rome, proceeded, July 16, to summon John before them. Their deputation was informed that John could hold no intercourse with excommunicated persons (ib. 640). On this the council declared null all the acts of John's "conciliabulum," and, on his persisting, separated him and the bishops who had joined him from the communion of the church, pronounced them disqualified for all episcopal functions, and published their decree openly (ib. 302).
Two counter-deputations from the opposite parties presented themselves to Theodosius in the first week of September at Chalcedon. John himself did not shrink from an open defence of the orthodoxy of Nestorius, declaring his deposition illegal and exposing the heresy of Cyril's anathematisms (Baluz. pp. 837, 839). To support their evidently failing cause, John and his fellow-deputies wrote to some leading prelates of the West, the bps. of Milan, Aquileia, and Ravenna, and Rufus of Thessalonica, laying before them in earnest terms the heretical character of Cyril's doctrines (Theod. Ep. 112; Labbe, iii. 736), but apparently without favourable result. The victory was substantially with the Cyrillian party. After six audiences the emperor, weary of the fruitless strife, declared his final resolve. Nestorius, generally abandoned by his supporters, was permitted to retire to his former monastery of St. Euprepius at Antioch. Maximian, a presbyter of Constantinople, in defiance of the protest of John and his party, was consecrated (Oct. 25) bp. of the imperial see in his room. Memnon and Cyril were reinstated: the former to remain at Ephesus as bishop; Cyril and the other bishops to return home. John and the Orientals were only not formally condemned because the dogmatic question had not been discussed. Before he retired vanquished, John delivered a final remonstrance. The churches of Chalcedon were closed against the Oriental bishops, but they had obtained a spacious hall for public worship and preaching. Large crowds assembled to listen to the powerful sermons of Theodoret and the milder exhortations of John. The mortification with which John left Chalcedon was deepened by the events of his homeward journey. At Ancyra he found that letters from its bp. Theodotus, who was one of the eight deputies of the council, as well as from Firmus of Caesarea, and Maximian the newly appointed bp. of Constantinople, had commanded that he and his companions should be regarded as excommunicate.
From Ancyra John proceeded to Tarsus. Here, in his own patriarchate, he immediately held a council, together with Alexander of Hierapolis and the other deputies, at which he confirmed the deposition of Cyril and his brother-commissioners (Baluz, 840, 843, 847) Theodoret and the others engaged never to consent to the deposition of Nestorius. On reaching Antioch, about the middle of Dec., John summoned a very numerously attended council of bishops, which pronounced a fresh sentence against Cyril and wrote to Theodosius, calling upon him to take measures for the general condemnation of the doctrines of Cyril, as contrary to the Nicene faith which they were resolved to maintain to the death (Socr. H. E. vii. 34; Liberat. c. vi.; Baluz. p. 741, c. xxxix.). Soon after his return to Antioch John, accompanied by six bishops, visited the venerable Acacius of Beroea, whose sympathy in the controversy had greatly strengthened and consoled him. The old man was deeply grieved to hear the untoward result of their proceedings.
The battle was now over and the victory
remained with Cyril. His return to Alexandria
was a triumphal progress (Labbe, iii. 105).
But the victory had been purchased by a
schism in the church. Alexandria and Antioch
were two hostile camps. For three
years a bitter strife was maintained. The
issue, however, was never doubtful. John,
alarmed for his own safety, soon began to
show symptoms of yielding. The emperor,
at the urgent demand of Celestine, had pronounced
the banishment of Nestorius. John
might not unreasonably fear a demand for his
own deposition. It was time he should make
it clear that he had no real sympathy with the
errors of the heresiarch. The pertinacity
with which Nestorius continued to promulgate
the tenets which had proved so ruinous to
the peace of the church irritated John. The
newly elected bp. of Rome, Sixtus, who had
warmly embraced Cyril's cause, in a letter
addressed to the prelates of the East in the
interests of reunion, A.D. 432, declared that
John might be received again into the Catholic
This accommodation was far from being
satisfactory to the extreme members of either
party. Isidore of Pelusium and other adherents
of Cyril expressed a fear that he had made
too large concessions; while John had given
great offence to many of his warmest supporters,
who accused him of truckling to
powerful advocates of a hollow peace to
secure his position as bishop. Theodoret
refused to abandon Nestorius. Alexander of
Hierapolis broke off communion with his
patriarch John (Baluz. pp. 799, 832). During
the next two years John sought to force the
bishops of his patriarchate to accept the terms
of peace. Theodoret's unwillingness to abandon
Nestorius and rooted dislike to Cyril's
articles raised a coldness between him and
John which was much strengthened by an
unwarrantable usurpation on John's part,
who at the close of 433 or beginning of 434 had
ordained bishops for Euphratesia. This aggression
caused serious irritation among the
bishops of the province, who, led by Theodoret,
withdrew from communion with John.
John unhappily continuing his acts of usurpation,
the disaffection spread. Nine provinces
subject to the patriarch of Antioch renounced
communion with John, who had at length
to request the imperial power to force them
into union by ejecting the bishops who
refused the agreement he had arranged with
Cyril. Theodoret, yielding to the entreaties
of James of Cyrus and other solitaries of his
diocese, consented to a conference with John
and was received by his old friend with great
cordiality. All reproaches were silenced, and
as John did not insist on his accepting
sentence against Nestorius, he embraced
concordat, and returned to communion with
John and Cyril (ib. pp. 834–836). The way
towards peace had been smoothed by the
death of Nestorius's successor, Maximian,
Apr. 12, 434, and the appointment as archbp.
of Constantinople of the saintly Proclus, who,
in the early part of the Nestorian controversy,
had preached the great sermon on the Theotokos
(Socr. H. E. vii. 40; Baluz. p. 851).
Proclus's influence was exerted in favour of
peace, and so successfully that all the remonstrant
bishops, except Alexander of Hierapolis
and five others, ultimately accepted the concordat
and retained their sees. Alexander
was ejected in Apr. 435. John made a strong
representation to Proclus in 436 that Nestorius
in his retirement was persisting in his blasphemies
and perverting many in Antioch and
throughout the East (Baluz. p. 894), and formally
requested Theodosius to expel him from
the East and deprive him of the power of doing
Nestorian doctrines were too deeply rooted in the Eastern mind to be eradicated by persecution. Cyril, suspecting that the union was more apparent than real and that some of the bishops who had verbally condemned Nestorius still in their hearts cherished his teaching, procured orders from the Imperial government that the bishops should severally and explicitly repudiate Nestorianism. A formula of Cyril's having been put into John's hands for signature, John wrote in 436 or 437 to Proclus to remonstrate against this multiplicity of tests which distracted the attention of bishops from the care of their dioceses (Labbe, iii. 894).
Fresh troubles speedily broke out in the East in connexion with the writings of the greatly revered Theodore of Mopsuestia and Diodorus of Tarsus, whose disciple Nestorius had been. The bishops and clergy of Armenia appealed to Proclus for his judgment on the teaching of Theodore (ib. v. 463). Proclus replied by the celebrated doctrinal epistle known as the "Tome of St. Proclus." To this were attached some passages selected from Theodore's writings, which he deemed deserving of condemnation (ib. 511–513). This letter he sent first to John requesting that he and his council would sign it (Liberat. p. 46; Facundus, lib. 8, c. 1, 2), John assembled his provincial bishops at Antioch. They expressed annoyance at being called on for fresh signatures, as if their orthodoxy was still questionable, but made no difficulty about signing the "Tome," which they found worthy of all admiration, both for beauty of style and the dogmatic precision of its definitions. But the demand for the condemnation of the appended extracts called forth indignant protests. They refused to condemn passages divorced from their context, and capable, even as they stood, of an orthodox interpretation. A fresh schism threatened, but the letters of remonstrance written by John and his council to Proclus and Theodosius put a stop to the whole matter. Even Cyril, who had striven hard to procure the condemnation of Theodore, was compelled to desist by the resolute front shewn by the Orientals, some of whom, John told him, were ready to be burnt rather than condemn the teaching of one they so deeply revered (Cyril. Epp. 54, 199) Theodosius wrote to the Oriental bishops that the church must not be disturbed by fresh controversy and that no one should presume to decide anything unfavourable to those who had died in the peace of the church (Baluz. p. 928, c. ccxix.). The date of this transaction was probably 438. It is the last recorded event in John's career. His death occurred in 441 or 442. Tillem. Mém. eccl. t. xiv. xv.; Ceillier, Auteurs eccl.; Cave, Hist. Lit. i. 412; Neander, Church. Hist. vol. iv., Clarke's ed.; Milman, Latin Christ. vol. i. pp. 141–177; Bright, Hist. of Church, pp. 310–365.
Joannes (113), surnamed Silentiarius, bp. of Colonia and afterwards one of the most celebrated of the monks. His Life was written by Cyril of Scythopolis. He was born in 454, at Nicopolis in Armenia. His father and mother, noble and wealthy Christians, gave him a Christian education. John consecrated himself to God when 18 years old, built a church at Nicopolis in honour of the Virgin Mary, and taking ten brethren set up a monastery. In his 28th year (c. 481) the bp. of Sebastia, metropolitan of the district, at the request of the people of Colonia, consecrated him bishop of that see against his will. He continued his monastic life, specially avoiding the baths. "He thought it the greatest of all virtues never to be washed"; "determined never to be seen, even by his own eyes, without his clothes." His character had the happiest effect on his own family.
When he had been bp. ten years he went to Constantinople with an appeal to the emperor. Here he embarked on a ship unknown to his friends, made his way to Jerusalem, and dwelt there in a hospital for old men, wherein was an oratory of George the Martyr, but was supernaturally guided to the community of St. Sabas, who presided over 150 anchorets and received John, and appointed him to some petty office. A guest-house was being built; the former bp. of Colonia, the noble of the Byzantine court, fetched water from a torrent, cooked for the builders, brought stones and other materials for the work. Next year the steward appointed John to the humble duty of presiding over the kitchen. At the end of three years he was appointed steward. Sabas, ignorant of his ecclesiastical rank, considering it high time for John to be ordained, took him to Jerusalem, and introduced him to archbp. Elias. John was obliged to confess that he was a bishop. Archbp. Elias wondered at his story, summoned Sabas, and excused John from ordination, promising that from that day he should be silent and nobody should molest him. He never left his cell for four years afterwards, and was seen by none but the brothers who served him, except at the dedication of a church in the community, when he was obliged to pay his respects to archbp. Elias. The patriarch was captivated with his conversation and held him in lifelong honour. In 503 John went into the desert of Ruba. Here he remained silent about seven years, only leaving his cave every third or fourth day to collect wild apples, the usual food of the solitaries.
Sabas eventually persuaded John to return to his old community when 56 years old, A.D. 510. Here he continued to live a life that seemed to the people of those days absolutely angelical and many stories are told of his miraculous endowments. He must have died c. 558. Cyril. Mon. ap. AA. SS. Bolland. 13 Mai. iii. 232; Baron. Annal. ad ann. 457, lviii. etc.; Ceillier, xi. 277.
Joannes (124) II., surnamed Cappadox,
27th bp. of Constantinople, 517–520, appointed
by Anastasius after an enforced condemnation
of Chalcedon. His short patriarchate is
memorable for the celebrated Acclamations of
Constantinople, and the reunion of East and
West after a schism of 34 years. At the death
On July 9, 518, the long reign of Anastasius came to a close, the orthodox Justin succeeding. On Sunday, July 15, the new emperor entered the cathedral, and the archbishop, accompanied by twelve prelates, was making his way through the throngs that crowded every corner. As he came near the raised dais where the pulpit stood shouts arose, "Long live the patriarch! Long live the emperor! Why do we remain excommunicated? Why have we not communicated these many years? You are Catholic, what do you fear; worthy servant of the Trinity? Cast out Severus the Manichee! O Justin, our emperor, you win! This instant proclaim the synod of Chalcedon, because Justin reigns." These and other cries continued. The procession passed into the inclosure, but the excited congregation went on shouting outside the gates of the choir in similar strains: "You shall not come out unless you anathematize Severus," referring to the heretical patriarch of Antioch. The patriarch John, having meanwhile gained time for thought and consultation, came out and mounted the pulpit, saying, "There is no need of disturbance or tumult; nothing has been done against the faith; we recognize for orthodox all the councils which have confirmed the decrees of Nicaea, and principally these three—Constantinople, Ephesus, and the great council of Chalcedon."
The people were determined to have a more formal decision, and continued shouting for several hours, mingling with their former cries such as these: "Fix a day for a festival in honour of Chalcedon!" "Commemorate the holy synod this very morrow!" The people being thus firm, the deacon Samuel was instructed to announce the desired festival. Still the people continued to shout with all their might, "Severus is now to be anathematized; anathematize him this instant, or there's nothing done!" The patriarch, seeing that something must be settled, took counsel with the twelve attendant prelates, who agreed to the curse on Severus. This extemporaneous and intimidated council then carried a decree by acclamation: "It is plain to all that Severus in separating himself from this church condemned himself. Following, therefore, the canons and the Fathers, we hold him alien and condemned by reason of his blasphemies, and we anathematize him." The domes of St. Sophia rang with shouts of triumph and the crowd dispersed. It was a day long remembered in Constantinople.
The next day the promised commemoration of Chalcedon took place. Again as the patriarch made his processional entrance and approached the pulpit clamours arose: "Restore the relics of Macedonius to the church! Restore those exiled for the faith! Let the bones of the Nestorians be dug up! Let the bones of the Eutychians be dug up! Cast out the Manichees! Place the four councils in the diptychs! Place Leo, bp. of Rome, in the diptychs! Bring the diptychs to the pulpit!" This kind of cry continuing, the patriarch replied, "Yesterday we did what was enough to satisfy my dear people, and we shall do the same to-day. We must take the faith as our inviolable foundation; it will aid us to reunite the churches. Let us then glorify with one mouth the holy and consubstantial Trinity." But the people went on crying madly, "This instant, let none go out! I abjure you, shut the doors! You no longer fear Amantius the Manichee! Justin reigns, why fear Amantius?" So they continued. The patriarch tried in vain to bring them to reason. It was the outburst of enthusiasm and excitement long pent up under heterodox repression. It bore all before it. The patriarch was at last obliged to have inserted in the diptychs the four councils of Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon, and the names of Euphemius and Macedonius, patriarchs of Constantinople, and Leo, bp. of Rome. Then the multitude chanted for more than an hour, "Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for He hath visited and redeemed His people!" The choir assembled on the raised platform, and, turning eastwards, sang the Trisagion, the whole people listening in silence. When the moment arrived for the recitation of the names of the defunct bishops from the diptychs, the multitude closed in silence about the holy table; and when the deacon had read the new insertions, a mighty shout arose, "Glory be to Thee, O Lord!"
To authenticate what had been done, John assembled on July 20 a council of 40 bishops, who happened to be at the capital. The four general councils and the name of Leo, bp. of Rome, were inscribed in the diptychs. Severus of Antioch was anathematized after an examination of his works in which a distinct condemnation of Chalcedon was discovered. John wrote to John of Jerusalem and to Epiphanius of Tyre, telling them the good news of the acclamations and the synod. His letters were accompanied by orders from Justin to restore all who had been banished by Anastasius, and to inscribe the council of Chalcedon in the diptychs. At Jerusalem and at Tyre there was great joy. Many other churches declared for Chalcedon, and during the reign of Justin 2,500 bishops gave their adhesion and approval. Now came the reconciliation with Rome. The emperor Justin wrote to the pope a fortnight after the scene of the acclamations, begging him to further the desires of the patriarch John for the reunion of the churches. John wrote saying that he received the four general councils, and that the names of Leo and of Hormisdas himself had been put in the diptychs. A deputation was sent to Constantinople with instructions that Acacius was to be anathematized by name, but that Euphemius and Macedonius might be passed over in silence.
The deputies arrived at Constantinople on
The sting of the transaction still remained; they had now to efface from the diptychs the names of five patriarchs and two emperors—Acacius, Fravitta, Euphemius, Macedonius, and Timotheus; Zeno and Anastasius. All the bishops at Constantinople gave their consent in writing; so did all the abbats, after some had raised a difficulty. On Easter Day the pacification was promulgated. The court and people, equally enthusiastic, surged into St. Sophia. The vaults resounded with acclamations in praise of God, the emperor, St. Peter, and the bp. of Rome. Opponents, who had prophesied sedition and tumult, were signally disappointed. Never within memory had so vast a number communicated. The emperor sent an account of the proceedings throughout the provinces and the ambassadors forwarded their report to Rome, saying that there only remained the negotiations with Antioch. John wrote to Hormisdas to congratulate him on the great work, and to offer him the credit of its success. Soon after, Jan. 19, 520, John died.
Baronius, ad. ann. 518, x.–lxxvii. 520, vii.; Fleury, ii. 573; Acta SS. Bolland. 18 Aug. iii. 655; Theoph. Chronogr. § 140, Patr. Gk. cviii.; Niceph. Callist. iiii. 456, Patr. Gk. cxlvii.; Photius, iii. § 287 a, Patr. Gk. ciii.; Avitus, Ep. vii. Patr. Lat. lix. 227; Hormisdas, Epp., Patr. Lat. lxiii. p. 426, etc.
Joannes (125) III., surnamed Scholasticus, "The Lawyer," 32nd bp. of Constantinople (Apr. 12, 565-Aug. 31, 577), born at Sirimis, in the region of Cynegia, near Antioch. There was a flourishing college of lawyers at Antioch, where he entered and did himself credit. This was suppressed in 533 by Justinian. John was ordained and became agent and secretary of his church. This would bring him into touch with the court at Constantinople. When Justinian, towards the close of his life, tried to raise the sect of the Aphthartodocetae to the rank of orthodoxy, and determined to expel the blameless Eutychius for his opposition, the able lawyer-ecclesiastic of Antioch, who had already distinguished himself by his great edition of the canons, was chosen to carry out the imperial will.
Little is known of his episcopal career. Seven months after his appointment Justinian died. The new emperor, Justin II., was crowned by the patriarch, Nov. 14, 565. John himself died shortly before Justin.
One of the most useful works of that period was the Digest of Canon Law formed by John at Antioch. Following some older work which he mentions in his preface, he abandoned the historical plan of giving the decrees of each council in order and arranged them on a philosophical principle, according to their matter. The older writers had sixty heads. He reduced them to fifty. To the canons of the councils of Nicaea, Ancyra, Neocaesarea, Gangra, Antioch, Ephesus, and Constantinople, already collected and received in the Greek church, John added 89 "Apostolical Canons," the 21 of Sardica, and the 68 of the canonical letter of Basil. Writing to Photius, pope Nicholas I. cites a harmony of the canons which includes those of Sardica, which could only be that of John the Lawyer. When John came to Constantinople, he edited the Nomocanon, an abridgment of his former work, with the addition of a comparison of the imperial rescripts and civil laws (especially the Novels of Justinian) under each head. Balsamon cites this without naming the author, in his notes on the first canon of the Trullan council of Constantinople. In a MS. of the Paris library the Nomocanon is attributed to Theodoret, but in all others to John. Theodoret would not have inserted the "apostolical canons" and those of Sardica, and the style has no resemblance to his. In 1661 these two works were printed at the beginning of vol. ii. of the Bibliotheca Canonica of Justellus, at Paris. Photius (Cod. lxxv.) mentions his catechism, in which he established the Catholic teaching of the consubstantial Trinity, saying that he wrote it in 568, under Justin II., and that it was afterwards attacked by the impious Philoponus. Fabricius considers that the Digest or Harmony and the Nomocanon are probably rightly assigned to John the Lawyer. Fabricius, xi. 101, xii. 146, 193, 201, 209; Evagr. H. E. iv. 38, v. 13, Patr. Gk. lxxxvi. pt. 2; Theoph. Chronogr. 204, etc., Patr. Gk. cviii.; Niceph. Callist. iii. 455, Patr. Gk. cxlvii.; Victor Tunun. Patr. Lat. lxviii. 937; Baronius, ad. ann. 564, xiv. xxix.; 565, xvii.; 578, 5; Patr. Constant. in Acta SS. Bolland. Aug. i. p. * 67.
Joannes (126) IV. (surnamed The Faster, Jejunator, sometimes also Cappadox, and thus liable to be confused with the patriarch John II.), 33rd bp. of Constantinople, from Apr. 11, 582 to Sept. 2, 595. He was born at Constantinople of artisan parents, and was a sculptor. In 587 or 588 he summoned the bishops of the East in the name of "the Oecumenical Patriarch" to decide the cause of Gregory, archbp. of Antioch, who was acquitted and returned to his see. Pelagius II., bp. of Rome, solemnly annulled the acts of this council. In 593 we find John severely blamed by pope Gregory for having allowed an Isaurian presbyter named Anastasius, accused of heresy, to be beaten with ropes in the church of Constantinople.
In 595 the controversy was again rife about the title of universal bishop. Gregory the Great wrote to his legate Sabinianus forbidding him to communicate with John. In the case of a presbyter named Athanasius, accused of being to some extent a Manichee, and condemned as such, Gregory shews that the accuser was himself a Pelagian, and that by the carelessness, ignorance, or fault of John the Faster the Nestorian council of Ephesus had actually been mistaken for the Catholic, so that heretics would be taken for orthodox, and orthodox condemned as heretics!
His Writings.—Isidore of Seville (de Script. Eccl. 26) attributes to him only a letter, not now extant, on baptism addressed to St. Leander. John, he says, "propounds nothing of his own, but only repeats the opinions of the ancient Fathers on trine immersion."
But there are extant four works attributed
to John the Faster. (1) His Penitential,
Libellus Poenitentialis, or, as it is described
in bk. iii. of the work of Leo Allatius, de
Consensu Utriusque Ecclesiae (Rome, 1655,
4to), Praxis Graecis Praescripta in Confessione
Peragenda. The Greeks of the middle ages
(2) Instructio, qua non modo confitens de confessione pie et integre edenda instituitur, sed etiam sacerdos, qua ratione confessiones excipiat, poenitentiam imponat et reconciliationem praestet informatur.
(3) Homily on Penitence, Continence, and Virginity. Often printed among Chrysostom's homilies, but now agreed not to be Chrysostom's. Montfaucon, Vossius, and Pearson held it to be by John the Faster; Morel and Savile printed it among Chrysostom's works.
(4) Homily on False Prophets and False Doctrine. Attributed occasionally to Chrysostom, by Peter Wastel to John of Jerusalem, but by Vossius, Petavius, and Cave to John the Faster.
(5) A set of Precepts to a Monk, in a MS. at the Paris library.
Migne reproduces the Penitential, the Instructions for Confession, and the Homily on Penitence in Patr. Gk. lxxxviii. 1089. See also Baronius, ad. ann. 588–593; AA. SS. Bolland. Aug. 1, p. 69; Fleury, ii. bk. xxxiv. c. 44, etc.; Ceillier, xi. 427, etc.; Fabricius, Bibl. Graec. xi. 108, xii. 239.
Joannes (160) (called of Asia and of Ephesus), Monophysite bp. of Ephesus, born c. 516, and living in 585, a Syriac writer whose chief work was his History of the Church, in the extant portion of which he describes himself once as "John, who is called superintendent of the heathen and Breaker of Idols" (ii. 4), and twice as "John who is over the heathen, who was bp. of Ephesus" (ii. 41; iii. 15). Elsewhere he styles himself, "John bp. of Ephesus" (iv. 45), or simply, "John of Ephesus" (v. 1); and, lastly, "John of Asia, that is, John of Ephesus" (v. 7). Hence John of Ephesus is clearly the historian so often mentioned by Syriac writers as John bp. of Asia, "Asia" meaning the district of which Ephesus was the capital.
Dr. Land (Johann von Ephesus der erste syrische Kirchenhistoriker) discusses his identification with one or other of his numerous namesakes who wrote during the same period; and has pronounced in the negative.
What we know of the personal history of John of Ephesus is gathered from the meagre extracts from pt. ii. of his great work, preserved in the Chronicon of Dionysius; and from the extant pt. iii., which is to some extent an autobiography. Dionysius (ap. Assemani, Bibl. Or. 83–90) tells us that John's birthplace was Amid in N. Mesopotamia. He stood high in the confidence of the emperor Justinian, by whom he was commissioned in 542 as "Teacher of the heathen" in the four provinces of Asia, Caria, Phrygia, and Lydia. His success was such that in four years 70,000 persons adopted Christianity. In the third part of his history (ii. 44) John mentions that Deuterius was 35 years his fellow-labourer, and his successor in Caria. Together they had built 99 churches and 12 monasteries. John tells (iii. 36–37) how the work began among the mountains round Tralles. His chief monastery, Darira, rose upon the site of a famous temple which he had demolished.
In 546 he was entrusted with an inquiry into the secret practice of pagan rites by professing Christians. Members of all ranks were inculpated: Phocas, prefect of the capital, being informed against, poisoned himself. John was appointed to instruct the accused in Christian doctrine; and an imperial edict prescribed conversion within three months! Theophanes tells us that heathens and heretics were to be excluded from public office.
From pt. iii. of John's history we learn that in the 2nd year of Tiberius (A.D. 579), upon the rumour of a heathen plot to destroy the Christians of Baalbec, the emperor ordered an officer named Theophilus to suppress paganism in the East. Torture, crucifixion, the sword, wild beasts, were among the means employed. Numbers were accused; the prisons teemed with victims of every rank; and a permanent inquisition was established for their trial.
As bp. of Ephesus or "Asia," John appears to have supervised all the Monophysite congregations of Asia Minor. His 30 years of influence at the court of Justinian and his high personal qualities gave him very considerable authority among his own party. He tells us (v. 1) that in the reign of Justin II. he "was dwelling in the royal city and controlling all the revenues of all the congregations of the Faithful there and in every place." In a chapter written A.D. 581 he mentions his old intimacy with Tiberius at the court of Justin: "He and I were often together, and stood with the other courtiers before the serene Justin " (iii. 22).
John suffered grievously in the persecution
instigated first by John Scholasticus, whom he
calls John of Sirmin, and afterwards by Eutychius.
Together with Paul of Aphrodisias
(subsequently patriarch of Antioch), Stephen,
bp. of Cyprus, and the bp. Elisha, John of
Ephesus was imprisoned in the patriarch's
palace. In the heated debates which followed,
the four Monophysite bishops stoutly charged
John of Sirmin with breach of the canons in
annulling the orders of their clergy, and, when
the patriarch demanded of them "a union
such as that between Cyril of Alexandria and
John of Antioch," declared their willingness
provided they might drive out the council of
Chalcedon from the church, as Cyril had
driven out Nestarius. The vacillating emperor,
of whom John testifies that for six
years he had been friendly to the "orthodox,"
attempted to secure peace by drawing up a
dogmatic formula, in the shape of an imperial
edict, which he sent to the four captive bishops
for revision. Their changes were admitted,
but the "Nestorians and semi-Nestorians" of
the court—so John puts it—scared the timid
emperor into further alterations, of which the
chief was an inserted clause, " that the customs
of the church were to be maintained,"
which meant that the obnoxious council was
still to be proclaimed from the diptychs.
Weary of the dispute, and probably not understanding
its grounds, Justin now signed the
document, and required the subscription of
John of Ephesus and his companions. They
declined, and 33 days passed in constant
wrangling between them and the patriarch.
Meanwhile they were kept under close guard;
the patriarch's creatures stripped them of
everything; friends were denied admittance
Tiberius, Justin's successor, though unwilling to persecute, was overcome by popular clamour. The mob of the capital groundlessly suspected their new emperor of Arian leanings (iii. 13, 26). An edict was therefore published ordering the arrest of Arians, Manicheans, etc. Under cover of this, the "orthodox" were once more harried and plundered. The first victim was John of Ephesus (iii. 15), who had now lived many years and suffered much in Constantinople. He and his friends were incarcerated at Christmas in a miserable prison called the Cancellum (A.D. 578?); and after much fruitless argument were finally ordered to leave the city.
It is greatly to our historian's credit that, during the bitter strife which raged long among the Monophysites themselves, in the matter of the double election of Theodore and Peter to succeed Theodosius as their patriarch of Alexandria, he maintained an honourable neutrality, standing equally aloof from Paulites and Jacobites, although his sympathies were with Theodore, the injured patriarch (iv. 9–48). John wrote his account of this pernicious quarrel in 583, the 2nd year of Maurice; for he says that it had already lasted 8 years (iv. 11), and that he is writing an outline of events from the year of Alexander 886 (A.D. 575) onwards (iv. 13). In his anxiety to heal the schism, John sent 10 epistles to "the blessed Jacob" [JACOBUS BARADAEUS], protesting his own neutrality, and urging reconciliation between the two factions (iv. 46); and after Jacob's death (A.D. 581) his party made overtures to John of Ephesus, then living at the capital, to induce him to recognize Peter of Callinicus as patriarch of Antioch in place of Paul (iv. 45). In reply the historian rebuked them for violating the canons. John accuses both sides of an utter want of mutual charity, and an entire aversion to calm examination of the grounds of their quarrel. He adds that he has briefly recorded the main facts from the outset to the current year, 896 (A.D. 585)—the latest date observable in his work.
The Ecclesiastical History.—John states (pt.
iii. bk. i. c. 3) that he has already written
a history of the church, "beginning from the
times of Julius Caesar, as far as to the sixth
year of the reign of Justin II., son of the sister
of Justinian." If, as Dr. Payne Smith
assumes, pt. i. was a mere abridgment of
Eusebius, its loss is not a great one. The
disappearance of pt. ii. is more unfortunate,
as it would probably have furnished much
important matter for the reign of Justinian.
It brought the history down to 571. Pt. iii.
continues it to c. 585, thus covering the period
between the 6th year of Justin II. and the 4th
of Maurice. It was called forth by the persecution
above mentioned, which broke out
in the 6th or 7th year of Justin, and the writer
often apologizes for want of chronological
order, occasional repetitions, and even
inconsistencies of statement (see esp. i. 3; ii.
50), as defects due to the stress of untoward
circumstances: "This should be known to
critics: many of these stories were penned in
time of persecution . . . people conveyed away
the papers inscribed with these chapters, and
the other papers and writings, into divers
places, and in some instances they remained
hidden so long as two or three years in one
place or another" (ii. 50). John had no
memoranda of what he had already written,
and never found opportunity for revision.
With these drawbacks, the work possesses
special interest as an original account. John
His attitude to the great controversy of his day is that of one thoroughly convinced that his own party holds exclusive possession of the truth. The Monophysites are "the orthodox," "the faithful"; their opponents "Synodites," "Nestorians," or at least "half-Nestorians"; the synod of Chalcedon is "the stumbling-block and source of confusion of the whole church"; "it sunders Christ our God into two natures after the Union, and teaches a Quaternity instead of the holy Trinity" (i. 10, 18); the four bishops taunt the patriarch with "the heresy of the two natures, and the blasphemies of the synod, and of the tome of Leo" (i. 18). Yet John does not labour to blacken the memory of his adversaries; the strong terms in which he speaks of the pride of power and savage tyranny of John Scholasticus are warranted or at least excused by facts (i. 5, 12, 37); and Baronius denounces John of Sirmin in language equally decided (H. E. ad ann. 564). In regard to Eutychius, John protests his adherence to truth: "Although we declare ourselves opposed to the excellent patriarch Eutychius, yet from the truth we have not swerved in one thing out of a hundred; nor was it from eagerness to revile and ridicule that we committed these things to writing" (iii. 22). His impartiality is manifest in his description of the great schism which rent asunder his own communion; unsparing in his censure of both factions, he refers their wicked and worse than heathenish rancour to the instigation of devils (iv. 19, 22, 39). Credulous John was, but credulity was a common attribute of his age. More serious objection might be taken to his approval of the cruelties connected with the suppression of heathenism (iii. 34) and his intolerance of "heresy" other than his own. In 550 he dug up and burnt the bones of Montanus, Maximilla, and Priscilla, the false prophets of Montanism (Extr. ap. Dionys.). Herein also he shared the temper of his contemporaries. The spirit of persecution is not the peculiar mark of any age, church, or sect. Apart from these blemishes we may recognize in him an historian who sincerely loved truth; a bishop who was upright and devoted; and a man whose piety rested upon a thorough knowledge of Scripture.
His style, like that of most Syriac writers, is verbose and somewhat unwieldy, but has the eloquence of simple truth and homely pathos.
The Third Part of the Ecclesiastical History of John of Ephesus was first edited from the unique MS. in the Brit. Mus. by Dr. Cureton (Oxf. 1853)—a splendid reproduction of the original—and translated into English by Dr. Payne Smith (Oxf. 1860) and into German by Schönfelder (München, 1862). These versions are of great assistance, many chapters being defective in the original.
Joannes (216) II., bp. of Jerusalem, 386–417, in succession to Cyril; a prelate known to us chiefly through the invectives of Jerome, and hence particularly difficult to estimate. Imbued with that tendency of Eastern church teachers which formed their chief difference from those of the Western church, he with difficulty brought himself to acquiesce in the condemnation of Origenism or to take any steps against Pelagius, with whom he was brought in contact at the close of his episcopacy, and the presence of Jerome and other immigrants from Italy, and the anti-Origenistic vehemence of Epiphanius of Salamis and Theophilus of Alexandria, made it impossible for him to escape the reproach of laxity and even at times of heresy.
Born between 350 and 356 (Hieron. Ep.
lxxxii. 8, ed. Vall.), he passed as a young man
some time among the monks of Nitria in
Egypt. There he, no doubt, imbibed his
affection for Origen's teaching, and probably
became acquainted with two persons who had
much to do with his own subsequent history
and with that of the Origenistic controversy—the
monk Isidore (one of the Long Monks)
and Rufinus. During the troublous times
before the accession of Theodosius, when
Arianism was in the ascendant, he declined,
teste Jerome (cont. Joan. Jerus. 4),
to communicate with the orthodox bishops exiled by
Valens. But no imputation of Arianism rests
upon him. He was evidently esteemed very
highly, and of great eloquence (ib. 41) and
subtlety of mind. His flatterers compared him
with Chrysippus, Plato, and Demosthenes (ib. 4).
He was little more than 30 years old (Hieron.
Ep. lxxxii. 8, ed. Vall.) when chosen to succeed
Cyril as bp. of Jerusalem. It was a see of
great importance, subject in certain respects
to the metropolitan at Caesarea, but acting
at times independently; of great wealth
(cont. Joan. Jerus. 14), and of great interest
for its holy places, which were visited by
pilgrims from all parts. It had also a special
interest from the settlements of distinguished
persons from the West, which made it during
his episcopate a focus of Christian and literary
activity, and with two of which, that of
Rufinus and Melania on the Mount of Olives,
When John became bishop, Rufinus had
already been settled on the Mount of Olives
some nine years, and Jerome and his friends
were just entering on their work at Bethlehem.
At first he lived in impartial friendship with
them both, seeking out Jerome especially
(";nos suo arbitrio diligebat," Hieron. Ep.
lxxxii. 11, ed. Vall.), and making use of
Rufinus, whom he ordained, as a learned man,
in business which required his special talents.
After some six years their peace was disturbed.
A certain Aterbius (Hieron. cont. Ruf. iii. 33),
who by his officious insinuations and imputations
of Origenistic heresy caused the first
breach between Jerome and Rufinus, had, no
doubt, some dealings with the bishop also;
and, probably through him, the suspicions of
Epiphanius, the venerable bp. of Salamis, were
aroused. When Epiphanius came to Jerusalem
in 394, the strife broke out. For the controversy see
EPIPHANIUS (1) and
HIERONYMUS (2).
During the dispute between Jerome
and Rufinus, John in no way intervened.
Zöckler (Hieron. p. 249) thinks him to have
inclined rather to the side of Jerome. We
certainly find Jerome, in a letter to Theophilus,
in commendation of his encyclical
(Ep. lxxxvi., ed. Vall.), pleading for his bishop.
John had accepted a person under the ban of
Theophilus who had come from Jerusalem to
Alexandria, and thus had incurred the wrath
of that fierce prelate; but Jerome represented
that Theophilus had sent no letters
condemnatory of this person, and that it would
be rash to condemn John for a supposed fault
committed in ignorance. As regards Rufinus,
John wrote a letter to pope Anastasius, the tenor
of which can be only dimly inferred from the
pope's extant reply. John was apparently less
anxious to defend Rufinus than to secure his own
freedom from implication in the charges made
against Rufinus by Jerome's friends at Rome.
The pope, with fulsome expressions of esteem for
John, bids him put such fears away and judge
Rufinus for himself. He professes to know
nothing about Origen, not even who he was,
while yet he has condemned his opinions; and
as to Rufinus, he only says that, if his translation
of the works of Origen implies an acceptance
of his opinions (a matter which he leaves
to his own conscience), he must see where he
can procure absolution. That John was not
then in familiar communication with Rufinus,
but was with Jerome, may be inferred from
the fact that Jerome used this letter in his
controversy with Rufinus (cont. Ruf. ii. 14),
while Rufinus did not know of its existence,
and, when he heard of it, treated it as an
invention of Jerome (ib. iii. 20). The reconciliation
of John with the monks of Bethlehem
is further attested by Sulpicius Severus (Dial.
i. 8), who had stayed six months at Bethlehem,
and says that John had entrusted to Jerome
and his brother the charge of the parish of
Bethlehem. A letter from Chrysostom to
John in 404 (Migne's Patr. Gk. vol. lii.) shews
that he had taken Chrysostom's part; then we
hear nothing more of John for 12 or 13 years,
when the Pelagian controversy brings him
forward once more. Pelagius and Coelestius,
having come in 415 to Jerusalem, were encountered
by Orosius, the friend of Augustine,
who had come to visit Jerome, and afterwards
by the Gaulish bishops Heros and Lazarus.
Orosius, who recounts these transactions in the
first nine chaps. of his Liber de Arbitrii Libertate,
addressed himself to John, as did also
Pelagius; but John was not willing to accept
without inquiry the decrees of the council of
Carthage and resented their being pressed
upon him by Orosius. The two parties were
in secret conflict for some time, till John
determined on holding a synod to end the
strife, on July 28, 415. John was the only
bishop present; the rest were presbyters and
laymen. He shewed some consideration
towards Pelagius, allowing him, though a
layman, to sit among the presbyters; and
when there was a clamour against Pelagius
for shewing disrespect for the name and
authority of Augustine, John, by saying, "I
am Augustine," undertook both to ensure
respect to that great teacher and not to allow
his authority to be pressed too far against his
antagonist. "If," cried Orosius, "you represent
Augustine, follow Augustine's judgment."
John thereupon asked him if he was ready to
become the accuser of Pelagius; but Orosius
declined this duty, saying that Pelagius had
been condemned by the African bishops, whose
decisions John ought to accept. The proceedings
were somewhat confused from the
necessity of employing an interpreter. Finally,
it was determined to send a letter to pope
Innocentius and to abide by his judgment.
Meanwhile, John imposed silence upon both
parties. This satisfied neither. The opinions
of Pelagius continued to be spread by private
intercourse, and Augustine wrote to remonstrate
with John against the toleration of
heresy. On the arrival of the Gaulish bishops
Heros and Lazarus, another synod was held
at Diospolis (416) under the presidency of
Euzoïus, the metropolitan bp. of Caesarea, in
which John again took part. Augustine, in
his work against Julianus, records the decision
of this council, which was favourable to
Pelagius, but considers his acquittal due to
uncertainties occasioned by difference of
language, which enabled Pelagius to express
Several works are attributed to him (see Ceillier, vii. 97, etc.). Gennadius (30) mentions one which he wrote in his own defence; but no work of his is extant. He must, therefore, always be viewed through the medium of other, mostly hostile, writers, and through the mists of controversy.
Joannes (217) III., bp. of Jerusalem, 513–524. On the banishment of Elias, bp. of Jerusalem, by the emperor Anastasius, John, deacon of the Anastasis, was forcibly thrust into his episcopal seat by Olympius, prefect of Palestine, on his engaging to receive Severus of Antioch into communion and to anathematize the decrees of Chalcedon (Cyrill. Scythop. Vit. S. Sab. cc. 37, 56). Such an engagement awoke the orthodox zeal of St. Sabas and the other fathers of the desert, who successfully used their influence with the new-made bishop to prevent the fulfilment of the compact, which Olympius lacked sufficient firmness to enforce. Anastasius, recalling Olympius, dispatched in his room a name-sake of his own, who had offered to forfeit 300 pounds of gold if he failed to induce John to fulfil his agreement, A.D. 517. The prefect Anastasius surprised the unsuspicious bishop and threw him into prison until he should fulfil his promise. This step delighted the populace, who regarded John as having obtained Elias's seat by fraud. Zacharias, one of the leading men of Caesarea, gaining a secret interview with the imprisoned bishop, persuaded him to feign assent to Anastasius's requirements and promise, if he would release him from prison, to publicly signify, on the following Sunday, his agreement to the original conditions. Anastasius, believing John's professions, liberated him. On the Sunday a vast concourse assembled, including 10,000 monks. Anastasius was present with his officials to receive the expected submission. John, having ascended the ambo, supported by Theodosius and Sabas, the leaders of the monastic party, was received with vociferous shouts, "Anathematize the heretics!" "Confirm the synod!" When silence was secured, John and his two companions pronounced a joint anathema on Nestorius, Eutyches, Soterichus of the Cappadocian Caesarea, and all who rejected the decrees of Chalcedon. Anastasius, utterly unprepared for this open violation of the compact, was too much terrified by the turbulent multitude, evidently prepared for violence, and hastily escaped to Caesarea. The emperor, though furious, had too much on his hands to attend to ecclesiastical disputes at Jerusalem, and John was allowed to go unpunished. The death of Anastasius in 518, and the succession of Justin, changed the whole situation. Orthodoxy was now in the ascendant. The whole East followed the example of the capital, and John could, without fear of consequences, summon his synod to make the same profession of faith with his brother-patriarch in the imperial city, and was received into communion by pope Hormisdas, at the request of Justin (ib. c. 60). John died A.D. 524, after an episcopate of 11 years. Theophan. Chronogr. p. 136; Tillem. Mém. eccl. xvi. 721; Fleury, H. E. livre xxi. cc. 27, 28; Le Quien, Or. Christ. iii. 185.
Joannes (346) I., bp. of Rome after
Hormisdas, Aug. 13, 523, to May 18, 526.
The emperor Justin, having during the
pontificate of Hormisdas restored the churches
in the East to orthodoxy and communion
with Rome, continued to shew his orthodox
zeal by the persecution of heretics. Having
already suppressed the Eutychians and
Nestorians, he issued in 523 a severe edict
against Manicheans, condemning them, wherever
found, to banishment or death (Cod.
Justin. leg. 12). Justin's edict had debarred
other heretics from public offices, but had
excepted the Arian Goths because of his
league with Theodoric, the Gothic king of
Italy. Soon afterwards, however, he proceeded
against the Arians also, ordering all
their churches to be consecrated anew for the
use of the Catholics. Theodoric, who, though
an Arian, had hitherto granted toleration to
Catholics in his own dominions, remonstrated
with the emperor by letter, but without effect.
He therefore applied to the bp. of Rome,
whom he sent for to Ravenna, desiring him to
go to Constantinople to use his influence with
the emperor, and threatening that, unless
toleration were conceded to Arians in the
East, he would himself withhold it from
Catholics in the West. John went
(A.D. 525),
accompanied by five bishops and four senators.
The unprecedented event of a visit by
Joannes (347) II. (called Mercurius), bp. of Rome after Boniface II., Dec. 31, 532, to May 27, 535, a Roman by birth who had been a Roman presbyter (Anastas. Lib. Pont.) The canvassings and contests then usual delayed the election 11 weeks. Church funds were used and sacred vessels publicly sold for bribery (Ep. Athalaric. ad Joann. pap.; Cassiodor. Variar. l. ix.; Ep. 15).
The most noteworthy incident of his brief reign is a doctrinal decision, in which he appears at first sight to differ from one of his predecessors. Pope Hormisdas had in 522 written in strong condemnation of certain Scythian monks who had upheld the statement that "one of the Trinity" (Unus ex Trinitate) "suffered in the flesh." His rejection of the phrase had at the time been construed so as to imply heresy (Ep. Maxent. ad Hormisd.), and now the Acoemetae, or "Sleepless Monks," of Constantinople argued from it in favour of the Nestorian position that Mary was not truly and properly the mother of God; saying with reason that, if He Who suffered in the flesh was not of the Trinity, neither was He Who was born in the flesh. The emperor Justinian, supported by the patriarch Epiphanius, having condemned the position of the "Sleepless Monks," they sent a deputation to Rome, urging the pope to support their deduction from the supposed doctrine of his predecessor. The emperor, having embodied his view of the true doctrine in an imperial edict, sent it with an embassy to Rome and a letter requesting the pope to signify in writing to himself and the patriarch his acceptance of the doctrine of the edict, which he lays down as indubitably true, and assumes to be, as a matter of course, the doctrine of the Roman see (Inter. Epp. Joann. II. Labbe). But the edict was a distinct assertion of the correctness of the phrase contended for by the Scythian monks and so much objected to by Hormisdas. Its words are, "The sufferings, as well as miracles, which Christ of His own accord endured in the flesh are of one and the same. For we do not know God the Word as one and Christ as another, but one and the same" (Lex. Justin. Cod. 1, i. 6). In his letter Justinian expresses himself similarly.
John, having received both deputations,
assembled the Roman clergy, who at first could
come to no agreement. But afterwards a
synod convened by the pope accepted and
confirmed Justinian's confession of faith. To
this effect he wrote to the emperor on
It is true that we do not find in the letters of Hormisdas any distinct condemnation of the phrase itself, however strongly he inveighed against its upholders, as troublesome and dangerous innovators. But the fact remains that a doctrinal statement which one pope strongly discountenanced, as at any rate unnecessary and fraught with danger, was, twelve years afterwards, at the instance of an emperor, authoritatively propounded by another. Justinian's view, which John accepted, has ever since been received as orthodox.
In 534 John, being consulted by Caesarius of Arles as to Contumeliosus, bp. of Riez in Gaul, wrote to Caesarius, to the bishops of Gaul, and to the clergy of Riez, directing the guilty bishop to be confined in a monastery.
A letter assigned to this pope by the Pseudo-Isidore, addressed to a bp. Valerius, on the relation of the Son to the Father, is spurious.
Joannes (348) III., bp. of Rome, after
Pelagius, July 18, 560, to July 12, 573,
ordained after a vacancy of 4 months and 17
days, was the son of a person of distinction at
Rome (Anastas. Lib. Pont.). There are two
incidents in which his name appears. Two
bishops in Gaul had been deposed by a synod
held by order of king Guntram at Lyons under
the metropolitan Nicetius. The deposed
prelates obtained the king's leave to appeal to
Rome, and John III. ordered their restoration
(Greg. Turon. Hist. l. v. cc. 20, 27). The
second incident is mentioned by Anastasius
(Lib. Pont. in Vit. Joann. III.), and by Paulus
Joannes (444) Presbyter, a shadowy personage of the sub-apostolic age, the reasons for belief in his existence being solely derived from an inference drawn by Eusebius from language used in a passage of Papias. In the middle of the 3rd cent. Dionysius of Alexandria (Eus. H. E. vii. 25) had maintained on critical grounds that the author of the fourth gospel and of the Catholic epistle could not also have been the author of the Apocalypse. Dionysius takes for granted that the author of the gospel was John the apostle, and has no difficulty in conceding that the name of the author of the Apocalypse was also John, since the writer himself says so; but urges that he never claims to be the apostle. He calls himself simply John, without adding that he was the disciple whom Jesus loved, or who leaned on our Lord's breast, or the brother of James, or in any way forcing us to identify him with the son of Zebedee. Now, there were many Johns, and it is said that there were two tombs in Ephesus, each called John's. Except in the statement last made, Dionysius does not pretend to have found any actual trace of any John of the apostolic age besides John the apostle and John Mark. His argument is merely that if we have good critical reasons for believing the authors of the gospel and of the Apocalypse to be distinct, the fact that both bore the name John does not force us to identify them. Some 75 years later Eusebius found historic evidence for regarding as a fact what Dionysius had suggested as a possibility. He produces from the preface to the work of Papias an extract, for a fuller discussion of which see PAPIAS. What concerns us here is that Papias, speaking of his care in collecting oral traditions of the apostolic times, says, "on any occasion when a person came in my way, who had been a follower of the elders, I would inquire about the discourses of the elders—what was said by Andrew, or by Peter, or by Philip, or by Thomas or James, or by John or Matthew or any other of the Lord's disciples, and what Aristion and the Elder John, the disciples of the Lord say" (Lightfoot's trans.). Eusebius points out that as the name John occurs here twice: the first time in a list of apostles, no doubt representing John the apostle; the second time in a different list, after the name of Aristion and with the title elder prefixed, it must represent a different person. Thus the John whose traditions Papias several times records is the elder, not the apostle. We find thus, remarks Eusebius, that "the account of those is true who have stated that two persons in Asia had the same name, and that there were two tombs in Ephesus, each of which, even to the present time, bears the name of John." "It is likely that the second (unless we allow that it was, as some would have it, the first) beheld the revelation ascribed to John" (H. E. iii. 39). Although Eusebius does not here name Dionysius of Alexandria, he plainly had in mind that passage of his writings which he gives at length elsewhere. The ambiguous way in which he speaks of the Apocalypse shews that his personal inclination was to pronounce it non-apostolical, but that he was kept in check by the weight of authority in its favour. The silence of Eusebius indicates that the other passages in Papias where John was mentioned contained no decisive indications what John was intended.
Modern writers have not been unanimous in their judgment on this criticism of Eusebius. Several reject it, judging Papias to be mentioning one John twice. So Milligan (Journal Sac. Lit. Oct. 1867), Riggenbach (Jahrb. für deutsche Theol. xiii. 319), Zahn (Stud. und Krit. 1866, p. 650, Acta Johannis, 1880, p. cliv.). But a far more powerful array of critics endorses the conclusion of Eusebius e.g. Steitz (Stud. and Krit. 1868, p. 63), Lightfoot (Contemp. Rev. Aug. 1875, p. 379), Westcott (N. T. Canon. p. 69); while less orthodox critics with one consent base their theories with confidence on John the Elder being as historical as SS. Peter or Paul.
The argument of Eusebius, on the other
hand, seems to have made little impression at
the time and his successors seem to know only
of one John and go on speaking of Papias as
the hearer of John the apostle. In this they
follow Irenaeus; and it is an important fact
that Irenaeus, who was very familiar with the
work of Papias of which he made large use and
whose Eastern origin ought to have acquainted
him with the traditions of the Asiatic church,
shews no symptom of having heard of any
John but the apostle, and describes Papias
(v. 33, p. 333) as a hearer of John and a companion
of Polycarp. That Polycarp was a
hearer of John the apostle is stated explicitly
by Irenaeus in his letter to Victor (Eus. H. E.
v. 24; see also his letter to Florinus, v. 20).
That Polycarp was made bp. of Smyrna by
John the apostle is stated by Tertullian
(Praes. v. 30) and was never doubted
by subsequent writers. Polycrates, appealing to the
great lights of the church of Asia (Eus. v. 24),
names John, who leaned on our Lord's breast,
who sleeps at Ephesus, but says nothing about
any second John buried there or elsewhere.
The silence of Dionysius of Alexandria is
positive proof that no tradition of a second
John had reached him. If he knew and remembered
the passage in Papias it did not
occur to him to draw from it the same inference
as Eusebius. Neither, though he mentions
the two monuments at Ephesus, both
bearing the name of John, does he say what
would have been very much to his purpose,
that he had heard that they were supposed to
commemorate different persons; and in fact
Jerome, who in his "catalogue" repeats the
story, tells us that some held that the same
John was commemorated by
both.
The supposition that John the apostle was never in Asia Minor has been embraced by Keim (Jesu von Nazara), Scholten (Der Apostel Johannes in Kleinasien) and others. But except that the recognition of the residence of a different John in Asia opens the possibility of a confusion, their reasons for disbelief in the apostle's residence in Asia are worthless. There is an immense mass of patristic testimony that John the apostle lived to a great age and died in Asia in the reign of Trajan.
If, then, both John the apostle and the elder taught in Asia, can we transfer to the second anything traditionally told of the first? Dionysius and Eusebius transfer to him the authorship of the Apocalypse, but those who now divide the Johannine books between these two Johns unanimously give the Apocalypse to the first. St. Jerome assigns to "the Elder" the two minor epistles, and this is a very natural inference from their inscription. That is a modest one, if the writer could have claimed the dignity of apostle; but if not, it seems arrogant to designate himself as the elder when there must have been elders in every city. There is also a great assumption of authority in the tone of the 3rd epistle. The writer sends his legates to the churches of the district, is angry if these legates are not respectfully received, and addresses the churches in a tone of command. It may be suggested as an explanation of this, that the writer knew himself to be the sole survivor in the district of the first Christian generation; and it agrees with this that Papias describes him as a disciple of our Lord, yet speaks of him in the present tense while he speaks of the apostles in the past. But this hypothesis is scarcely tenable if we believe what is told of the great age attained by the apostle John, who is said to have lived to the reign of Trajan. This hardly leaves room for any one who could claim to have heard our Lord to acquire celebrity after the apostle's decease. Further, no one who used the fourth gospel only could know that there had been an apostle named John. Even our Lord's forerunner, called in other gospels John the Baptist, in this is simply John, as if there were no need to distinguish him from any other. The apostle alone would not feel such need, therefore if he were the author of the gospel, all is intelligible; but if the author were his disciple, is it conceivable that he should thus suppress the name of his great master and predecessor in labour in Asia; and if beside the apostle there were in our Lord's circle another John, is it conceivable that the writer should not have distinguished between them?
Thus the Eusebian interpretation of Papias
must stand on its own merits. It obtains no
confirmation from independent testimony, nor
does it solve any perplexing problems. It is
certainly possible that we with our more
powerful instruments of criticism may be able
to resolve a double star which had appeared
to the early observers single. Yet considering
how much closer and more favourably
circumstanced they were, we have need to
look well that the mistake is not our own.
One Eusebian argument must then be rejected,
namely, that by calling his second
John the elder, Papias meant to distinguish
him from the apostle. This would be so if
he had called the first John an apostle, but
actually he calls him an elder. If we suppose,
as do Lightfoot and others, that he uses the
word elder in two different senses, at least
the word cannot be used the second time to
distinguish him from those to whom it is
applied the first time. If it is to distinguish
him from any one it is from Aristion, to whom,
though also called a disciple of the Lord, this
name is not applied. Hence Eusebius's second
argument, that Papias by placing John after
Aristion meant to assign to him a less honourable
place, fails since John is given a title of
dignity which is refused to Aristion. Some
light is thrown on the sense in which the word
elder is applied to John by Papias in his
preface by the fact that one of his traditions
is told with the formula, "These things the
The only Eusebian argument then that remains is that Papias mentions the name John twice over and therefore may be presumed to speak of two Johns. But might he not first enumerate John in his list of seven apostles, concerning whom he had been able to glean traditions, and a second time in his shorter list of men of the first Christian generation who had survived to his own day? Papias wrote for the men of his time, to whom the facts were well known, and the idea of being misunderstood would no more occur to him than it would to us, if we spoke of one of our leading statesmen at one moment by his surname only, the next with the addition of his title or Christian name. The second time the title "elder" is used it does not mean "one of the first generation of Christians," for Aristion to whom the title is refused was that; it does not mean merely one holding the office of presbyter, for then the phrase "the elder" would have no meaning. What remains but that the second John had the same right to the title as Andrew, Peter, and the rest to whom it is given in the beginning of the sentence?
Hence while we own the Eusebian interpretation of Papias to be a possible one, we are unable to see that it is the only possible one; and therefore while willing to receive the hypothesis of two Johns, if it will help to explain any difficulty, we do not think the evidence strong enough to establish it as an historical fact: and we frankly own that if it were not for deference to better judges, we should unite with Keim in relegating, though in a different way, this "Doppelgänger" of the apostle to the region of ghostland.
Joannes (504), surnamed Climacus,
Scholasticus, or Sinaita. At the age of 16 he
entered the monastery of Mount Sinai, subsequently
became an anchoret, and at 75
abbat of Mount. Sinai. At the entreaty of
John abbat of Raïthu he now composed his
works, the Scala Paradisi and the Liber ad
Pastorem; from the title
(κλῖμαξ) of the first
of these he gained his name of Climacus
(Climakos). It contains his experiences in
the spiritual life, with instructions for the
attainment of a higher degree of holiness, and
is dedicated to the abbat of Raïthu who
afterwards wrote a commentary upon it (Patr.
Gk. lxxxviii.1211–1248). Returning into solitude,
John died at an advanced age early in
the 7th cent. Boll: Acta SS. Mart. iii. 834:
Migne, u.s. 631–1210; a new ed. of the Gk. text
of his works was pub. in 1883 at Constantinople
by Sophronius Eremites; Surius, de Probatis
Sanct. Historiis,
Joannes (507) Saba, a native of Nineveh, fl. in 6th cent.; an orthodox monk of Dilaita or Daliatha, a small town on the W. bank of the Euphrates. His works are 30 discourses and 48 epistles, of which Syriac and Arabic MSS. exist in the Roman libraries. Though abounding in digressions, the style is marked by persuasive eloquence. They are headed "on the divine gifts and spiritual solaces vouchsafed to monks for their comfort and delight." Assem. Bib. Or. i. 433–444 iii. i. 103, 4; Bickell, Cons. Syr. p. 26.
Joannes (509), called of Bêth-Rabbân or Bêthnarsi, disciple and successor in the 6th cent. of Jacobus the founder of the monastery of Bêth-Haba. Jesujab, bp. of Nineveh, stated that Joannes had been a monk 70 years before his departure from Bêth-Haba; 30 years he had lived as a solitary, 40 with Jacobus as a coenobite. Joannes was for some time in the monastery of Bêth-Rabbân, which was subject to the same abbat as Bêth-Haba. Ebedjesu (ap. Assem. Bibl. Or. III. i. 72) states that he wrote a commentary on Ex., Lev., Num., Job, Jer., Ezk., and Prov., also certain tracts against Magi, Jews, and heretics. He also wrote prayers for Rogation days, a prayer on the death of Chosroes I. (d. 579), and on a plague which befel Nisibis, besides paracletic addresses for each order in the church (i.e. metrical discourses read in the office of the dead), a book of questions relating to O. and N. T., psalms, hymns, and chants. One of his hymns is in the Mosul Breviary, p. 61, and in a MS. in the Brit. Mus. (Wright, Cat. p. 135). Rosen and Forshall (Cat. MSS. xii. 3 n.) mention another hymn of his. Cf. also Lelong, Bibl. Sacr. ii. 794.
Joannes (520), surnamed Moschus and Eucratas (also Everatas and Eviratus, corruptions of Eucratas as Fabricius remarks), a monk, author of Pratum Spirituale, c. 620. The materials of his Life are to be collected from his book (which exhibits no historical arrangement), a brief notice by Photius (Cod. 199) and a Greek Vatican MS. of which Migne has printed a Latin version entitled Elogium Auctoris. This document extends the chronological material, and purports to have been composed while the Laura of St. Sabas in Palestine was standing.
Photius states that Moschus commenced the
recluse life in the monastery of St. Theodosius,
perhaps c. 575. In the Pratum Moschus is
found at two monasteries named after two
Theodosii, near Antioch and Jerusalem respectively.
The one intended by Photius is a Laura founded
c. 451 by the younger St. Theodosius a
little E. of Jerusalem (Boll. Acta SS.
Jan. i. 683). The Pratum (c. 92) shews Moschus
at this spot, described as "in the desert of the
holy city," Gregory being archimandrite. In the
reign of Tiberius (Prat. 112) John Moschus was
sent by his superior on monastic business with
a companion, Sophronius Sophista (said to
have been afterwards patriarch of Jerusalem),
to Egypt and Oasis. This circumstance, unnoticed
by Photius, is assigned by the Elogium
to the beginning of the reign of Tiberius (i.e.
578). The absence was perhaps temporary,
and Moschus's more protracted wanderings in
Egypt may be assigned to a much later day.
His Palestine life lasted more than 25 years,
and Sophronius Sophista is frequently mentioned
as his companion, once with a remark
that it was "before he renounced the world."
Photius states that he began monastic life at
St. Theodosius, he afterwards resided with
The work of Moschus consists of anecdotes
and sayings collected in the various monasteries
he visited, usually of eminent anchorets
of his own time, as he states in his dedicatory
address to Sophronius; but some whose
stories were related belonged to an earlier
period, e.g. John of Sapsas. The work is now
distributed in 219 chapters, but was originally
comprised, says Photius, in 304 narrations
(διηγήματα). The discrepancy may be partly
due to arrangement, as some chaps. (e.g. 5, 55,
92, 95, 105) contain 2 or even 3 distinct narrations,
introduced by the very word διήγημα.
Moschus (To Sophron.) compares the character
of his worthies to various flowers in a spring
meadow, and names his work accordingly
Λειμών (Pratum). In the time of Photius
some called it Νέον Παραδείσιον (Hortulus
Novus), and it has since been named Viridarium,
Νέοσ Παράδεισος (Novus Paradisus) and
Λειμωναριον. The title Pratum Spirituale
apparently originated with the first Latin translator, said by Possevinus
to have been Ambrosias Camaldulensis (ob. 1439) who translated
numerous works of the Greek Fathers
(Oudin. iii. 2437). The Pratum in this version
forms lib. x. of Rosweyd's Vitae Patrum
(1615), which Migne reprinted in 1850 (Pat.
Lat. lxxiv.), prefixing to the Pratum the Elogium Auctoris
already described. In 1624 an incomplete Greek text made its appearance,
accompanying the Latin, furnished by Fronto
Ducaeus in vol. ii. of the Auctarium to the
4th ed. of La Bigne's Magna Bibliotheca Patrum.
In La Bigne's ed. of 1654 it stands in
vol. xiii. p. 1057. In 1681 Cotelier (Eccles.
Gr. Mon. ii. 341) supplied more of the Greek
and gave an independent Latin translation of
some parts. In 1860 Migne (Pat. Gk. lxxxvii.
2814) reprinted the thus augmented Greek,
leaving a gap of only three chaps. (121, 122,
132), retaining the Latin of Ambrosias throughout.
Other bibliographical particulars, including
an account of the Italian and French
versions, will be found in Fabricius (Bibl. Gr.
x. 124, ed. Harles). The authorship of the
Pratum used sometimes to be attributed to
Sophronius, in whose name it is cited by John
of Damascus (de Imagin. orat. i. 328, ii. 344,
iii. 352 in Patr. Gk. xciv. 1279, 1315, 1335) and
likewise in actio iv. of the seventh synod in
787 (Mansi, xiii. 59). John Moschus and his
book are treated by Cave (i. 581) and more
fully by Ceillier (xi. 700). Dupin gives an
analysis of the Pratum for illustrations of
church discipline (Eng. trans. 1722, t. ii. p. 11).
Joannes (564) Philoponus, a "grammaticus" of Alexandria; a distinguished philosopher, a voluminous writer (Suidas, s.v. Ἰωάννης Τρ.), and one of the leaders of the Tritheites of the 6th cent. (Sophron. Ep. Synodic. Co. Const. A.D. 680; act. xi. in Mansi, xi. 501; Leont. Byzant. de Sect. act. v. in Migne, Patr. Gk. lxxxvi. i. 1232). From his great industry he acquired the surname of Philoponus. He was a native of Alexandria. His earliest known appearance as an author was in his περὶ αϘδιότητος, a reply to Proclus Diadochus. It shows great dialectic ability and learning, the quotations in it covering the whole range of the literature of his own and previous times (Fabricius, Bibl. Gr. ed. Harles, x. 652–654), and is said by Suidas to have been a complete refutation of the great neo-Platonist and to have convicted him of gross ignorance (s. v. Πρόκλος).
Apparently about the same time Philoponus was engaged in a controversy with Severus, the deposed bp. of Antioch (Suidas, s.v. Ἰωαν; Galland. Bibl. Vet. Patr. xii. 376; Cureton, Fragments, 212, 245 seq.). To the same period maybe assigned a treatise de Universali et Particulari, described by Assemani in his catalogue of Syriac MSS. (Bibl. Or. i. 613).
At the request of Sergius (ordained patriarch of Antioch by the Monophysites c. 540) Philoponus wrote his Διαιτητής, Arbiter, the Umpire. It is an attempt to shew that the doctrine which he and his followers held upon the subject of the union of the two natures in the person of our Lord was dialectically necessary. The argument is admirably condensed by Prof. Dorner in his History of the Development of the Doctrine of the Person of Christ (Clark's trans. ii. l. 416).
At what period Philoponus distinctly avowed what is known as Tritheism (Eulog. Patr. Alex. Orat. Phot. ccxxx. ed. Schott. p. 879) does not clearly appear, but it must have been before the middle of the 6th cent. as Mar Abas, "Primas Orientis" (d. 552) was one of his converts to that doctrine (Assem. Bibl. Or. ii. 411). Notwithstanding this, if not because of it, the emperor Justinian sent one of his officers named Stephanus to Alexandria to summon Philoponus to Constantinople "in causa fidei," but he wrote excusing himself because of age and infirmity. In his letter he urged Justinian to issue an edict prohibiting the discussion of the "two natures."
On the death of Joannes Ascusnaghes, the founder of the Tritheites, his Demonstrationes were sent to Philoponus at Alexandria. The latter then wrote a treatise on the subject and sent it to his friend at Constantinople. The Monophysites, finding that this publication brought them into great disrepute, appealed to the emperor Justin II., who had married Sophia, a granddaughter of the empress Theodora, and was known to be favourable to their party. He complied with their request, and the matter was committed to Joannes Scholasticus, who had succeeded Eutychius on his refusal to subscribe the Julianist edict of Justinian, A.D. 565 (Greg. Bar-hebr.; Asseman. Bibl. Or. ii. 328).
We hear no more of Philoponus until 568, when, John, patriarch of Constantinople, having delivered a catechetical discourse on the "Holy and consubstantial Trinity," he published a treatise in reply to it. Photius is unsparing in his criticism of this work, charging the author with having perverted the authorities whom he quotes (Bibl. lxxv.). Philoponus must now have been very old, but apparently lived some years longer.
During his lifetime the Tritheites appear to have been united under his leadership (Tim. Presb. Recept. Haer. in Patr. Gk. lxxxvi. i. 62), but after his decease they became divided because of the opinions he had maintained on the resurrection-body, both in his writings against the heathen and in a special work on this subject. This last was in several books, of which Photius speaks in no respectful terms (Bibl. xxi. xxiii.), though it found great favour with that section of the Monophysites which persevered in their adherence to Philoponus and with Eutychius the Catholic patriarch of Constantinople. [EUTYCHIUS (18).] Those Tritheites who still followed him were distinguished as Philoponiaci, or Athanasiani because of Athanasius's prominence amongst them (Schonfelder, Die Tritheiten, app. to his German trans. of John of Ephesus, 269, 274, 297), while their opponents were called Cononitae, after Conon of Tarsus who wrote a reply to the Περὶ ἀναστάσεως.
Philoponus wrote numerous other works, many of them non-theological. His work de Aeternitate Mundi has been ed. by Rabe (Leipz. 1899); his de Opificis Mundi by Reichardt (Leipz. 1897), and a Libellus de Paschale by Walter (Jena 1899).
Joannes (565) Scythopolita, a scholasticus of Scythopolis in Palestine. Photius had read a work of his in 12 books, Against Separatists from the Church or Against Eutyches and Dioscorus, written at the request of a patriarch Julianus, probably Julian patriarch of Antioch, A.D. 471–476 (Phot. Cod. 95, in Patr. Gk. ciii. 339 B). John of Scythopolis was also the author of παραθέσεις or commentaries on the Pseudo-Dionysius, which had a wide circulation for some centuries. Among the Syriac MSS. in the Brit. Mus. there is a Syriac trans. of Dionysius, with an introduction and notes by Phocas bar-Sergius of Edessa, a writer of the 8th cent. The notes are largely a translation of the παραθέσεις (Wright, Cat. Syr. MSS. pt. ii. p. 493). Cf. Loofs, Leontius von Byzanz. (1887).
Jordanis (Jornandes, the Gothic name, on his becoming an ecclesiastic was changed to Jordanis, Wattenbach, p. 62), historian of the Goths (and probably bp. of Crotona, in Brutium) in the middle of 6th cent.
I. Authorities.—Grimm, Kleinere Schriften, iii. 171, etc.; Ebert, Geschichte der Christlich Lat. Lit. (Dahn, 1875); Die Könige der Germanen, ii. 243–260, for Jordanis's use of words of constitutional importance; Anekdoton Holderi (Hermann Usener, Bonn, 1877); and for other authorities, Wattenbach, p. 55.
II. Writings.—His only works of which we have certain knowledge are the de Breviatione Chronicorum (more commonly but wrongly called de Regnorum Successione) and the de Getarum Origine et Rebus Gestis.
(1) The de Breviatione Chronicorum (Muratori,
(2) The de Getarum Origine et Rebus Gestis is one of the most important works written during the period of the Teutonic settlements in Western Europe. In amount of matter it may equal about 20 pages of this Dict. Its contents are most conveniently arranged under four heads (cf. Ebert. p. 532).
1 (c. i. 13). The work opens with a geographical account of the world and in particular of N. Europe and the island "Scandza." Jordanis then identifies the Goths with the Scythians, whose country he describes, and praises their learning and bravery. He then recounts their wars with the Egyptians and Amazons, and, identifying the Goths with the Getae, describes the deeds of Telephus and Tomyris. Cyrus, Xerxes, Alexander the Great, Caesar and Tiberius are mentioned. With chap. 18 he suddenly passes to the devastation of the banks of the Danube by the Goths and their victory over the Romans. He then pauses to give fuller details about the royal Gothic race of the Amali.
2 (c. 14–23). He carries the genealogy of the Amali down to Mathasuentha, the granddaughter of Theodoric and widow of Vitigis, who had just married, as he tells us, Germanus brother of Justinian. He then returns to the Goths and their movement into Moesia and Thracia. Claiming for the emperor Maximus a Gothic father, he thus raises the Goths to high honour. The deeds of Ostrogotha are then related, the victory over the Gepidae, the expeditions to Asia Minor, and Geberich's conquest of the Vandals. After Geberich came Hermanaric conqueror of the Heneti and many other tribes.
3 (c. 24–47). This division begins with an account of the Huns, their victory over the Goths, and the death of Hermanaric. He traces the separation of the Visigoths from the Ostrogoths, and follows their history. He shortly recounts Alaric's invasion of Italy, and introduces the story of Attila's invasion of Gaul and defeat. The battle of Châlons is described at considerable length. At the close of the section he describes the subjugation of Italy by Odoacer and the deposition of Augustulus.
4 (c. 48–60). Jordanis now returns to the Ostrogoths, once more mentions the defeat of Hermanaric, and this leads him to speak of the death of Attila. He describes the movement of the Ostrogoths into Pannonia, the reign of Theodemir and the birth of Theodoric. The dealings of Theodoric with Zeno, his entrance into Italy and his victory over Odoacer are recounted. The outline of the fortunes of the Goths in Italy is related very briefly, and the work closes with the captivity of Vitigis, and another mention of the marriage of Mathasuentha with Germanus.
His own words in the dedication of the de Getarum Origine or History of the Goths, convey an impression that he had written an abstract from memory of a three days' reading of the History of the Goths by Cassiodorius, adding extracts of his own from Latin and Greek writers, and that the beginning, middle, and end of the work were his own composition. It might certainly have been supposed that the preface at least was the composition of Jordanis himself. But the most convincing evidence of the writer's want of originality has been shewn by the discovery made by Von Sybel with reference to this preface (Schmidt, Zeitschrift für Geschichte, vii. 288). It is largely a literal copy of the introduction by Rufinus to his trans. of Origen's Comm. on Romans.
If the general view of the History of the Goths by Jordanis, first propounded by Schirren, and afterwards worked out by Köpke, Bessel, and others, be true, the place of Jordanis as a historian is but low. He does not acknowledge several authorities whom he largely uses and displays an array of authorities whom he only knows at second-hand. But it must be remembered that Jordanis does not claim originality, except under the clause in the preface ("initium finemque et plura in medio mea dictione permiscens"). The substratum of the whole work must still be ascribed to Cassiodorius. Is it, then, possible to disentangle the work of Cassiodorius from the setting in which Jordanis has placed it? A complete separation can, from the circumstances of the case, hardly be possible. Yet we may be tolerably sure that, though many of the extracts bear the traces of the treatment and colouring of Jordanis, enough remains of the lost work to bring us in to close contact with the mind and words of Cassiodorius, and, to a certain extent, to enable us to understand his purpose in his great work.
The history of the Goths was certainly completed before the death of Athalaric in 534 (Variae, ix. 25); Köpke and others suppose c. 533. Since the discovery of the Anekdoton Holderi, however, it has become practically certain that the Gothic History of Cassiodorius was composed some years before 533; probably not later than 521.
In two passages of his Variae Cassiodorius refers to his Gothic History. By far the more important passage, of which nearly every word helps to shew his purpose, is in ix. 25, where Cassiodorius describes his History in a letter addressed nominally by king Athalaric to the senate in 534.
Cassiodorius clearly shews that his primary
object was not literary, but political. He saw
the growing antagonism between Goths and
Romans and Theodoric's efforts to lessen it.
He saw the king trying to combine the old
and the new elements and to form a kingdom
in which both could live with mutual respect.
He determined to assist by his writing his
master's plans. He would try to draw the
Goths and Romans together by shewing that
both nations were alike honourable for the
antiquity of their race and the glory of their
history. He would tell the Goths of the
greatness of the Roman empire, with whom
they fought in ancient days, and would shew
the Romans that the kingly family of the
Amali was as noble as any Roman house. No
one was better fitted than he to write a history
of the Goths. His real knowledge of ancient
writers, his constant opportunities of converse
with the king and Gothic nobles, his
Thirty years later the Gothic bishop, in his adaptation of the work, shewed that he rested his hopes of the future quite as much on the Roman empire as on the Gothic race itself. However little individuality as a historian Jordanis may have had, it lay with him to choose and adapt his extracts from Cassiodorius in accordance with his own feelings, and there is enough of himself in the work to enable us to catch something of his spirit. For him the end of the great struggle between Goths and Romans had come; the war between Totila and Belisarius, or Narses, which was yet going on, had no supreme interest. The race of the Amali, with which he was connected and on which all his hopes were centred, had ceased to rule the Goths. His desires for the future rested rather on the union of the brother of the emperor with the granddaughter of Theodoric than on the issue of a struggle which he probably and rightly thought hopeless. His Catholic sympathies, rejecting the idea of an Arian ruler, and his family pride, alike contributed to this result. Three times he alludes to the marriage of Mathasuentha, widow of Vitigis (with whom she had been brought captive to Constantinople), to Germanus, brother of the emperor Justinian (cc. 14, 48, 60). In c. 60 he tells how Germanus died, leaving an infant son: "Item Germanus: in quo conjuncta Aniciorum gens cum Amala stirpe spem adhuc utriusque generis Domino praestante promittit."
Jordanis was the first since Tacitus to treat the history of the Teutonic nations from their side. The eternity of the Roman empire had impressed itself on the mind of Jordanis. The idea, therefore, that the Goths were equally learned and ancient must have been a support to him (and others like him) when Theodoric was ruling almost as a miniature emperor in Italy. But the thought of a union between the imperial family and the Amali could alone satisfactorily reconcile his hopes for the great family to which he belonged and his belief in the church and empire of Rome. This traditional belief in the empire and church was destined never to be altogether broken in Italy. After two centuries of struggles between rival principles in church and state the next Italian ecclesiastic who attained importance as a historian, Paulus Diaconus, himself, like Jordanis, of Teutonic race, was able to witness the return of imperial power of old Rome and to have friendly intercourse with the new Teutonic emperor. To Jordanis the first Teutonic historian of a Teutonic race such a possibility was unknown, and he could only fix fruitless hopes on a union of the Greek and the Goth to solve his difficulties. For the spirit of the age and times which we thus seem to gather from Jordanis's work we owe him a debt of gratitude, and also for his preservation, if only in a broken form, of fragments from the greatest work of Theodoric's great secretary.
The most important editions of the History of the Goths are: Muratori, Scriptores Rev. Ital. i. 189–241 (Medial. 1723). Migne, Patr. Cursus, lxix. Appendix to works of Cassiodorius. Jordanis, de Getarum Origine et Rebus Gestis, ed. C. A. Closs (Stuttg. 1861). In the Monumenta Germaniae the two works of Jordanis are undertaken by Mommsen himself. Neues Archiv. D. G. F. ältere Deutschen Geschichtskunde, ii. 5.
III. Life.—Jordanis tells us that his grandfather was notary to Candac, chief of the Alani in Moesia, that he himself was a notary before becoming an ecclesiastic, that he was of the Gothic race and apparently connected with the royal family of the Amali. We know from his own writings no more, and nothing further can be absolutely certain. But a discovery, first made by Cassel, has led to an extremely important and very highly probable conjecture about his identity. The name of one Jordanes Crotonensis, bp. of Crotona (now Cotrone) in Bruttium is found, with those of several other bishops, appended to a document sometimes called the Damnatio Theodori, issued by pope Vigilius in Aug. 551 at Constantinople. If this should be our Jordanis, it becomes exceedingly probable that the Vigilius to whom the Chronicle of Jordanis is dedicated and sent, along with the History of the Goths, is pope Vigilius. Vigilius was pope from 537 to 555. He had been made pope by the influence of Belisarius at Rome, at the request of the empress Theodora. After the issue of the Three Chapters by Justinian, which Vigilius apparently dared not sign when in Italy, the pope was summoned to Constantinople, which he reached on Christmas Day, 547. He was retained at Constantinople, or in the neighbourhood, for seven years, till he at last obtained permission from Justinian to return to Italy. At Constantinople he was much persecuted by the emperor and his party, who tried to force him to sign a confession of faith in accordance with their views. He was bold enough to excommunicate the bp. of Caesarea, and then, fearing the emperor's wrath, took sanctuary in the basilica of St. Peter in Constantinople. While in this church with his companions, and, among others, several Italian bishops, he issued (Aug. 551) the document in which the name of Jordanes, bp. of Cotrona, is found.
Several considerations make it exceedingly probable that Jordanis wrote his work at Constantinople. His almost complete ignorance of the later and contemporary events in Italy is thus explained, and his detailed acquaintance, shewn in several passages, with the affairs of the empire accounted for.
The bp. of Cotrona lived not far from the monastery in Bruttium (monasterium Vivariense) to which Cassiodorius had retired after his active life as a statesman. Here Jordanis first saw the 12 books of the Gothic history, and was allowed by the steward of Cassiodorius a second perusal of the work. When he was, as we presume, with the pope in Constantinople he was suddenly called upon to write his Gothic history, and, as he tells us, had to make the best of what materials he had at hand or could remember. The de Getarum Origine et Rebus Gestis was the result.
Josephus (2), catholicos of Armenia (Le Quien, Or. Christ. i. 1079). St. Martin (Mém. sur l᾿Arm. i. 437) places him between Mesrob and Melidé, giving his dates as 441–452, but these figures do not represent his place in the series accurately. The Persian king contemporary with him was Isdigerd II., and the governor of Armenia was an Armenian Christian Vasag, prince of the Siounians (442–452). Joseph was one of the band of Armenian scholars trained under Mesrob and Isaac the Great and afterwards in the schools of Athens and Constantinople. [MESROBES.] He returned to Armenia probably c. 434. His patriarchate occurred at a most critical period, when Isdigerd II. was endeavouring to supplant the Christianity of Armenia by Zoroastrianism. For a full contemporary account of this see Elisha Vartabed's Hist. of Vartan, trans. from the Armenian by Neumann and Langlois. Isdigerd issued a proclamation to the Armenians—one of the utmost valuable ancient Zoroastrian documents we possess. A reply was issued in 450 by a synod of 17 bishops held at Ardashad. The name of Joseph, bp. of Ararat, heads the subscriptions (Neum. 13, 14, 87), the province of Ararat being one of 15 into which Armenia was divided. This seems Joseph's first appearance in these events. The reply is given in full by Elisha; for the spirit of it see ISDIGERD II. Exasperated by that bold manifesto, the king ordered the leading Armenian princes to appear before him, and they, depositing a confession of their faith with Joseph, obeyed (ib. 21). In the royal capital on the feast of Easter, 450, they were summoned into the king's presence, and peremptorily ordered to adore the sun on its rising the next day. Finding Isdigerd inexorable, they feigned compliance, and Isdigerd, accepting the act as a formal submission of their country, sent them home accompanied by a band of magi, who, supported by a large military force, were to instruct the Armenians in the Zoroastrian religion and laws. On the appearance of this armed mission the bishops went among their flocks exhorting them to resist. The people were resolved, and a Holy League was formed. On behalf of his distressed country Joseph appealed to the emperor Theodosius II., but shortly afterwards (July 28, 450) Theodosius died, and Marcian his successor would not help (ib. 36, 37). The Armenian Christians nevertheless assembled in arms, 60,000 in number, among them Joseph, Leontius the priest, many other priests and a multitude of deacons. On June 2, 451, at the Dekhmud, a tributary of the Araxes (St. Martin, i. 41), led by their prince Vartan they were disastrously defeated (Neum. 51). A fortress where the priests had taken refuge fell. Joseph and Leontius, when about to be put to death, asked to be sent to the king, hoping to make terms for their people. They were sent, but would not waver in their steadfastness (ib. 63, 66). Thus much Elisha relates of Joseph in his 7th chap., his last as Neumann believes. In an 8th chap. added by Langlois in 1867, and in another Armenian writer, Lazarus of Barb (c. 48 in Langlois, ii. 315), it is stated that in the 6th year of Isdigerd (i.e. 455) and on the 25th of the month Hroditz, the patriarch Joseph, Sahag, bp. of Reschdouni, the priests Arsenius, Leontius, Mousché, and the deacon Kadchadch were executed in the province of Abar, near Révan, a village of the Moks. Lazarus (l.c.) records his dying words. On the position of Abar see Langlois (t. ii. p. 186, note 1), and Neumann (p. 77, note 18). [LEONTIUS (74).]
Joshua (1) Stylites, a Syrian monk; a native of Edessa, entered the monastery of Zuenin near Amida in Mesopotamia. After some years he determined to imitate St. Simeon and live the rest of his days on a column, from which he derives his distinguishing name. Before this he had written in 507 the history of his times from 495, entitled, History of the Calamities which befel Edessa, Amida, and all Mesopotamia. A full description, with quotations from the original Syriac, is given by Assemani (Bibl. Or. i. 260). It was published at Leipzig in 1878, in the Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes, in the original Syriac, with a French trans. by Abbé Paulin Martin. The translator describes it as the most ancient history extant in Syriac, and specially valuable because of Joshua's personal share in the events. His text corrects many omissions and mistakes in Assemani's abstract. He fixes its composition between 510–515, and classes Joshua as a Monophysite, while Assemani regarded him as orthodox.
Jovianus (1), Flavius, Christian emperor from June 27, 363, to Feb. 16, 364. The authorities for the Life of Jovian are generally the same as those for that of Julian. The fifth oration of Themistius, and certain tracts printed among the works of St. Athanasius, are important for the special points of his edict of toleration and dealings with the Arians. There is a useful Life of Jovian by the Abbé J. P. R. de la Bléterie (Paris, 1748, 2 vols., and 1776, 1 vol.), containing also a translation of some of Julian's works.
Life.—Jovian was born c. A.D. 331. His father, the count Varronianus, was an inhabitant of the territory of Singidunum (Belgrade) in Moesia, the country which gave birth to so many emperors (Victor, Epit. 68). At the time of his unexpected elevation he was the first of the imperial bodyguard, a position of no very great distinction (Amm. xxv. 5, 4).
Julian died of a wound at midnight, between
June 26 and 27, 363, in the midst of his
retreat from Persia, leaving his army surrounded
by active enemies. Early in the
morning the generals and chief officers met
to choose an emperor. Saturninus Secundus
Sallustius, the prefect of the East, a
moderate heathen, who was respected also
by Christians, was elected; but he refused
The new emperor was a Christian and a firm adherent of the Nicene faith. He had, indeed, some claim to the honours of a confessor under his predecessor, but Julian, it is said, did not wish to part with so good an officer (Socr. iii. 22). He was in other respects a man of no very marked ability (Amm. xxv. 5, 4; Eutropius, x. 17). He was a generous, bluff, and hearty soldier, popular with his companions, fond of jest and merriment, and addicted to the pleasures common in the camp (Vict. Epit. 6; Amm. xxv. 10, 15). He had a bright and open face, always cheerful, and lighted with a pair of clear grey eyes. His figure was extremely tall and his gait rather heavy, and it was long before an imperial wreath could be found to fit him. He was only a moderate scholar, and in this and many other points was a strong contrast to Julian (Amm. l.c.).
Though he was a sincere believer, we cannot
credit the statement of Rufinus that he would
not accept the empire till he had obliged all
his soldiers to become Christians (H. E. ii. 1).
But the greater part of the army did, no doubt,
return without difficulty to the profession of
faith to which they had been accustomed
under Constantius. The labarum again became
their standard; and Jovian's coins present, besides the
,
the new and striking type (now so familiar) of the ball surmounted
by the cross, the symbol of the church dominating
the world (see Eckhel, Num. Vet. viii.
p. 147). Ammianus notes that sacrifices were
offered, and entrails of victims inspected on the
morning of Jovian's inauguration to decide on
the movements of the army (xxv. 6, 1). But
directly the reins of power were in his hands
such things apparently ceased at once.
We need not describe at length the perplexities of the Roman generals in their endeavours to escape from Persia, and the protracted negotiations with Sapor, to whose terms Jovian felt it imperative to submit (Eutrop. Brev. x. 17; Amm. xxv. 7, 8). The terms were ignoble and humiliating: the cession of the five Mesopotamian provinces which Galerius had added to the Roman dominions, and of the fortresses of Nisibis and Singara, the former of which had been the bulwark of the empire since the reign of Mithridates. No less disgraceful was the sacrifice of Arsaces, king of Armenia, the firm ally of the Romans and a Christian prince, allied to the house of Constantine by his marriage with Olympias (Amm. ib. 9–12; cf. Greg. Naz. Or. v. 15). But probably no better terms could have been obtained without the loss of nearly all the army.
After crossing the Tigris with difficulty, the Roman forces marched for six days through very desert country to the fortress of Ur, where they were met by a convoy of provisions (Amm. xxv. 8, 16). The scenes at Nisibis were heartrending when the inhabitants were bidden leave their homes. Jovian, however, was firm (xxv. 9, 2). The Persian standard was hoisted on the citadel, in token of the change of ownership and the weeping and broken-hearted people were settled in the suburb of Amida. The emperor proceeded to Antioch. The remains of Julian were sent to be buried at Tarsus, where he had intended to reside on his return from the Persian war.
The consternation of the pagans at the news of the death of Julian and the accession of Jovian was as sudden and as marvellous as the triumph of the Christians. All Antioch made holiday, churches, chapels, and even theatres being filled with cries of joy, and taunts at the discomfiture of the heathen party. "Where are the prophecies and foolish Maximus? God has conquered and His Christ" (Theod. iii. 28). St. Gregory was writing his bitter and brilliant invectives at Nazianzus, where but a few months before the Christian population had trembled at the approach of Julian (Orat. iv. and v., the στηλιτευτικοί; they were probably not delivered from the pulpit; see p. 75 of the Benedictine ed. Paris, 1778). Some acts of violence were committed, especially in the destruction of temples and altars, and more were apprehended. At Constantinople a prefect of Julian's appointment was in danger of his life (Sievers, Libanius, p. 128; cf. Lib. Epp. 1179, 1186, 1489). Heathen priests, philosophers, rhetoricians, and magicians hid themselves in fear, or were maltreated by the populace. Libanius himself was in peril at Babylon, and was accused before Jovian of never ceasing his ill-omened lamentations for his dead friend, instead of wishing good fortune to the new reign (Liban. de Vitâ suâ, vol. i. pp. 93, 94, ed. Reiske; cf. Sievers, Libanius, pp. 128 ff.; Chastel, Destruction du Paganisme, pp. 154, 155, who, however, is not accurate in all details). Libanius was saved by the intervention of a Cappadocian friend, who told the emperor that he would gain nothing by putting him to death, as his orations would survive him and become current. This looks as if his Monody was already written and known at least by report, though probably only delivered to a select circle of friends. The Epitaphius was probably not completed and published till five or six years later (Sievers, p. 132).
To appease this disturbed state of feeling
Jovian issued an edict that all his subjects
should enjoy full liberty of conscience, though
he forbade the practice of magic (Themistis
Oratio, v. pp. 68–70; cf. Chastel, p. 156).
This was probably one of the earliest of
his laws. It is impossible to reconcile the
positive statements of Themistius with that
of Sozomen, that Jovian ordered that Christianity
should be the only religion of his
subjects (Soz. vi. 3); and Socrates, who quotes
the oration of Themistius, says that all the
temples were shut, and that the blood of
sacrifices ceased to flow (iii. 24). Jovian may
very probably have strongly recommended the
Christian faith in his edicts without pretending
to enforce it, and the cessation of sacrifice
seems to have been a popular rather than a
directly imperial movement (the passage in
Libanius's Monodia, vol. i. p. 509, appears to
refer to Constantius rather than Jovian; and
that in the Epitaphius, pp. 619, 620, was
probably written later). Jovian allowed the
philosophers Maximus and Prisan, the intimate
friends of Julian, to enjoy the honours they
The reaction under Jovian, so far as it was directed by his orders, consisted rather in favours granted to Christians than in acts of oppression towards paganism. The edict of toleration was perhaps issued at Antioch, which he reached some time in Oct., having been at Edessa on Sept. 27 (Cod. Theod. vii. 4, 9 = Cod. Just. xii. 37, 2; it is omitted by accident in Hänel's Series Chronologia, p. 1654, but is given by Godefroy and Kruger). He restored the immunities of the clergy, and the stipends paid to the virgins and widows of the church, and such part of the allowance of corn which Julian had withdrawn as the state of public finances allowed (Soz. vi. 3; Theod. i. 11, iv. 4). A count named Magnus, who had burned the church of Berytus in the late reign, was ordered to rebuild it, and nearly lost his head (Theod. iv. 22, p. 180 B). At the same time probably Jovian issued a law condemning to death those who solicited or forced into marriage the virgins of the church (Cod. Theod. ix. 25, 2, this law is addressed to Secundus, prefect of the East, and is dated at Antioch, Feb. 19, a day or two after Jovian's death according to most accounts. Either we must read Ancyrae or suppose the month wrongly given, see the commentators ad loc.).
Jovian is remembered in church history on account of his connexion with St. Athanasius more than any other of his actions. The death of Julian was, it is said, revealed to his companion Theodore of Tabenne, and the bishop took courage to return to Alexandria. Here he received a letter from the new emperor praising him for his constancy under all persecutions, reinstating him in his functions, and desiring his prayers (Athan. Op. i. 622 = vol. ii. col. 812, ed. Migne). Jovian in another letter (no longer extant) desired him to draw up a statement of the Catholic faith. He accordingly summoned a council, and wrote a synodal letter, stating and confirming the Nicene Creed (l.c. and Theod. iv. 3). Armed with this, he set sail for Antioch (Sept. 5, 363), where he met with a most gracious reception. The leaders of other ecclesiastical parties had been able to gain little beyond expressions of the emperor's desire for unity and toleration. The Arians, and especially bp. Lucius, who had been set up as a rival of Athanasius, followed Jovian about in his daily rides in hopes of prejudicing him against the champion of Catholicity (l.c. pp. 624, 625 = vol. ii. col. 819 ff.). The bluff emperor reining up his steed to receive their petitions, and his rough and sensible answers mixed with Latin words to their old and worn-out charges and irrelevant pleas, stand out with singular vividness. We can almost hear him saying, "Feri, feri," to his guard, in order to be rid of his troublesome suitors.
Little seems to have been effected by Athanasius with the Arians at Antioch, and Jovian was disappointed in his endeavour to terminate the schism between the Catholic bps. Meletius and Paulinus (Basil, Ep. 89, vol. iii. p. 258, ed. Gaume). A coldness ensued between Meletius and Athanasius, and the latter was led to recognize the bishop of the Eustathians as the true head of the Antiochene church on his making a declaration of orthodoxy. Soon after this he returned in triumph to Alexandria.
Jovian quitted Antioch in Dec., and came by forced marches to Tarsus, where he adorned the tomb of Julian. At Tyana, in Cappadocia, he received the news that Malarich had declined the charge of Gaul, and that Jovinus still continued in his own position, but faithful to the new regime. Jovian also learned that his father-in-law Lucillianus had been murdered at Rheims in an accidental mutiny of the Batavian cohorts (Amm. xxv. 10; Zos. iii. 35). The deputies of the Western armies saluted their new sovereign as he descended from Mount Taurus. With them was Valentinian, so soon to be his successor, whom he appointed captain of the second division of scutarii (Amin. xxv. 10, 9).
Another and a heavier blow followed—the news of the loss of his father Varronianus, whom he had for some time hoped to associate with himself in the consulship of the ensuing year. The loss was softened by the arrival of his wife Charito and infant son Varronianus, who, it was determined, should fill the place destined for his grandfather. The inauguration of the new consuls took place on Jan. 1 at Ancyra (Amm. xxv. 10, 11; cf. Themist. Or. v. p. 71). Zonaras (Annal. xiii. 14) says that Charito never saw her husband after his elevation, but this seems a mistake (see De Broglie, iv. p. 485 n.). The oration of Themistius was, it seems, delivered at this time.
Jovian still pushed on, notwithstanding the
inclemency of the weather, and arrived at an
obscure place called Dadastané, about halfway
between Ancyra and Nicaea. About Feb. 16,
after a heavy supper, he went to bed in an
apartment recently built. The plaster being
still damp, a brazier of charcoal was brought
in to warm the air, and in the morning he was
found dead in his bed, after a short reign of
only 8 months. (Amm. xxv. 10, 12, 13, describes
his death; the date is variously given
as
Owing to the shortness of Jovian's reign, inscriptions relating to him (other than those on milestones) are very rare, but there is one over the portal of the church of Panaghia at Palaeopolis in Corfu. It may be found in the Corpus Inscr. Graec. vol. iv. 8608, from various authorities, and was also copied on the spot by bp. Wordsworth of Lincoln in 1832, who alone gives the first line: "αὔτη πύλη τοῦ κυρίου δίκεοι εἰσελεύσοντε [i.e. δίκαιοι εἰσελεύσονται] ἐν αὐτῇ.
Jovinianus (2), condemned as a heretic by
synods at Rome and Milan c. 390. Our fullest
information about him is derived from St.
Jerome, who wrote two books, adversus
Jovinianum. From these we learn that he
had been a monk, living austerely, but
adopted certain views which led him to substitute
luxury in dress and personal habits and
food for the asceticism of the convent, the
opinions ascribed to him by Jerome being:
(1) A virgin is no better as such than a wife
in the sight of God. (2) Abstinence is no
better than a thankful partaking of food. (3)
A person baptized with the Spirit as well as
The heresies of Jovinian would be especially obnoxious to the great ecclesiastics of his time, who were wont to insist strongly upon the merit of virginity and of abstinence. Jerome writes against Jovinian, he says, in answer to an appeal made by holy brethren at Rome who desired that he should crush the Epicurus of the Christians with evangelical and apostolic vigour. The vigour of the reply was a little too much even for them (quod nimius fuerim). His praise of virginity seemed to do some wrong to marriage. Accordingly Pammachius (prudenter et amanter, as Jerome acknowledges) thought it best to suppress the copies of Jerome's answer. But the books had already circulated too much to be recalled. Whatever Jerome wrote was seized upon by friends or enemies, and quickly made public (Ep. 48, 49). Jovinian is not accused of any worse immorality than an indulgence in good living, which was probably exaggerated rhetorically by Jerome. Augustine reproaches him with having led consecrated virgins of advanced age to accept husbands. He himself abstained from marriage, merely because of the troubles involved in it. See Hieron. lib. i. adv. Jov. § 3; August. de Haer. § 82, lib. ii. de Nupt. et Concep. § 23; Retract. lib. ii. § 23; also Haller, Jovinianus sein Leben und seine Lehre in Texte und Untersuch. xvii. new ser. (Leipz. 1897).
Juliana (8), mother of the virgin DEMETRIAS, to whom we have letters from Jerome, Augustine, pope Innocent, and Pelagius. She was of noble birth, being connected through her mother Proba and her husband Olybrius with some of the greatest families of Rome, and was possessed of great wealth. When her daughter proposed to take vows of virginity, she refrained from influencing her; but when Demetrias appeared in the church clad in the dress of a virgin she shewed her great delight at this step. She supported the cause of Chrysostom at Rome and entertained his messengers. His thanks were conveyed in a letter from his place of exile (A.D. 406), exhorting her to hold fast and aid in allaying the waves of controversy (Chrys. Ep. 169). She fled with her daughter to Africa from Rome when it was sacked by Alaric, but fell into the rapacious hands of count Heraclion, who robbed her of half her property. She was commended to the African churches by pope Innocent in a laudatory letter (Ep. 25), which takes the rank of a decree in the collection of papal rescripts by Dion. Exig. (Coll. Dec. 39; Hieron. Ep. 130, ed. Vall.). She became acquainted with Augustine while in Africa, and she and her daughter had relations with Pelagius, who wrote a long letter to Demetrias (given among the Supposititia of Jerome; ed. Vall. vol. xi.) vindicating free will by her example. Augustine, with Alypius, wrote to Juliana (Aug. Ep. 188, A.D. 418), arguing that all the virtues of Demetrias were from the grace of God.
Julianus (15) (Eclanensis), bp. of Eclana or Aeculanum (Noris, ad Hist. Pelag. in Opp. iv. 747, ed. 1729–1732), near Beneventum (ib. i. 18, in Opp. i. 178; Pagi, Critic, s.a. 419, ix.), a distinguished leader of the Peagians of 5th cent. A native of Apulia (August. Opus Imperf. vi. 18 in Patr. Lat. xlv. 1542), his birth is assigned to c. 386 (Gainer, Diss. i. ad part. i. Opp. Mar. Merc. c. 6, in Patr. Lat. xlviii. 291). His father was an Italian bishop named Memor or Memorius (Mar. Merc. Subnot. iv. 4, Garner's n. g. u.s. p. 130; Pagi, u.s.; Cappelletti, Chies. Ital. xx. 19) and his mother a noble lady named Juliana (Mar. Merc. u.s.). Augustine of Hippo was intimate with the family, and wrote of them in terms of great affection and respect, c. 410 (Ep. 101; Noris, Opp. i. 422, iv. 747). Julian, c. 404, became a "lector" in the church over which his father presided, and while holding that office married a lay named Ia. Paulinus, afterwards bp. of Nola, composed an elaborate Epithalamium, which represents him as on terms of great intimacy with the family (Poem. xxv. in Pali. lii. 633). By c. 410 Julian had become a deacon, but whether Ia was then living does not appear.
He was consecrated to the episcopate by
Innocent I. c. 417 (Mar. Merc. Commonit. iii.
2), but the name of his see is variously given.
Marius Mercator, who was his contemporary,
distinctly speaks of him as "Episcopus
Eclanensis" (Nestor. Tract. praef. § 1, Migne,
184; Theod. Mops. praef. § 2, Migne, 1043).
Innocent I. died
About the same time Julian addressed a letter to Rufus, bp. of Thessalonica (410–431), on his own behalf and that of 18 fellow-recusants. Rufus was vicarius of the Roman see in Illyricum (Innocent's ep. to Rufus, June 17, 412, in Mansi, viii. 751) and just then in serious collision with Atticus the patriarch of Constantinople. As Atticus was a strenuous opponent of the Pelagians (Noris, Opp. iv. 884), Julian and his brethren perhaps thought Rufus might be persuaded to favour them (ib. i. 201, 202). Zosimus died Dec. 26, 418, and was succeeded by Boniface I., Apr. 10, 419. The letter of Julian to Rufus, with another to the clergy of Rome which he denied to be his (August. Op. Imp. i. 18), were answered by Augustine in his contra Duas Epistolas Pelagianorum. Julian avows an earnest desire to gain the aid of the Oriental bishops against the "profanity of Manicheans," for so he styles the Catholics (cont. Duas. Ep. ii. 1); accuses Zosimus of tergiverisation and the Roman clergy of having been unduly influenced in their condemnation of the Pelagians (ii. 3); charges both with various heresies (ii. 2–5); and protests that by their means the subscriptions of nearly all the Western bishops had been uncanonically extorted to a dogma which he characterizes as "non minus stultum quam impium" (iv. 8, § 20 init.). Garnier assigns the letter to Rufus and the two to Zosimus to A.D. 418 (ad Primam Partem, diss. i. Migne, 292).
When Julian addressed his two letters to Zosimus he was preparing a reply to the first of Augustine's two books de Nuptiis et Concupiscentiâ (Mar. Merc. Subnot. praef. § 7), which he addressed to a fellow-recusant named Turbantius, whose prayers he earnestly asks that the church may be delivered from the defilement of Manicheism (ib. iii.). He sent some extracts from the work, which was in four books, and apparently entitled Contra eos qui nuptias damnant et fructus earum diabolo assignant (August. de Nuptiis et Concupisc. ii. 4, § 11), to Valerius, who forwarded them to his friend Augustine, who at once rejoined in a second book de Nuptiis et Concupiscentiâ (August. Retract. ii. 53). When Julian's work subsequently came into his hands, Augustine published a fuller rejoinder in his contra Julianum Pelagianum. Augustine freely quotes his antagonist, and we see that Julian again insisted upon the Manicheism of his opponents (lib. ii. passim); again charged Zosimus with prevarication (iii. 1, vi. 2), and elaborated the whole anthropology for which he contended.
When driven from the West, Julian and
some of his fellow-exiles went into Cilicia and
remained for a time with Theodorus, bp. of
Mopsuestia (Mar. Merc. Theod. Mops. praef.
§ 2), who is charged by Mercator with having
been one of the originators of Pelagianism
(Subnot. praef. § 1, Symb. Theod. Mops. praef.
§ 2) and who wrote against Augustine (Phot.
Bibl. Cod. 177; Mar. Merc. Garnier, ad Prim.
Partem, diss. vi.). Meanwhile the rejoinder
of Augustine had reached Julian, who answered
it in 8 books, addressed to Florus, a
fellow-recusant (Co. Eph.
A.D. 431, actio v.
in Mansi, iv. 1337; Mar. Merc. Subnot. praef.).
Mercator has given various extracts (Subnot.
passim), but it is best known from Augustine's
elaborate Opus Imperfectum, which was
evoked by it (August. Opp. t. x. in Patr. Lat.
xlv. 1050), but left incomplete. On the death
of Boniface I. and the succession of Celestine I.
in Sept. 422, Julian apparently left Cilicia
and returned to Italy, probably hoping that
the new pontiff might reconsider the case of
the Pelagians, especially as a variance had
then arisen between the Roman see and the
African bishops. Celestine repulsed him, and
caused him to be exiled a second time (Prosper.
contra Collator. xxi. 2, in Patr. Lat. li. 271).
Julian was also condemned, in his absence, by
a council in Cilicia, Theodorus concurring in the
censure (Mar. Merc. Symb. Theod. Mops.
praef. § 3; Garnier, ad Prim. Part. diss. ii.
Migne, 359). On this Julian went to Constantinople,
where the same fate awaited him
both from Atticus and his successor Sisinnius
(A.D. 426, 427) (Garnier,
u.s. 361; Coelest. ad
Nestor. in Mansi iv. 1025). On the accession
of Nestorius to the patriarchate
(A.D. 428) the
expectations of Julian were again raised, and
he appealed both to Nestorius and to the
emperor Theodosius II. Both at first gave
him some encouragement (Mar. Merc. Nestor.
Tract. praef. § 1), which may be why there is
no mention of the Pelagians in the celebrated
edict which the emperor issued against here
sies at the instance of Nestorius (Cod. Theod.
XVI. v. 65, May 30, 428; Socr. H. E. vii. 29).
The patriarch wrote to Celestine
more than once in his behoof and that of his
friends (Nestor. Ep. to Celest. in Mansi, iv.
1022, 1023), but the favour he shewed them
necessitated his defending himself in a public
discourse delivered in their presence, and
translated by Mercator (u.s. Migne, 189 seq.).
In 429 Mercator presented his Commonitorium
de Coelestio to the emperor, wherein he
carefully relates the proceedings against the
Pelagians and comments severely upon their
teaching. Julian and his friends were then
driven from Constantinople by an imperial
edict (Mar. Merc. Commonit. praef. § 1).
Towards the close of 430 Celestine convened
a council at Rome, which condemned Julian
and others once more (Garnier, u.s. diss. ii.).
Whither he went from Constantinople does
not appear, but he with other Pelagians seem
to have accompanied Nestorius to the convent
of Ephesus, A.D. 431, and took part in the
"Conciliabulum" held by Joannes of Antioch
(Relat. ad Coel. in Mansi, iv. 1334). Baronius
(s.a. 431 lxxix.) infers from one of the letters of
Gregory the Great (lib. ix. ind. ii. ep. 49 in Patr.
Lat., xv. lxxvii. 981) that the "Conciliabulum"
absolved Julian and his friends, but Cardinal
Sixtus III., the successor of Celestine (July 31, 432) when a presbyter, had favoured the Pelagians, much to the grief of Augustine (Ep. 174). Julian attempted to recover his lost position through him, but Sixtus evidently treated him with severity, mainly at the instigation of Leo, then a presbyter, who became his successor, A.D. 440 (Prosper. Chron. s.a. 439). When pontiff himself, Leo shewed the same spirit toward the Pelagians, especially toward Julian (de Promiss. Dei, pt. iv. c. 6 in Patr. Lat. li. 843). We hear no more of Julian until his death in Sicily, c. 454 (Gennad. Script. Eccl. xlv. in Patr. Lat. lviii. 1084; Garnier, u.s. diss. i. Migne, 297).
Some years after his death Julian was again condemned by Joannes Talaia, formerly patriarch of Alexandria, but c. 484 bp. of Nola in Italy (Phot. Bibl. Cod. liv.; s.f. August. Opp. in Patr. Lat. xlv. 1684).
Julian was an able and a learned man. Gennadius speaks of him as "vir acer ingenio, in divinis Scripturis doctus, Graeca et Latina lingua scholasticus" (u.s.). He was of high character, and especially distinguished for generous benevolence (Gennad. u.s.), and seems actuated throughout the controversy by a firm conviction that he was acting in the interests of what he held to be the Christian faith and of morality itself.
Besides his works already mentioned, Bede speaks of his Opuscula on the Canticles, and among them of a "libellus" de Amore, and a "libellus" de Bono Constantiae, both of which he charges with Pelagianism, giving from each some extracts (in Cantica, praef. Migne, 1065–1077). Garnier claims Julian as the translator of the Libellus Fidei a Rufino Palaestinae Provinciae Presbytero, which he has published in his ed. of Marius Mercator (ad Primam Partem, dissert. v. Migne, 449, dessert. vi. Migne, 623), and as the author of the liber Definitionum seu Ratiocinationem, to which Augustine replied in his de Perfectione Justitiae (note 6 in Mar. Merc. Subnot. Migne, 145, 146). Cf. A: Bruckner, Julian von Eclanum (Leipz. 1897) in Texte und Untersuch. xv. 3.
Julianus (27), bp. of Cos, the friend and
frequent correspondent of Leo the Great. He
was by birth an Italian. Being educated at
Rome (Leo. Mag. Ep. lxxxi. 1042; Migne, Ep.
cxiii. 1190) he was acquainted with Latin as
well as Greek (Ep. cxiii. 1194) and was thus
useful to Leo, who was ignorant of Greek.
Leo found in him a man after his own heart.
He describes him as a "part of himself" (Ep.
cxxv. 1244). Long experience led him to put
the fullest confidence in his orthodoxy, erudition,
watchfulness, and zeal (Ep. xxxv. 875,
xci. 1066). Nothing could exceed the value
of such a man to Leo to watch over the interests
of the faith and the Roman see in the
East. Julian was present at the council of
Constantinople in 448 and professed his belief
in the "two natures in one Person"—an expression
which Dioscorus could not tolerate
when he heard it read at Chalcedon—and
subscribed the condemnation of Eutyches (Labbe, Concilia,
iv. 188 B, 231 B. In Apr. 449 he
was present at the synod in Constantinople,
granted by the emperor at the demand of
Eutyches to verify the records of the former
council. Here we find him disputing occasionally
the exact accuracy of the "Acta"
(Labbe, iv. 231 (2), c. 234 (2) B; Tillem. xv.
511). He wrote to Leo a letter which produced
two replies dated the same day, June 13,
449, the first of a long series of letters from Leo
to Julian (Epp. xxxiv. xxxv.). The latter of
the two contains an elaborate dogmatic statement
against Eutyches. After this Julian
became one of the pope's chief mediums for
impressing his wishes and policy on the East.
[LEO.]
Through the Eutychian troubles Julian remained true to the faith and suffered
so much that, as he tells Leo, he thought of
retiring to Rome (Ep. lxxxi. 1042). It was
JULIUS of Puteoli,
however, not this Julian, who was papal legate at the council of Ephesus.
Leo commended Julian to the favour of Pulcheria
and Anatolius of Constantinople as one
who had always been faithful to St. Flavian
(Epp. lxxix. lxxx. 1037, 1041, dated Apr. 457).
In June 451 he begs him to associate himself
with his legates, Lucentius and Basil, to the
council of Chalcedon (Ep. lxxxvi. 1063). He
is commended to Marcian the emperor as a
"particeps" with them (Ep. xc. 1065). His
exact position at that council appears somewhat
ambiguous. He is not mentioned among
the legates in the letter of Leo to the council
(Ep. xciii. 1070), but in the Acts of the council
is always spoken of as holding that position (Labbe, iv. 80 C,
852 C, 559 E). In the list
of signatures he does not appear among the
legates of Rome, yet higher than his own
rank, as bp. of Cos, would entitle him to
appear, and among the metropolitans (cf.
Tillem. xv. 645, and note, 43). His condemnation
of Dioscorus, with reasons assigned,
appears in the acta of the third session of the
council (Labbe, iv. 427 C). In the matter of the claims of
BASSIAN
and Stephen to the see of Ephesus, he gives his voice first for setting
both aside, then for allowing a local council
to choose (701 D, 703 D). He displeased Leo
by not resisting the 28th canon of the council
in favour of the claims of Constantinople
(Ep. xcviii. 1098), and by writing to Leo
begging him to give his assent to it (Ep. cvii.
1772). After this, however, he is in as good
favour as ever. From
Julianus (47), bp. of Halicarnassus in the province of Caria; a leader of the Monophysites. In 511 he was active in conjunction with Severus and others in instigating the emperor Anastasius to depose Macedonius, patriarch of Constantinople (Theod. Lect. ii. 26). Theophanes erroneously speaks of him as bp. of Caria before he was bp. of Halicarnassus (Chron. A.C. 503, in Patr. Gk. cviii. 362). On the accession of Justin I. in 518, severe measures were taken against the Monophysites and Julian was driven from his see. He went to Alexandria, followed quickly by Severus on his expulsion from Antioch (Liberatus, Brev. c. 19; Evagr. H. E. iv. 4; Vict. Tunun. Chron. s.a. 539). Timotheus the successor of Dioscorus the younger received both kindly, and they settled near the city. Shortly afterwards a monk appealed to Severus as to whether the body of our Lord should be called corruptible. He answered that the "fathers" had declared that it should. Some Alexandrians hearing this asked Julian, who said that the "fathers" had declared the contrary. In the fierce controversy thus evoked the Julianists charged the Severians with being Phthartolatrae or Corrupticolae, while the Severians charged the Julianists with being Phantasiastae and Manicheans (Liberatus, u.s.; Tim. Presb. de Recept. Haer. in Patr. Gk. lxxxvi. 58; Niceph. Call. E. H. xviii. 45). The designation by which the Julianists were more generally known was Aphthartodocetae or Incorrupticolae (Jo. Damasc. de Haer. § 84). Much was written on either side. The only writings of Julian that remain are his Ten Anathemas, a Syriac version by Paulus, the deposed bp. of Callinicus, being published by Assemani (MSS. Cod. Biblioth. Apost. Vatic. Catalog. iii. 230, 231). A Latin trans. of this valuable document is given by Gieseler in his Commentatio qua Monophysitarum veterum variae de Christi persona, opiniones imprimis ex ipsorum effatis recens editis illustrantur (P. ii. p. 5). Three letters from Julian to Severus, also translated by Paulus, and several fragments are among the Syrian MSS. in the Brit. Mus. (Wright, Cat. Syr. MSS. Pt. ii. 554, 929, 960, 961, pt. iii. 1059). Assemani also gives three letters of his to Severus from the Syriac MSS. in the Vatican (u.s. iii. 223).
Leontius of Byzantium tells us that Julian earnestly contended for the "Incorruptibility," because he considered the view of Severus made a distinction (διαφοράν) between the body of our Lord and the Word of God, to allow of which was to acknowledge two natures in Him (de Sect. act v. 3, in Patr. Gk. lxxxvi. 1230). This explanation is also given by Theodorus Rhaituensis (de Incarnat. in Patr. Gk. xci. 1498) and is fully sustained, especially by the eighth Anathema as pub. by Gieseler. He was certainly no Phantasiast and far from being a Manichean; but, as Dorner justly observes, in asserting "the supernatural character of our Lord's body," Julian and his followers did not intend to deny its "reality," but only aimed at "giving greater prominence to His love by tracing not merely His sufferings themselves, but even the possibility of suffering" to His self-sacrifice (Person. of Christ, ed. Clark, ii. i. 129). Jo. Damasc. Orth. Fid. iii. 28; Eus. Thess. contr. Andr.; Phot. Bibl. Cod. 162; Thom. Aquin. Sum. p. iii. q. i. art. 5 concl.
Julian by some means recovered his see of Halicarnassus, but in the council of Constantinople A.D. 536, under Agapetus bp. of Rome, he was again deposed (Theoph. s.a. 529; Mansi, viii. 869; Libell. Syn. in Labbe, v. 276). After this he disappears, but his opinions continued to spread long afterwards, especially in the East; where his followers ultimately divided, one part holding "that the body of our Lord was absolutely (κατὰ πάντα πρόπον) incorruptible from the very 'Unio' itself" (ἐξ αὐτῆς τῆς ἑνώσεως); another, that it was not absolutely incorruptible but potentially (δυνάμει) the reverse, yet could not become corruptible because the Word prevented it; and a third that it was not only incorruptible from the very "Unio," but also increate (οὐ μόνον ἄφθαρτον ἐξ αὐτῆς ἑνώσεως, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἄκτιστον). These last were distinguished as Actistitae. Tim. Presb. u.s. 43; Leont. Byzant. contr. Nestor. et Eutych. ii. in Patr. Gk. lxxxvi. 1315, 1358; Id. de Sect. act x. ib. 1259; Anastas. Sinait. Viae Dux, c. 23, in Patr. Gk. lxxxix. 296; Isaac. Arm. Cath. Orat. contr. Armen. c. 1, in Patr. Gk. cxxxii. 1155; Id, de Reb. Arm. ib. 1243.
Four scholastici from Alexandria visited
Ephesus c. 549, and prevailed upon bp.
Procopius to avow himself a Julianist. In
560, immediately after his decease, seven of
his presbyters, who were also Julianists, are
said to have placed the hands of his corpse
on the head of a monk named Eutropius, and
then to have recited the consecration prayer
over him.
By A.D. 565 the emperor Justinian had
become an Incorruptibilist. He issued an
edict avowing his change of opinion and gave
orders that "all bishops everywhere" should
be compelled to accept Julianism (Evagr.
H. E. iv. 39; Theoph. s.a. 557; Cedrenus,
Comp. Hist. ed. Bonn. i. 680; Pagi, Critic.
s.a. 565, ii.). This naturally encountered
great opposition, especially, among others,
from Anastasius patriarch of Antioch (A.D.
559–569) and Nicetius bp. of Trèves (527–566)
(Nicetius, Ep. 2 in Patr. Lat. lxviii. 380). But
the Gaianites of Alexandria took courage
from the edict to erect churches in that city,
and elected Helpidius, an archdeacon, as their
bishop (Theoph. u.s.). He almost immediately
incurred the displeasure of the emperor and
died on his way to Constantinople, whither he
had been summoned. They then united with
the Theodosians under Dorotheus, who, Theophanes
says, was one of that party, but who
The Julianists were still numerous at Alexandria during the patriarchate of Eulogius (Phot. Bibl. Cod. 227) and continued so still later. Sophronius of Jerusalem speaks of "Menas Alexandrinus, Gaianitarum propugnator" as his contemporary (u.s. 3194), and Anastasius Sinaita relates a public disputation with the Gaianites of that city in which he took part (Viae Dux, u.s. 150 seq.). They were known in the West as late as the commencement of 7th cent. (Greg. I. Ep. lib. ix. ind. ii. ep. 68, ad Eus. Thessal. in Patr. Lat. lxxvii. A.D. 601; Jaffé, Reg. Pont. 145; Eus. Thessal. u.s.). In Armenia they were very numerous in the time of Gregory Bar-hebraeus (Assemani, u.s. ii. 296; Dorner, u.s. 13 n.).
Julian achieved a very high reputation as a commentator on the Scriptures. Nicetas bp. of Heraclea, c. 1077, selected many of the most striking passages in his Catena Graecorum Patrum in Beatum Job from Julian's exegetical and other writings. This catena was first published by Patricius Junius, with a Latin trans. (London, 1637, fol.), and afterwards in Greek only at Venice (1792, fol.). The quotations from Julian are in the "Proemium" and pp. 37, 45, 66, 93, 170, 178, 228, 230, 273, 437, 465, 480, 505, 539, 547–613, of the former of these editions. Fabric. Bibl. Gr. ed. Harles, viii. 647, 650; Cave, i. 495; Ceillier, xi. 344. Cf. Usener in Lietzmann's Katenen, Freib. in Breisq (1897), p. 28, and the Rhein Mur. f. Phil. 1900, iv. p. 321; also Loofs in Leont. von Byzanz. (Leipz. 1887), i. p. 30.
Julianus (73), missionary priest to the Nubians in the reign of Justinian. John of Ephesus (R. Payne Smith's trans. pp. 251 seq.) and Bar-hebraeus (in Asseman. Bibl. Or. ii. 330) give an account of him. He was an old man of great worth, and one of the clergy in attendance on Theodosius, the Monophysite patriarch of Alexandria, then residing at Constantinople. Julian had long desired to Christianize the Nobadae or Nubians, a wandering people E. of the Thebais and beyond the limits of the empire, which they greatly harassed. The empress Theodora warmly encouraged the undertaking and consulted Justinian about it, who became interested but objected to Julian as a Monophysite, and named another instead, whilst Theodora persisted in favouring Julian. John of Ephesus describes fully the rival missions and the triumph of the empress's schemes. Julian reached the Nubian court first, won over the king and secured the rejection of the emperor's envoy when he arrived. Thus the Nubians were gained to the Monophysite creed and to the jurisdiction of Theodosius. After labouring there two years Julian placed Theodore, a Thebaid bishop, in charge and returned to Constantinople, where he soon afterwards died. For the subsequent history of the mission see LONGINUS.
Julianus (103), Flavius Claudius, emperor, often called Julian the Apostate; born A.D. 331; appointed Caesar, Nov. 6, 355; proclaimed Augustus, Apr. 360; succeeded Constantius as sole emperor, Nov. 3, 361; died in Persia, June 27, 363. For the authorities for Julian's life, see D. C. B. (4-vol. ed.), s.v.
The first and still in some respects the
best English account of Julian is to be found in
Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
cc. 19, 22–24—a forcible and on the whole
very just picture. Like some other cold and
sceptical people (e.g. Strauss), Gibbon despised
Julian's superstitious enthusiasm, and, though
he cannot restrain some sneers at the church
and the orthodox faith, this part of his history
has generally met with comparative favour
at the hands of Christian critics. Mr. J. W.
Barlow on Gibbon and Julian in the Dublin
Hermathena for 1877 endeavours to shew that
Gibbon, in order to gain a reputation for
impartiality, is unfair to the emperor, whom
he thinks morally and intellectually the best
man "of the whole series." In the first three
quarters of the last century little or nothing
was published in England specially on this
subject. An interesting and valuable essay,
written for a Cambridge historical prize by
the Hon. Arthur Lyttelton, has been kindly
placed at the disposal of the writer of this
article, who owes to it several important
references. It is embodied in the Church
Qtly. Rev. for Oct. 1880, Vol. xi. pp. 24–58,
The Pagan Reaction under Julian, which gives
a fresh and vigorous view of the subject.
Mr. Gerald H. Rendall's Hulsean Essay for
1876, The Emperor Julian; Paganism and
Christianity is decidedly the best account of
Julian's religious position in English, perhaps
in any modern language. In French, we have
the invaluable Tillemont and other writers of
church history. Besides the articles in vol. iv.
of the Empereurs there is a special treatise on
the Persécution de l᾿Eglise par J. l᾿Apostat, in
vol. vii. of the Mémoires. We miss, however,
a critical treatment of the authorities and wide
generalizations in Tillemont. He also seems
to exaggerate the scope of the law against
Christian professors. The fullest history of
Julian is that of Albert de Broglie in vols.
iii. and iv. of his L᾿Eglise et l᾿empire romain
au quatrième siècle (Paris, 1866, etc.). This is
indispensable to the student of the period. Its
general attitude is that taken in this article, but
he is too anxious to make points to be careful
of minute accuracy, and therefore of entire
fairness, and his references often want correction.
These volumes were reviewed by C.
Martha in the Revue des deux mondes for
§ 1. Early years of Julian as a Christian. (A.D. 331–351). § 2. Conversion to heathenism 351–355. § 3. Julian as Caesar from Nov. 6, 355 to Nov. 3, 361. § 4. Residence at Constantinople as Augustus, Nov. 3, 361 to May, 362. § 5. Journey through Asia Minor, May to July, 362. § 6. Residence at Antioch, July, 362 to March 5, 363. § 7. Persian campaign and death, March 5 to June 27, 363.
§ 1. Early Years of Julian as a Christian (A.D. 331–351).—Flavius Claudius Julianus was the youngest son of Julius Constantius, the half-brother of Constantine the Great. His mother, Basilina, was of the noble family of the Anicii, and daughter of Julianus the praetorian prefect, whose name was given to her son. Julian was born at Constantinople in the latter part of A.D. 331, the year after the dedication of the new capital.
Upon the death of Constantine in May 337, and the accession of his three sons, there was a general massacre of the male branches of the younger line of the Flavian family descended from Constantius Chlorus and his second wife Theodora. In this tragedy there perished the father and eldest brother of Julian, his paternal uncle, his cousins the Caesars Delmatius and Hanniballian, and four other members of the family. Julian and his elder half-brother Gallus, who was sick of an illness which was expected to be mortal, were alone preserved, by the compassion or the policy of Constantius (cf. Socr. H. E. iii. 1; Greg. Naz. Or. iii. p. 58 B . Julian, ad S. P. Q. Athen. p. 270 C , gives the list of those who perished, and ascribes their deaths to Constantius, who he says wished at first to slay both himself and Gallus). Julian is said to have owed his life to the interference of Mark, bp. of Arethusa, who gave him sanctuary in a church (Greg. Naz. Or. iii. p. 80 C ). The boy was taken charge of by his mother's family, and his education conducted under the direction of the Arian Eusebius, bp. of Nicomedia, who was distantly related to him (Amm. xxii. 9. 4; Cf. Soz. v. 2). When Eusebius was translated in 388 to the see of Constantinople Julian probably went with him, and attended the schools of that city (cf. Libanius, ἐπιτάφιος, ed. Reiske, i. p. 525; Julian, Ep. 58; and Rode, Die Reaction Julians, p. 22, n. 10). His constant attendant and guardian was his mother's slave Mardonius, whose influence evidently had great power in moulding the character and tastes of his pupil, and who insisted strongly on a staid and perhaps rather pedantic demeanour (Liban. l.c.; Jul. Misopogon, pp. 351 seq.; Mücke, in his Julianus nach den Quellen, zweite Abtheilung, pp. 6. and 9, makes a curious blunder in supposing that Julian disliked Mardonius). Though educating him only for a private position, he set before him a high standard, and particularly held up to his imitation the names and characters of "Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, and Theophrastus" (Misop. p. 353 B). He kept him from the theatre and the circus, and taught him rather to love the Homeric descriptions of Phaeacia and Demodocus and Calypso's isle, and the cave of Circe (ib. 351 D). Such teaching doubtless fed the naturally dreamy temperament of his pupil. Julian tells us that from a child he had a strange desire of gazing at the sun, and that he loved to spend a clear night in looking fixedly at the moon and stars, so that he almost gained the character of an astrologer (Jul. Or. iv. ad regem Solem ad init.; cf. the fable, Or. vii. p. 229, in which he speaks of himself as entrusted by Zeus to the sun's guardianship).
These pleasant days of freedom .were brought to an abrupt conclusion by the command of Constantius. The death of his relative Eusebius (in 342) deprived Julian of a powerful protector, when he was about 11 years old; and soon after (probably in 343 or 344) the emperor recalled Gallus from exile, and sent the two brothers to the distant palace of Macellum in Cappadocia. Here for six years they were kept under surveillance, with no lack of material comforts, but apart from young men of their own age and with only the society of their slaves (Greg. Naz. Or. iii. p. 58 B; Julian, ad Ath. p. 271 C). Their seclusion was only once broken by a visit from Constantius (Jul. ad Ath. p. 274, probably in 347, see laws of the Cod. Theod. in this year). Masters and teachers were not wanting, especially of that form of Arianism to which Constantius was devoted; and Julian now, if not before, made a considerable verbal acquaintance with the Bible, an acquaintance which frequently appears in his writings. He and Gallus were admitted to the office of Reader in the church—a proof that he had been baptized, though no mention of his baptism is recorded. They interested themselves zealously in the building of chapels over the relics of certain martyrs (Greg. Naz. Or. iii. p. 58; Soz. v. 2). The success of Gallus in this building and the ill-success of Julian was remarked at the time, and was (afterwards, at any rate) considered as an omen of his apostasy (Greg. Naz. l.c. p. 59).
In the spring of 351 Constantius felt himself
forced by the burden of empire to take a colleague,
and Gallus was appointed Caesar.
Julian with difficulty was permitted to leave
Macellum, and seems to have returned for a
short time to Constantinople; there he studied
grammar with Nicocles, and rhetoric with
Hecebolius then a zealous Christian (Socr.
H. E. iii. 1). Constantius, fearing lest his
presence in the capital might lead to his
becoming too popular, ordered him to remove
to Nicomedia (Liban. Epitaph. p. 526,
προσφωνητικός,
p. 408). Hecebolius exacted a promise
from his pupil that he would not attend the
lectures of the famous heathen sophist Libanius;
Julian kept his promise, perhaps
fearing to excite suspicion by outward intercourse
with a chief partisan of the old religion,
but contented himself with a study of
the written lectures of the master (Liban. l.c.
526 seq. Libanius does not name Hecebolius,
but the description seems to point to him:
Sievers, Libanius, p. 54, n. 5, supposes Nicocles
to be meant). Others, however, in Nicomedia
besides Libanius attracted the attention of
the young prince. He here learnt to know
some of the more mystical of the heathen
party, to whom paganism was still a reality
and the gods living beings, visions of whom
While Julian was thus having his first experience of the inner circle of heathen life, Gallus met his brother for the last time as he passed through Bithynia to undertake the government of the East with which Constantius had invested him (Liban. Epitaph. p. 527, διὰ τῆς Βιθυνίας). The two brothers, according to Julian's account, corresponded but rarely after this, and on few subjects (Jul. ad Ath. p. 273; Liban. Epitaph. p. 530). Gallus, it is said, having reason at a later date to suspect his brother's change of belief, sent the Arian Aetius to confer with him (Philostorgius, 3, 27). Julian, if we may believe Libanus, sent Galllus good advice on his political conduct, which had he followed he might have preserved both the empire and his life (Liban. ad Jul. cos. p. 376, ed. Reiske).
§ 2. Conversion to Heathenism
(A.D.
351–355).—The secret apostasy of Julian was
the result of his residence at Nicomedia,
though it was not completed there. The
chief agent in effecting it was the neo-Platonist
Maximus of Ephesus, a philosopher,
magician, and political schemer. The fame
of the wisdom of Aedesius first attracted Julian
to Pergamus but he, being old and infirm,
recommended him to his pupils, Chrysanthius
and Eusebius. The latter was, or pretended
to be, an adversary of the theurgic methods of
Maximus, and a follower of the higher and
more intellectual Platonism, and used to
finish every lecture by a general warning
against trickery and charlatans. Julian,
much struck with this, took the advice of
Chrysanthius upon the point, and asked
Eusebius to explain what he meant. The
latter replied by an account of Maximus,
which gave a new edge of the already keen
curiosity of Julian. "Some days ago" (he
went on) "he ran in and called our company
together to the temple of Hecate, thus making
a large body of witnesses against himself. . . .
When we came before the goddess and saluted
her, he cried, 'Sit down, dearest friends, and
see what will happen, and whether I am
superior to ordinary men.' We all sat down,
then he burnt a grain of frankincense, and as
he repeated some sort of chant to himself he
so far succeeded in the exhibition of his power
that first the image smiled and then even
appeared to laugh. We were confounded at
the sight, but he said, 'Let none of you be
disturbed at this, for in a moment the torches
which the goddess has in her hands will be
lighted up'—and before he had done speaking
light actually burned in the. torches. We
then retired, being amazed and in doubt at
the wonder which had taken place. But do
not you wonder at anything of this kind, just
as I also through the purifying effects of
reason conceive it is nothing of great importance."
Julian (says Eunapius) hearing this,
exclaimed, "Farewell, and keep to your
books, if you will; you have revealed to me
the man I was in search of" (Eunapius,
Vita Maximi, pp. 48–51, ed. Boissonade).
It is difficult to believe that Eusebius was not
in league with Chrysanthius to bring Julian
under the influence of Maximus. The young
prince hurried off to Ephesus, and there threw
himself with eagerness into the teaching of his
new master, which seems exactly to have
suited his fantastic temperament. Julian
had no practical Christianity to fall back
upon. The sense of being watched and suspected
had sunk deeply into his mind at
Macellum, and he had learnt to look upon
Constantius not only as his jailor, but as the
murderer of his nearest relations. This
naturally did not incline him to the religion
inculcated by Arian or semi-Arian court
bishops, who probably laid stress upon their
peculiar points of divergence from the orthodox
faith, and neglected the rest of Christian
theology. Julian therefore conceived of
Christianity, not as a great body of truth
satisfying the whole man, but as a set of
formulas to be plausibly debated and distinguished.
On the other hand, he had a real,
though pedantic, love of Hellenic authors and
literature, and a natural dislike to those who
destroyed the ancient monuments of the old
faith. His characteristic dreaminess and love
of mystery found satisfaction in the secret
cults to which men like Maximus were
addicted—all the more zealously as public
sacrifice was difficult or dangerous. He was
by nature ardent and superstitious, and
never fell into good hands. The pagan coterie
soon discovered the importance of their convert,
and imbued him with the notion that
he was the chosen servant of the gods to bring
back again Hellenic life and religion. By
the arts of divination a speedy call to the
throne was promised him, and he vowed to
restore to the temples if he became emperor.
(Libanius Epitaph. pp. 529 and 565, who
agrees substantially with Socrates, iii. 1, p.
168, and Sozomen, v. 2, p. 181; cf. Theod.
iii. 1). For the present, however, the fulfilment
of such hopes seemed distant, and
Julian for ten years pretended zeal for Christianity
(Liban. Epitaph. p. 528; Amm. xxii. 5,
1; Sol iii. 1; Soz. v. 2). He had, indeed,
good reason to fear the suspicions of his cousin. In 354
[GALLUS],
was craftily removed from his government and executed,
and Julian was apprehended, on obscure
charges (Amm. xv. 2, 7—the charge of
leaving Macellum without permission seems
strange, since the brothers had been released
from their retirement some four years before).
For seven months he was confined in N. Italy
near the court, being removed from place to
place (Jul. ad Ath. p. 272 D; Liban.
Epitaph. p. 530; cf. Jul. ad Themist. p. 260
A)—an imprisonment
brought to an end by the intervention
of the gentle empress Eusebia, who
procured for him an interview with Constantius,
and leave to return to his studies (Jul.
§ 3. Julian as Caesar (from Nov. 6, 355, to Nov. 3, 361—death of Constantius).—About May 355 Julian was permitted to go to Athens, but a few months later was summoned again to the court (Jul. ad Ath. p. 273 D). He left the city in low spirits and with many tears, and, stretching out his hands to the Acropolis, besought Athena to save her suppliant—an act which, he tells us, many saw him perform (ib. p. 475 A). Those who did so could hardly have doubted his change of religion, and there were doubtless many sympathizers who looked to him as the future restorer of the old faith. He first crossed the Aegean to Ilium Novum, where he visited the antiquities under the guidance of the then Christian bp. Pegasius, who delighted him by omitting the sign of the cross in the temples, and otherwise shewing heathen sympathies (Jul. Ep. 78—the letter, first edited by C. Henning, in Hermes, Vol. ix.). On his arrival at Milan, Constantius was absent, but Julian was well received by the eunuchs of the empress (ad Ath. pp. 274, 275 B). His first impulse was to write to his protectress and implore her to obtain leave for him to return home; but on demanding a revelation from the gods, he received an intimation of their displeasure and a threat of disgraceful death if he did so, and, in consequence; schooled himself to yield his will to theirs, and to become their instrument for whatever purposes they chose (ib. pp. 275, 276 ; cf. Liban. ad Jul. consulem, t. 1, p. 378). Constantius soon returned, and determined, under the persevering pressure of his wife and notwithstanding strong opposition, to give the dignity of Caesar to his sole remaining relative (Amm. xv. 8, 3; Zos. 3, 1). On Nov. 6, 355, Julian received the insignia in the presence of the army at Milan, and was given control of the prefecture of Gaul (i.e. Spain, Gaul, Britain, and Germany), and especially of the defence of the frontiers (ad Ath. p. 277 A; Amm. l.c.). As he drew the unwonted garb around him in place of his beloved pallium, he was heard to mutter the line of Homer, to which his wit gave a new shade of meaning:
(Amm. xv. 8, 17). At the same time he received, through the management of Eusebia, the emperor's sister Helena as his bride, and the gift of a library from the empress herself (Or. iii. p. 123 D). Thus the reconciliation of the cousins was apparently complete. Julian produced a spirited panegyric upon the reign and just actions of Constantius, which it seems right to assign to this date (Or. 1; cf. Spanheim's notes, p. 5). He set out, on Dec. 1, for his new duties with a small retinue, from which almost all his personal followers were carefully excluded (Amm. xv. 8, 17, 18; Jul., ad Ath. p. 277 B, C). Of his four slaves, one was his only confidant in religious matters, an African named Euhemerus (ad Ath. p. 277 B; Eunap. Vita Maximi, p. 54). His physician, Oribasius, who had charge of his library, was only allowed to accompany him through ignorance of their intimacy (ad Ath. l.c.; Eunap. Vita Oribasii, p. 104). He entered Vienne with great popular rejoicing (for the province was hard-pressed by the barbarians) and possibly with secret expectations amongst the heathen party, which had been strong in the time of Magnentius. A blind old woman, learning his name and office as he passed, cried out, "There goes he who will restore the temples of the gods!" (Amm. xv. 8, 22).
During the next five years the young Caesar
appears as a strenuous and successful general
and a popular ruler. The details of his wars
with the Franks and Alamanns, the Salii
and Chamavi, will be found in Ammianus
and Zosimus. Perhaps we ought to recollect
that he was his own historian, writing "commentaries"
His ambition was to imitate Marcus Aurelius
as a philosopher upon the throne, and
Alexander the Great as a model in warfare
(ad Themist. p. 253). His table was very
plainly furnished, and he refused all the
luxuries which Constantius had written down
for him as proper for a Caesar's board (Amm.
xvi. 5, 3). His bed was a mat and a rug of
skins, from which he rose at midnight, and,
after secret prayer to Mercury, addressed himself
first to public business and then to
literature. He studied philosophy first, then
poetry, rhetoric, and history, making himself
also fairly proficient in Latin. His chamber
was ordinarily never warmed; and one very
cold night, at Paris, he was nearly suffocated
by some charcoal in a brazier, but erroneously
attributed it to the dampness of the room
(Misopogon, p. 341). All this attracted the
people, but was not agreeable to many of
the courtiers. Julian knew that he was
surrounded by disaffected officials and other
spies upon his conduct, and continued to
conceal his religious sentiments, and to act
cautiously towards his cousin. During his
administration of Gaul he produced another
panegyric upon Constantius, and one upon
Eusebia, though the exact occasion of neither
can be determined (Or. 2 and 3). In these
orations Julian, though indulging to the full
in classical parallels and illustrations, takes
care to hide his change of religion. He speaks
even of his prayers to God for Constantius,
naturally indeed and not in a canting way (Or. 3, p. 118 D). Nor did he hesitate to join
with him in issuing a law denouncing a capital
penalty against those who sacrifice to or worship
idols (Cod. Theod. xvi. 10, 6, Apr. 356),
in repressing magic and all kinds of divination
with very severe edicts (ib. ix. 16, 4–6, in 357
and 358), in punishing renegade Christians
who had become Jews (ib. xvi. 8, 7), and in
granting new privileges to the church and
clergy, and regulating those already given
(ib. xvi. 2, 13–16; the last as late as
In Apr. 360 Constantius ordered the flower of the Gallic auxiliaries to be sent to aid him in his expedition against the Persians (Amm. xx. 4). This request produced great irritation among men who had enlisted on the understanding that they were not to be required to cross the Alps—an irritation fomented no doubt by the friends of Julian, particularly, it is said, by Oribasius (Eunap. Vita Oribasii, p. 104). The troops surrounded the palace at Paris and demanded that their favourite should take the title of Augustus (ad Ath. p. 284; Amm. xx. 4, 14). Julian, according to his own account, was quite unprepared for such a step, and would not accede till Jupiter had given him a sign from heaven. This sign was no doubt the vision of the Genius of the Empire, who declared that he had long been waiting on his threshold and was now unwilling to be turned away from it. Yet he warned him (so Julian told his intimates) that his residence with him would in no case be for long (Amm. xx. 5, 10; cf. Lib. ad Jul. cos. p. 386). We have no reason, however, to think that Julian had any real hesitation, except as to the opportuneness of the moment. When he came down to address the troops, he still appeared reluctant, but the enthusiasm of the soldiers would take no denial, and he was raised in Gallic fashion upon a shield, and hastily crowned with a gold chain which a dragoon (draconarius) tore from his own accoutrements. He promised the accustomed donative (Amm. xx. 4, 18), which the friends of Constantius, it would seem, secretly tried to outdo by bribes (ad Ath. p. 285 A). The discovery of their intrigue only raised the popular enthusiasm to a higher pitch, and Julian felt strong enough to treat with his cousin. He dispatched an embassy with a letter declining to send the Gallic troops, who (he declared) positively refused to go, and could not be spared with safety; but he offered some small corps of barbarian auxiliaries. He related the action of the army in proclaiming him Augustus, but said nothing of his own wish to bear the title. As a compromise he proposed that Constantius should still appoint the praetorian prefect, the chief governor of that quarter of the empire, but that all lesser offices should be under his own administration (ib. D, and for particulars, Amm. xx. 8, 5–17), who gives the substance of the letter at length). But to these public and open requests he added a threatening and bitter private missive, which had the effect, whether intentionally or not, of rendering his negotiations abortive (Amm. l.c.).
Such a state of things could only end in war,
but neither party was in a hurry to precipitate
it. In Vienne Julian celebrated the fifth
The irritation against Constantius was further increased by an arrogant letter, addressed of course to the Caesar Julian, requiring his immediate submission and merely promising him his life. Julian, on receiving this, uttered an exclamation which betrayed his religion: "He would rather commit himself and his life to the gods than to Constantius" (Zos. iii. 9, 7). The moment seemed now come for action. In a speech to the soldiers in which he referred in ambiguous language to the will of the God of heaven—"arbitrium dei caelestis"—he called upon them to take the oath of allegiance and follow him across the Alps. He spoke in general terms of occupying Illyricum and Dacia, and then deciding what was to be done (Amm. xxi. 5). Having thus secured the Western provinces, he made a rapid and successful passage through N. Italy, receiving its submission. He reached Sirmium without opposition, having ordered the different divisions of his army to concentrate there. Then he took and garrisoned the important pass of Succi (Ssulu Derbend) on the Balkans, between Sardica and Philippopolis, thus securing the power to descend into Thrace. For the time he established his quarters at Naissus (Nish), and awaited further news. From there he wrote to the senate of Rome against Constantius, and in self-defence to the Athenians, Lacedemonians, and Corinthians (Zos. iii. 10).
The Athenian letter was possibly entrusted to the Eleusinian hierophant, who returned home about this time. It was perhaps also under his guidance that Julian underwent the secret ceremonies of initiation described by Gregory Nazianzen (Or. 4, 52–56, pp. 101–103). According to common report, he submitted to the disgusting bath of blood, the taurobolium or criobolium, through which the worshippers of Mithra and Cybele sought to procure eternal life. Julian's object, it is said, was not only to gain the favour of the gods, but also to wash away all defilement from previous contact with the Christian mysteries. This miserable story is yet a very credible one. Existing monuments prove that many pagans of position continued the taurobolium till the end of the 4th cent. (see the inscriptions in Wilmanns, Exempla Inscr. Lat. 107–126).
Such secret incidents preceded Julian's public declaration of his change of religion. At Naissus or Sirmium he threw off the mask, and professed himself openly a heathen. Of his first public sacrifice he wrote with exultation to his friend Maximus: "We worship the gods openly, and the greatest part of the troops who accompanied me profess the true religion. We have acknowledged our gratitude to the gods in many hecatombs. The gods command me to consecrate myself to their service with all my might, and most readily do I obey them. They promise us great returns for our toils if we are not remiss" (Ep. 38, p. 415 C).
Now came the news of his cousin's sudden death at Mopsucrene, at the foot of Mount Taurus, on Nov. 3, and Julian learnt that he was accepted without opposition as the successor designated by his dying breath, a report of which we cannot guarantee the truth (Amm. xxii. 2, 6).
§ 4. Julian as Augustus at Constantinople (from Nov. 3, 361, to May 362).—Julian hastened to Constantinople, through the pass of Succi and by Philippopolis and Heraclea, entering the Eastern capital amid general rejoicings on Dec. 11. He conducted the funeral of Constantius with the usual honours; laying aside all the imperial insignia, except the purple, and marching in the procession, touching the bier with his hands (Liban. Epitaph. p. 512, cf. Greg. Naz. Or. 5, 16, 17, pp. 157, 158). Constantius was buried near his father in the Church of the Apostles, but whether Julian entered it is not stated.
Almost his next act was to appoint a special commission under the presidency of Saturninus Sallustius Secundus (to be distinguished from the prefect of the Gauls) to bring to justice the principal supporters of the late government. Julian himself avoided taking part in it, and allowed no appeal from its decisions. The commission met at Chalcedon, and acted with excessive rigour.
Julian next turned his attention to the palace, with its swarm of needless and overpaid officials, eunuchs, cooks, and barbers, who battened on bribes and exactions. All these he swept away, to the general satisfaction (Amm. xxii. 4; Liban. Epit. p. 565).
Towards Christians he adopted a policy of
toleration, though desiring nothing more
keenly than the humiliation of the Church.
His object was to set sect against sect by
extending equal licence to all (cf. Amm. xxii.
5). He issued an edict allowing all bishops
exiled under Constantius to return, and
restoring their confiscated property (Socr. iii.
1, p. 171). On the other hand, the extreme
Arian, Aetius, as a friend of Gallus, received
a special invitation to court (Ep. 31). A letter
"to Basil," seemingly of the same date, and
of similar purport, may possibly have been
addressed to St. Basil of Caesarea (Ep. 12;
De Broglie assumes this, t. iv. pp. 133, 235, n.).
To Caesarius, a court physician of high repute
and the brother of Gregory, Julian shewed
great attention, and strove for his conversion.
The great task which lay nearest his heart was the restoration of heathenism to its former influence and power, and its rehabilitation both in theory and practice. He composed an oration for the festival of the sun, no doubt that celebrated on Dec. 25, as the "Natalis Solis invicti," in connexion with the winter solstice. Though Constantinople had never been a heathen city, or polluted with public heathen ceremonies, he called this "the festival which the imperial city celebrates with annual sacrifices" (Orat. 4, p. 131 D). The main body of the oration is occupied with the obscure theory of the triple hierarchy of worlds: the κόσμος νοητός or "intelligible world," the κόσμος νοερός or " intelligent," and the κόσμος αἰσθητός the "visible" or "phenomenal." In each of these three worlds there is a central principle, who is the chief object of worship and the fountain of power; the Sun king being the centre of the intermediate or "intelligent" world. This ideal god was evidently a kind of counterpoise in Julian's theology to the Word of God, the mediator of the Christian Trinity (μέση τις, οὐκ ἀπὸ τῶν ἄκρων κραθεῖσα, τελεία δὲ καὶ ἀμιγὴς ἀφ᾿ ὅλων τῶν θεῶν ἐμφανῶν τε καὶ ἀφανῶν καὶ αἰσθητῶν καὶ νοητῶν, ἡ τοῦ βασιλέως Ἡλίου νοερὰ καὶ πάγκαλος οὐσία, p. 139 B, and τῶν νοερῶν θεῶν μέσος ἐν μέσοις τεταγμένος κατὰ παντοίαν μεσότητα. Cf. Naville, Jul. l᾿A. et sa philosophie du polythéisme, pp. 102 seq.). This oration should be read in connexion with the fifth oration "on the Mother of the Gods," which he delivered at her festival, apparently at the vernal equinox, and while still at Constantinople. It is chiefly an allegorical platonizing interpretation of the myth of Attis and Cybele, very different from the modern reference of it to the circle of the seasons.
In the practice of all superstitious ceremonies, whether
public or mystic, Julian was enthusiastic to the point
of ridiculous ostentation. He turned his palace into
a temple. Every day he knew better than the priests
themselves what festival was in the pagan
calendar, and what sacrifice was required.
He himself acted as attendant, slaughterer,
and priest, and had a passion for all the details
of heathen ritual (Liban. Epitaph. p. 564,
ad Jul. cos. pp. 394 seq.; Greg. Orat.
5, 22, p. 161; de Broglie, iv. pp. 126, 127).
No previous emperor had so highly prized his office
of pontifex maximus, which Julian valued as
equal to all the other imperial prerogatives
(χαίρει καλούμενος ἱερεὺς οὐχ ἧττον ἢ βασιλεύς Liban. ad Jul. cos.
p. 394). In this capacity he apparently attempted to
introduce something of the episcopal regimen into the
loose system of the heathen priesthood, himself
occupying the papal or patriarchal chair
(cf. Greg. Or. 4, ii. p. 138). Thus he appointed
Theodorus chief priest of Asia and Arsacius
of Galatia, with control over inferior priests;
the hierophant of Eleusis was set over Greece
and Lydia, and Callixene made high priestess
of Pessinus. (Ep. 63 Theodoro is
early in his reign, and the long Fragmentum
Epistolae may be a sequel to it; Ep. 49
Arsacio is later, as is that to Callixene,
Ep. 21. The appointments of the hierophant
and of Chrysanthius are described by Eunapius,
Vita Maximi, pp. 54, 57). As chief pontiff he
issued some remarkable instructions to his subordinates,
some of which have been preserved. His
"pastoral letters," as they may properly be
called, to the chief priests of Asia and Galatia,
shew a striking insight into the defects of
heathenism considered as a religious ideal, and
a clear attempt to graft upon it the more
popular and attractive features of Christianity.
He regrets several times that Christians and
Jews are more zealous than Gentiles, especially
in charity to the poor (Ep. 49, pp. 430,
431; in Frag. p. 305 he refers to the influence
of the Agapé and similar institutions. In Ep.
63, p. 453 D, he describes the
persistency of the Jews in abstaining from swine's
flesh, etc.). He promises large endowments of corn
for distribution to the indigent and the support of the
priesthood ; and orders the establishment of guest-houses
and hospitals (ξενοδοχεῖα, καταγώγια ξένων καὶ πτωχῶν, Soz. v.16, Jul.
Ep. 49, p. 430 C). In the very
spirit of the Gospel he insists on the duty of
giving clothing and food even to enemies and
prisoners (Frag. pp. 290–291). "Who was
ever impoverished," he writes, "by what he
gave to his neighbours? I, for my part, as
often as I have been liberal to those in want,
have received back from them many times as
much, though I am but a bad man of business ;
and I never repented of my liberality " (Frag.
p. 290 C). Elsewhere he enters into
minute details on the conduct and habits of the
priesthood. He fixes the number of sacrifices
to be offered by day and night, the deportment
to be observed within and without the temples,
the priest's dress, his visits to his friends,
his secret meditations and his private reading.
The priest must peruse nothing scurrilous or
indecent, such as Archilochus, Hipponax, or
the old comedy; nothing sceptical like
Pyrrho and Epicurus; no novels and love-tales;
but history and sound philosophy like
Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics;
and must learn by heart the hymns to the
gods, especially those sung in his own temple
(Frag. pp. 300–301; cf. Ep. 56, to
Ecdicius, ordering him to train boys for the temple
Further, "he intended," says Gregory Or. iv. III, p. 138), "to establish schools in all cities, and professorial chairs of different grades, and lectures on heathen doctrines both in their bearings on moral practice and in explanation of their abstruser mysteries." Of such lectures, no doubt, he wished his own orations on the Sun and the Mother of the Gods to be examples. Besides this imitation of Christian sermons and lectures, he desired to set up religious communities of men and women, vowed to chastity and meditation (ἁγνευτήριά τε καὶ παρθενεύματα καί φροντιστήρια cf. Soz. v. 16). These were institutions familiar to Oriental heathenism, but out of harmony with the old Greek spirit of which Julian professed himself so ardent an admirer. He was, indeed, unconsciously less a disciple of Socrates than of the Hindu philosophy, a champion of Asian mysticism against European freedom of thought.
Julian used not only his literary and personal
influence and pontifical authority in
favour of the worship of the gods, but also his
imperial power. The temples where standing
were reopened, or rebuilt at the expense
of those who had. destroyed them, and received
back their estates, which had been to some
extent confiscated under Constantius (Amm.
xxii. 4, 3, "pasti ex his quidam templorum
spoliis"; Liban. Epitaph. p. 564, describes
the general plan of restitution; cf. his Ep.
624, πᾶσι κηρύξας κομίζεσθαι τὰ αὑτῶν.). A friend of
the gods was as a friend of the emperor's, their
enemy became his (Liban. l.c. and more
strongly p. 617). Yet direct persecution was forbidden
and milder means of conversion practised
(Ep. 7 to Artabius; Liban. 564). Julian even
bore with some patience the public attacks of the
blind and aged Maris, Arian bp. of Chalcedon,
who called him an "impious atheist," while he
was sacrificing in the Tychaeum of Constantinople.
Julian replied only with a scoff at his
infirmity: "Not even your Galilean God will heal
you." Maris retorted, "I thank my God for my
blindness which prevents me from seeing your
apostasy," a rebuke which the emperor ignored
(Soz. v. 4, where we must of course read
τυχαίῳ for
τειχίω cf. Jul.
Ep. 64, Byzantinis). Not a
few persons of position apostatized, among
them Julian's maternal uncle Julianus, his
former tutor Hecebolius, the officials Felix,
Modestus, and Elpidius, and the former bp.
of Ilium Novum, Pegasius, all of whom were
rewarded by promotion. (Philost. vii. 10;
Socr. iii. 13; Liban. pro Aristophane,
pp. 435, 436, and Ep. 17; Greg. Naz.
Or. iv. 62, p. 105; Jul. Ep. 78 ;
cf. Sievers, Libanius, p. 105.
On the readiness of many of these converts to
return to the church cf. Asterius of Amasea,
Hom. in Avaritiam, p. 227, and
Hom. xix. in Psalm. v. p. 433,
Migne.) But the number of these new converts
was less than might perhaps have been expected
from the divided state of the church and the low
standard of court Christianity under Constantius.
It was far less, no doubt, than Julian's sanguine
expectations. Caesarius, as we have seen,
stood firm, and so did three prominent officers
in the army, destined to be his successors in
the empire—Jovian, Valentinian, and Valens
(Valentinian was banished, Soz. vi. 6 ;
Philost. vii. 7 ; cf. Greg. Or. iv. 65, p. 106).
The steadfastness of the court and the army
was indeed sorely tried. The monogram of
Christ was removed from the Labarum, and
replaced by the old S.P.Q.R.; and heathen
symbols again began to appear upon the coinage,
and upon statues and pictures of the emperor,
so that it was difficult to pay him respect
without appearing to bow to an idol. (Greg.
Or. iv. 80, 81, pp. 116, 117; Socr. vi. 17.
Socrates probably somewhat exaggerates.
The obscure letter of Julian to a painter,
Ep. 65, appears to reprimand him for painting
him without his customary images in his hands or
by his side.) Julian even condescended to a
trick to entrap a number of his soldiers, probably
of the praetorian guard, by persuading
them to offer incense when receiving a donative
from his hands (Soz. v. 17; Greg. Or. iv.
83, 84, pp. 118, 119; cf. Rode, p. 62). Some
of the soldiers, on discovering the snare from
the jeers of their companions, protested loudly
and threw down their money; and Julian, in
consequence, dismissed all Christians from his
bodyguard (Greg. l.c.; Socr. iii. 13). Many
common soldiers were doubtless less firm, and
conformed, at least outwardly, but the subsequent
election of Jovian by the army of
Persia looks as if their conviction was not
deep. (Liban. ad Jul. cos. Jan. I.
363, p. 399; Greg. Or. iv. 64, 65,
p. 106 ; St. Chrys. de Babyla contra Julianum,
§ 23, vol. ii. pp. 686, 687, ed. Gaume; cf. Sievers,
Libanius, pp. 107–109). It was pretty well
understood that no Christian official would be
promoted to high civil functions, while converts like
Felix and Elpidius were. Julian is reported
to have stated in an edict that the Christian
law forbade its subjects to wield the sword of
justice, and therefore he could not commit
the government of provinces to them. Such
a sentiment would be characteristic, and this
edict is probably an historical fact (Rufin. i.
32), but perhaps did not extend to persons
already in office or in the army, unless they
offered resistance to the course of events.
Other measures were aimed at the clergy as a
body, and intended to reduce the church
generally to the position which it held before
Constantine. The church suffered as much
perhaps as private owners of property by the
order to restore the temples and refund temple
lands. The clergy and widows who had received
grants from the municipal revenues
were deprived of them and obliged to repay
their previous receipts—an act of great injustice
In the spring of this year, while he was still at Constantinople, the affairs of the church of Alexandria attracted Julian's attention, and led to the first decided step which violated his policy of personal toleration. The intruded Arian bishop, George of Cappadocia, had made himself equally detested by pagans and Catholics. On Dec. 24 he was foully murdered by the former (without any intervention of Christians) in a riot. Dracontius, master of the mint, who had overturned an altar recently set up in his office, and Diodorus, who was building a church and gave offence to pagan prejudices by cutting short the hair of some boys employed under him, were both torn to pieces in the same sedition (Amm. xxii. II, 9). Julian wrote an indignant reprimand to the people, but inflicted no punishment (Ep. 10, Amm. l.c.; cf. Julian's letter to Zeno, Ep. 45). On Feb. 22 St. Athanasius was again seated upon his throne amid the rejoicing of the people. Julian saw in him an enemy he could not afford to tolerate. He wrote to the Alexandrians (apparently at once), saying that one so often banished by royal decree ought to have awaited special permission to return; that in allowing the exiled bishops to come back he did not mean to restore them to their churches; Athanasius, he feared, had resumed his "episcopal throne," to the great disgust of "god-fearing Alexandrians." He therefore ordered him to leave the city at once, on pain of greater punishment (Ep. 26). Athanasius braved the emperor's wrath and did not leave Alexandria, except, perhaps, for a time. Public feeling was with him, and an appeal was apparently forwarded to the emperor to reconsider his sentence. (Ep. 51, written probably in Oct. 362, speaks of Athanasius as (ἐπιζητούμενος by the Alexandrians.) The sequel of this appeal will appear later.
Another change of policy about this time shewed a further advance in intolerance and inconsistency. Julian determined to take the control of education into the hands of the state. On June 17, while en route between Constantinople and Antioch, he issued an edict, promulgated at Spoleto, to the Western empire, on June 28. This document said nothing about Christian teachers, but required for all professors and schoolmasters a diploma of approval from the municipal council in every city before they might teach. This was to be forwarded to himself for counter-signature (Cod. Theod. xiii. 3, 5). This power of veto was no doubt aimed at Christian teachers; and another edict, supposed to have been issued soon after, struck an open and violent blow at the church. This may have been issued even earlier; it can hardly have been much later (Ep. 42, with no title or date). It declares that "only a cheat and a charlatan will teach one thing while he thinks another. All teachers, especially those who instruct the young, ought . . . not to oppose the common belief and try to insinuate their own. . . . Now Homer, Hesiod, Demosthenes, Herodotus, Thucydides, Isocrates, and Lysias all founded their learning upon the gods, and considered themselves dedicated to Hermes or the Muses. It is monstrous, then, that those who teach these writers should dishonour their gods. I do not wish them to change their religion that they may retain their offices, but I give them the choice, either not to teach, or, if they prefer to do so, to teach at the same time that none of these authors is guilty of folly or impiety in his doctrine about the gods. . . . If teachers think these authors which they expound wise, and draw philosophy from them, let them emulate their religion. If they think them in error, let them go to the churches of the Galileans and expound Matthew and Luke, who forbid our sacrifices. I wish, however, the ears and tongues of you Christians may be 'regenerated,' as you would say, by these writings which I value so much."
Christians considered the decree practically to exclude them from the schools. For Julian expressly orders all teachers to insist on the religious side of their authors. Grammar schools were to become seminaries of paganism. No indifferent or merely philological teaching was to be allowed. No sincere Christian parents therefore could send their sons to such schools. A quotation given by Gregory, as if from this decree, is not found in the text of the edict as we have it (Or. 4, 102, p. 132). Perhaps he may be quoting some other of Julian's writings, e.g. the books against the Christians. The words are characteristic: "Literature and the Greek language are naturally ours, who are worshippers of the gods ; illiterate ignorance and rusticity are yours, whose wisdom goes no further than to say `believe.'" The last taunt is borrowed from Celsus (Origen, c. Celsum, i. 9).
Two celebrated men gave up their posts
rather than submit to this edict—Prohaeresius
of Athens, whom many thought superior to
Libanius, and C. Marius Victorinus of Rome.
Julian had already made overtures to the
former (Ep. 2), and even offered to except him
from the action of the edict; but he refused
to be put in a better condition than his fellows
(Hieron. Chron. sub anno 2378; cf. Eunap.
Attempts were made to supply the place of classical literature by putting historical and doctrinal portions of Scripture into Greek prose and verse. Thus the elder APOLLINARIS wrote 24 books in hexameters, which were to form a substitute for Homer, on the Biblical history up to the reign of Saul, and produced tragedies, lyrics, and even comedies on Biblical subjects (Soz. v. 18). The younger Apollinaris reduced the writings of the N.T. into the form of Platonic dialogues (Socr. iii. 16); and some of the works of Victorinus in Latin, such as the poem on the seven Maccabean brothers, and various hymns, may have been written with the same aim (cf. Teuffel, Gesch. der Röm. Lit. § 384, 7), as also the Greek tragedy, still extant, of Christus Patiens. Whatever their merit, these books could not properly supply the place of the classical training; and if Julian had lived and this edict had been put in force for any time, it would have been a very dangerous injury to the faith. (Socrates has some very good remarks on this subject, iii. 16.)
§ 5. Julian's journey through Asia Minor—(May
to July 362).—After a sojourn of about five months in
Constantinople Julian began to think of foreign affairs.
Fears of internal resistance were removed by the
surrender of Aquileia, which had been seized by some
troops of Constantius. He determined upon an expedition
against Persia, the only power he thought
worthy of his steel. Shortly after May 12 he
set out upon a progress through Asia Minor
to Antioch. He passed through Nicaea into
Galatia, apparently as far as Ancyra, from
which place, perhaps, he dispatched the edict
about education just described (Amin. xxii. 9, 5.
If the law, Cod. Just. i. 40, 5, is rightly
attributed to Julian, he was at Ancyra on
May 28, to which visit belongs a somewhat
hyperbolical inscription celebrating his triumphant
march from the Western Ocean to the Tigris,
beginning, DOMINO TOTIVS ORBIS | IVLIANO
AVGVSTO | EX OCEANO BRI | TANNICO (C. I. L.
iii. 247, Orell. 1109, Wilmanns 1089). From Ancyra
he visited Pessinus in Phrygia to pay homage to the
famous sanctuary of the Mother of the Gods, at which he
offered large and costly presents (Amm. l.c.; Liban.
ad Jul. cos. p. 398). The oration in
honour of this deity, who, with the Sun-god,
was Julian's chief object of veneration, was
probably delivered earlier; but he took occasion
about this time to vindicate the doctrine of
Diogenes from the aspersions of false and luxurious
cynics (Or. vi. εἰς τοὺς ἀπαιδεύτους κύνας, delivered about the summer
solstice, p. 181 A). He was not satisfied
with the progress of heathenism, amongst the people
of the place (Ep. 49, Arsacio pontifici Galatiae,
ad fin.). At Ancyra, according to the Acts of the
Martyrs, a presbyter named Basil was accused
of exciting the people against the gods and
speaking injuriously of the emperor and his
apostate courtiers. Basil was cruelly treated
in his presence, and, after a second trial, was
put to death by red-hot irons (Boll.
In Cappadocia his ill-humour was roused by finding almost all the people Christian. "Come, I beseech you," he writes to the philosopher Aristoxenus, "and meet me at Tyana, and shew us a genuine Greek amongst these Cappadocians. As far as I have seen, either the people will not sacrifice, or the very few that are ready to do so are ignorant of our ritual" (Ep. 4). He had already shewn his anger against the people of Caesarea, the capital of the province, who had dared, after his accession, to destroy the Temple of Fortune, the last that remained standing in their city. According to Sozomen (v. 4), he erased the city from the "list of the empire and called it by its old name Mazaca." He fined the Christians 300 pounds of gold, confiscated church property, and enrolled the ecclesiastics in the militia of the province, besides imposing a heavy poll-tax on the Christian laity. But either these severe measures must have been justified by great violence on the part of the Christians or Sozomen's account is exaggerated; for Gregory Nazianzen says that it is perhaps not fair to reproach him with his violent conduct to the Caesareans, and speaks of him as "justly indignant" (Or. 4, 92, p. 126). Such mild language in this instance may well make us attach more weight to Gregory's statements as to Julian's misdoings on other occasions. The emperor was further incensed by the tumultuous election of Eusebius to the bishopric of Caesarea, in which the soldiers of the garrison took part. This Eusebius was still a catechumen, but a man of official rank and influence, known to be an enemy of the emperor (Greg. Or. in Patrem, xviii. 33, p. 354). The elder Gregory firmly resisted the remonstrances of the governor of the province, who was sent to him by Julian, and the storm passed away (ib. 34, p. 355). "You knew us," cried Gregory, "you knew Basil and myself from the time of your sojourn in Greece, and you paid us the compliment which the Cyclops paid Ulysses, and kept us to be swallowed last " (Or. 5, 39 p. 174). The silence of Gregory may be taken as clenching the arguments from style against the genuineness of the supposed correspondence between Julian and St. Basil, which would otherwise be assigned to this date (see pp. 490 f.). The letters referred to are Epp. 40, 41, in the editions of St. Basil, the first of these—Jul. Ep. 75 (77 Heyler); cf. Rode, p. 86, note 11.
A more pleasant reception awaited Julian
in the neighbouring province, Cilicia. Entering it by the
famous pass of the Pylae Ciliciae,
he was met by the governor, his friend Celsus,
§ 6. Julian's Residence at Antioch (July 362 to March 5, 363).—The eight months spent at Antioch left Julian yet more bitter against the church, and less careful to avoid injustice to its members, in fact countenancing persecution even to death, though in word still forbidding it and proclaiming toleration. (Libanius says that Julian spent nine months at Antioch, Epit. p. 578, 15, but it is hard to make more than eight.) The narrative of this period may be divided into an account of (a) his relations with the citizens of Antioch; (b) his relations to the church at large; (c) attempt to rebuild the temple at Jerusalem.
(a) Internal State of Antioch.—On his entrance into the city Libanius greeted him in a speech in which he congratulated him on bringing back at once the ancient rites of sacrifice and the honour to the profession of rhetoric (Prosphoneticus Juliano, ed. Reiske, i. p. 405). But other sounds saddened Julian with a presage of his coming doom. It was the festival of the lamentation for Adonis, and the air resounded with shrieks for the lover of Venus, cut down in his prime as the green corn fails before the heat of the summer sun. This ill-omened beginning was followed by other equally unpropitious circumstances, and the residence of Julian at Antioch was a disappointment to himself and disagreeable to almost all the inhabitants. He was impatient, or soon became so, to engage upon his Persian campaign; but the difficulty of making the necessary preparations in time determined him to pass the winter at the Syrian capital (Liban. Epit. p. 576 ; Amm. xxii. 10, 1). He had anticipated much more devotion on the part of the pagans and much less resistance on that of the Christians. He was disgusted to find that both parties regretted the previous reign—"Neither the Chi nor the Kappa" (i.e. neither Christ nor Constantius) "did our city any harm" became a common saying (Misopogon, p. 357 A). To the heathens themselves the enthusiastic form of religion to which Julian was devoted was little more than an unpleasant and somewhat vulgar anachronism. His cynic asceticism and dislike of the theatre and the circus was unpopular in a city particularly addicted to public spectacles. His superstition was equally unpalatable. The short, untidy, long-bearded man, marching pompously in procession on the tips of his toes, and swaying his shoulders from side to side, surrounded by a crowd of abandoned characters, such as formed the regular attendants upon many heathen festivals, appeared seriously to compromise the dignity of the empire. The blood of countless victims flowed everywhere, but seemed to serve merely to gorge his foreign soldiery, especially the semi-barbarous Gauls; and the streets of Antioch were disturbed by their revels (Amm. xxii. 12, 6). Secret rumours spread of horrid nocturnal sacrifices and of the pursuit of arts of necromancy from which the natural heathen conscience shrank only less than the Christian. The wonder is, not that Julian quarrelled with the Antiochenes, but that he left the city without a greater explosion than actually took place.
Not a little of the irritation between the
emperor and the citizens was centred upon the
suburb of the city, called Daphne, a delicious
cool retreat in which, as it was fabled, the
nymph beloved by Apollo had been transformed
into a laurel. Here was a celebrated
temple of the god, and a spring that bore the
name of Castalian, in former days the favourite
haunt of the gay, the luxurious, and the
vicious. Gallus had counteracted the genius
loci by transposing to it the relics of the
martyr bp. Babylas, whose chapel was
erected opposite the temple of Apollo. The
worship of the latter had almost ceased, and
Julian, going to Daphne in Aug. (Loüs), to
keep the annual festival of the Sun-god, was
surprised to find no gathering of worshippers.
He himself had returned for the purpose from
a visit to the temple of Zeus Casius, several
leagues distant. To his disgust the city had
provided no sacrifice, and only one poor priest
appeared, offering a single goose at his own
expense. Julian rated the town council
soundly (Misop. pp. 361 D,
seq.). He took care that in future sacrifices should
not be wanting, and eagerly consulted the oracle
and unstopped the Castalian spring. After a long
silence he learnt that Apollo was disturbed by
the presence of the "dead man," i.e. Babylas.
"I am surrounded by corpses," said the voice,
"and I cannot speak till they are removed"
(Soz. v. 19 ; Chrys. de S. Bab. §15, p. 669;
Liban. Monodia in Daphnen, vol. iii. p. 333)·
All the corpses were cleared away, but especially
that of the martyr (Amm. xxii. 12, 8; Misop.
p. 361 B). A remnant of religious
awe perhaps prevented Julian from destroying the
relics of which his actions practically acknowledged
the power, and they were eagerly
seized by the Christians and borne in triumph
to Antioch. The procession along the five
miles from Daphne to the city chanted aloud
Shortly after the translation of the relics of St. Babylas to Antioch, on the night of Oct. 22, the temple of Daphne itself was burnt to the ground. The heathens accused the Christians of maliciously setting it on fire; they attributed it to fire from heaven and the prayers of St. Babylas. A story also got about that Asclepiades the cynic had left a number of lighted candles burning in the shrine (Amm. xxii. 13; Soz. v. 20; Chrys. de S. Bab. § 17, p. 674). Julian's wrath was intense. He accused the Christians of the deed, and suspected the priests of knowing about it (Misop. pp. 346 B, 361 B, C). As a punishment he ordered the cathedral church of Antioch to be closed, and confiscated its goods (Amm. xxii. 13, Soz. v. 8). The order was executed by his uncle Julianus, now count of the East, with all the zeal of a new convert and with circumstances of disgusting profanity. Theodoret, a presbyter, who still collected a congregation of the faithful, was tortured and beheaded (Ruinart, Acta Mart. p. 605). The Christian account tells us that Julian reproved his uncle as having brought him into disgrace, but in the Misopogon he gives him nothing but praise (ib. p. 607, Misop. p. 365 C). The count's miserable death, which followed soon after, was naturally treated as a judgment from heaven (Soz. v. 8; Theod. iii. 12, etc.). That of Felix, another renegade, had, a little earlier, been equally remarkable for its suddenness. The two were regarded as a presage of the emperor's own doom, for now that Julianus and Felix were gone, Augustus would soon follow, a play upon the imperial title Julianus Felix Augustus (Amm. xxiii. 1, 5). This was a trivial saying, but calculated to disquiet and irritate a mind like Julian's.
Antioch meanwhile was afflicted by a dearth, which almost became a famine, and the emperor's efforts to alleviate it failed. He imported a large quantity of grain from Egypt, and fixed the market price at a low figure. Speculators bought up his importations, and would not sell their own stores, and soon there was nothing in the markets. Julian declared that the fault was in the magistrates, and tried in vain to infuse some of his own public spirit into the farmers and merchants (Liban. Epit. p. 587). The town council were sent to prison (Amm. xxii. 14, 2; Liban. Epit. p. 588). Their confinement, however, did not last a day, and they were released by the intercession of Libanius, who tells us that he was not deterred from his petition by the sarcastic hint that the Orontes was not far off (de Vita Sua, vol. i. p. 85). The whole winter, indeed, was clouded with misfortunes. On Dec. 2 the rest of Nicomedia was destroyed by earthquake, and a large part of Nicaea suffered with it (Amm. xxii. 13, 5). News was brought that Constantinople was in danger from the same cause, and some suggested that the wrath of the earth-shaker Poseidon must be appeased. This gave Julian, who had a real affection for the city, an opportunity of showing his enthusiasm. He stood all day long in the open air, under rain and storm, in a fixed and rigid attitude, like an Indian yogi, while his courtiers looked on in amazement from under cover. It was calculated afterwards that the earthquake stopped on the very day of the imperial intercession, and Julian, it is said, took no harm from his exposure (Liban. Epit. p. 581). But this partial success did not make him feel secure of the favour of the gods. He was convinced that Apollo had deserted Daphne and the other deities were not propitious. Even the day of his entering the consulship, Jan. 1, 363, graced with an oration of Libanius (ad Jul. imp. consulem), was disfigured by a bad omen: a priest fell dead on the steps of the temple of the Genius. This was the more annoying, as he had no doubt intended to make his fourth consulship mark a new era by taking as his colleague his old friend Sallustius prefect of the Gauls, an honour paid to no one outside the imperial family since the days of Diocletian (Amm. xxiii. 1, 1). At the same time too he received news of the failure of the attempt (see (c), infra) to rebuild the temple at Jerusalem (Amm. xxiii. 1, 3)
Meanwhile his designs for involving the city in heathen rites caused considerable excitement and odium. He profaned the fountains of the city of Daphne according to Christian ideas, and consecrated them according to his own, by throwing into them a portion of his sacrifices, so that all who used them might be partakers with the gods, and for a similar reason ordered all things sold in the market, such as bread, meat, and vegetables, to be sprinkled with lustral water. The Christians complained but followed the precept of the apostle in eating, freely all things sold in public, without inquiry (Theod. iii. 15). Two young officers, Juventinus and Maximinus, were one day lamenting this state of things, and quoted the words from the Greek Daniel, c. iii. 32, "Thou hast delivered us to a lawless king, to an apostate beyond all the heathen that are in the earth." Their words were repeated by an informer, and they were ordered to appear before the emperor. They declared the cause of their complaint, the only one (as they said) which they had to bring against his government. They were thrown into prison, and friends were sent to promise them large rewards if they would change their religion; but they stood firm, and were beheaded in the middle of the night, on the charge of having spoken evil of the emperor (Chrys. in Juvent. et Max. 3 ; cf. Theod. iii. 15). The date of this "martyrdom" may have been Jan. 25, as it appears in Latin calendars (Boll. Jan. p. 618).
Julian discharged his spleen upon the
Antiochenes by writing one of the most remarkable
satires ever published—the Misopogon. "He
had been insulted," says Gibbon,
"by satires and libels; in his turn he composed,
under the title of The Enemy of the Beard,
an ironical confession of his own faults and a
(b) Julian's Relation to the Church at Large during his Residence at Antioch.—The general object of the emperor's policy was to degrade Christianity and to promote heathenism by every means short of an edict of persecution or the imposition of a general penalty on the profession of the faith.
We do not possess the text of many of Julian's edicts, a number of which were naturally removed from the statute book. We know that he ordered the temples to be reopened and their estates to be restored, but we do not know the terms in which this order was couched. Probably he used bitter language against the "atheists" and "Galileans," ordering all chapels of martyrs built within the sacred precincts to be destroyed, and all relics of "dead men" to be summarily removed. Something of this kind must have been the σύνθημα or "signal," of which he speaks in the Misopogon as having been followed by the neighbouring "holy cities" of Syria with a zeal and enthusiasm which exceeded even his wishes (Misop. p. 361 A; Soz. p. 20, ad fin., mentions an order to destroy two Christian chapels near the temple of Apollo Didymaeus at Miletus). This confession from his own mouth goes far to justify the statements of his opponents. Riots occurred in consequence of this "signal" in many cities, particularly of Syria and the East, where the Christians were numerous and popular passion was strong. The details of Julian's relation to some of these cases form perhaps the gravest stains upon his character.
The earliest case after his entry into Antioch which can be dated exactly was that of Titus, bp. of Bostra, in Arabia Auranitis. Julian had informed Titus that he should be held responsible for any breach of the peace (Soz. v. 15, p. 102 B). The bishop answered by a memorial, declaring that the Christian population was equal in numbers to the heathen but that under his influence and that of their clergy, they were careful to abstain from sedition (ib.). Julian on Aug. 1, 362, replied by a public letter to the people of Bostra, representing this language as an impertinence, and calumniating Titus as the accuser of the Christian body. After quoting the memorial of Titus, he proceeds: "These are the words of the bishop concerning you. Observe, he does not ascribe your regularity to your own inclination; unwillingly, he says, you refrain 'by his exhortations.' Do you then use your wills, and expel him as your accuser from your city. . . Such is their fate who turn from the worship of the immortal gods to dead men and relics" (Ep. 52).
A month or two later, probably in Oct., he continued his attack upon Athanasius, the first acts of which have already been described. The great champion had never left Alexandria, or had soon returned. Julian was thoroughly enraged to find his first order had not been executed. He wrote angrily to the prefect Ecdicius: "I swear by great Serapis if he does not leave Alexandria and every part of Egypt, by the 1st of Dec., I will fine your cohort a hundred pounds of gold. You know that I am slow to condemn, but when I have condemned much slower in pardoning," adding in his own hand, "I am thoroughly pained at being treated in this way with contempt. By all the gods, no sight, or rather no news, of your doings could give me greater pleasure than that of Athanasius being driven from Egypt, the scoundrel who in my reign has dared to baptize Greek ladies of rank. Let him be expelled" (Ep. 6). At the same time he wrote to the people of Alexandria, mingling personal abuse of their bishop with arguments to enforce the worship of Serapis and the visible gods, the sun and moon, and to depreciate the worship of "Jesus, Whom neither you nor your fathers have seen," and "Whose doctrine has done nothing for your city." "We have long ago ordered him," he concludes, "to leave the city, now we banish him from the whole of Egypt" (Ep. 51). The news of these decrees was brought to Athanasius on Oct. 23, and he felt it time to depart. "Be of good heart," he said to those who clustered round him, "it is but a cloud; it will soon pass" (Ruf. i. 32 ; Festal Epistles, Chronicle, p. 14, for the date). During the rest of Julian's reign he lived in retirement in the monasteries of the Egyptian desert.
To Hecebolius (who was perhaps his old
master advanced to some place of authority)
he wrote concerning a sedition at Edessa, in
much the same terms as he had written to the
people of Bostra, but apparently with more
justice. "I have always used the Galileans
well, and abstained from violent measures of
conversion; but the Arians, luxuriating in
their wealth, have treated the Valentinians in
a manner which cannot be tolerated in a well-ordered
city. In order, therefore, that they
may enter more easily into the kingdom of
Heaven in the way which their wonderful
law bids them, I have ordered all the money
of the church of Edessa to be seized for
division amongst the soldiers, and its estates
to be confiscated" (
Meanwhile Mark, bp. of Arethusa, a small town in Syria, who was said to have saved the life of the infant Julian, had refused to pay for the restoration of a temple which he had destroyed in the preceding reign. He was scourged in public, his beard was torn, his naked body was smeared with honey and hung up in a net exposed to the stings of insects and the fierce rays of the Syrian sun. Nothing could be wrung from him, and he was at last set free, a conqueror (Greg. Or. 4, 88–91, pp. 122–125; Soz. v. 10). Wherever he went, he was surrounded by admirers, and this case became a warning to the more temperate and cautious pagans not to proceed to extremities. Libanius intercedes for an offender, lest he should turn out another Mark (Ep. 730); and Sallust, the prefect of the East, admonished Julian for the disgrace this fruitless contest with an old man brought upon the pagan cause (Greg. l.c.; Sallust's name is not mentioned, but his office and character are described with sufficient clearness).
(c) Attempt to rebuild the Temple at
Jerusalem.—Julian had apparently for some time
past wished to conciliate the Jewish people,
and was quite ready to grant Jehovah a place,
amongst the other local deities (cf. Frag.
p. 295 C; St. Cyril. in Spanheim's
Julian, pp. 99, 100, and p. 305, on Sacrifice).
It seems probable, therefore, that his chief motive in
wishing to restore the temple at Jerusalem
was the desire to increase the number of
divinities who were propitious to him, and to
gain the favour of the Jewish God in the prosecution
of his Persian campaign. This is
substantially the account given by Socrates,
who tells us that he summoned the Jews to
him and asked why they did not offer sacrifice.
They replied that it was not lawful for them
to do so, except at Jerusalem, and he therefore
determined to rebuild the temple of Solomon
(Socr. iii. 20). This account agrees best with the
statements of the emperor himself in his epistles
and in his books against the
Christians, and other motives attributed to
him may be considered as subordinate
(cf. Greg. Or. 5, 3, p. 149; Rufin. i. 37;
Soz. v. 21). There is, however, an air of great
probability in the statement of Philostorgius that
he wished to falsify the prediction of our
Blessed Lord as to the utter destruction of the
temple (vii. 9). Nor could the enmity of the
Jews against the Christians be otherwise than
very pleasing to him (Greg. l.c.
ἐπαθῆκε καὶ τὸ Ἰουδαίων φῦλον ἡμῖν). Julian provided very large
sums for the work, and entrusted
its execution to the oversight of Alypius of
Antioch, an officer who had been employed
by him in Britain and who was his intimate
personal friend (Amm. xxiii. i. 2; Epp. 29
and 30 are addressed to him). The Jews were
exultant and eager to contribute their wealth
and their labour. The rubbish was cleared
away and the old foundations were laid bare.
But a stronger power intervened. To quote
the words of Ammianus: "Whilst Alypius
was strenuously forcing on the work, and the
governor of the province was lending his
assistance, fearful balls of flames, bursting
out with frequent assaults near the foundations,
and several times burning the workmen,
rendered access to the spot impossible; and
in this way the attempt came to a standstill
through the determined obstinacy of the element"
(xxiii. 1, 3). No doubt the Christians saw in this
defeat of their oppressor not only a miracle of
divine power, but a peculiarly striking fulfilment
of the old prophecies in which fire is so often
spoken of as the emblem and instrument of
judgment (e.g.
>From heathen testimonies, and from the
fathers and historians of the church, Dr.
Newman has put together the following detailed
account of the occurrence, in which he
chiefly follows Warburton. The order of the
incidents is, of course, not certain, but only
a matter of probable inference; nor can we
guarantee the details as they appear in the
later writers. "They declare as follows:
The work was interrupted by a violent whirlwind,
says Theodoret, which scattered about
vast quantities of lime, sand and other loose
§ 7. Julian's Persian Campaign and Death
(
At Batnae (the scenery of which he compared to
that of Daphne) he found ostentatious preparations
for sacrifice upon the public roads, but thought
them too obviously studied and too redolent of
personal flattery. Leaving Edessa on his left hand,
probably as a city too distinctly Christian to be
visited with comfort, he had reached Carrhae, a
place of vigorous pagan traditions, on
On
It was never found out who threw the fatal spear, though the Persians offered a reward. The suggestion of Libanius that it was a Christian was such as he would naturally make in his bitterness (Epit. pp. 612, 614). Gregory, Socrates, and Rufinus consider it uncertain whether it was a Persian or one of his own soldiers (Greg. Or. v. 13, p. 155; Ruf. i. 36; Socr. iii. 21). Sozomen notices the suspicion of Libanius, and defends it in a spirit which cannot but be condemned (Soz. vi. 1).
The news of Julian's death and that the army had elected a Christian, Jovian, to succeed him caused enormous rejoicings, especially in Antioch. Jovian was obliged to make peace by ceding the five Mesopotamian provinces, including Nisibis, which had been the bulwark of the empire in the East. Procopius was ordered to carry back the body to Tarsus, where it was interred with pagan ceremonies opposite that of Maximinus Daïa.
Character.—Julian's story leaves the impression of a living man far more than that of most historical personages. The most opposite and unexpected estimates of him have been formed. He has been admired and pitied by religious-minded men, detested and satirized by sceptics and atheists. His own friend Ammianus despised his superstition, and paints it in terms not much weaker than the invectives of Gregory and Chrysostom; Gibbon sneers at him alternately with his Christian opponents. A. Comte wished to appoint an annual day for execrating his memory in company with that of Bonaparte, as one of the "two principal opponents of progress," and as the "more insensate" of the two (System of Positive Polity, Eng. trans. vol. i. p. 82; an ordinance afterwards withdrawn, ib. vol. iv. p. 351). Strauss treats him as a vain, reactionary dreamer, comparable to medievalists who tried to stay the march of modern thought. On the other hand, pietistic historians like Arnold, Neander, and even Ullmann, unlike the ancient writers of the church, are tolerant and favourable.
The simple reason of this divergence is, of course, that the strongest force working in him was a self-confident religious enthusiasm, disguised under the form of self-surrender to a divine mission. Such a character constantly appears in different lights, and some of those who have judged him have looked chiefly at the sentimental side of his life, without considering his actions; while others have estimated him by his actions apart from his principles—the more so because he was inconsistent himself in his conduct, and sometimes acted with, sometimes against, his principles; and hence any one who chooses to take a partial view may easily find a justification in the positive statements of this or that historian, or of Julian himself.
A Christian who attempts to judge Julian without prejudice will probably go through several phases of opinion before he comes to a final estimate. All but the cold-hearted will sympathize, to some extent at least, with his religious enthusiasm, and with the sacrifices which he was ready to make in its behalf. It is impossible to doubt that he had a vein of noble sentiment, and a lofty and, in many ways, unselfish ambition. He had a real love of ideal beauty, and of the literary and artistic traditions of the past. There was something even pathetic in his hero-worship and his attachment to those whom he supposed to be his friends. If he was often pedantic and imitative, if he had a somewhat shallow and conceited manner, yet we must confess that much of this was the vice of the age, and this pettiness was thrown off in critical moments. Under strong excitement he often became simple, great, and natural.
Or again, many persons will sympathize with his conservative instincts, and his wish to retain what was great in the culture and art of past ages; while others will be attracted by his mystic speculations and ascetic practices, which were akin to much that has been valued and admired in many great names in the history of the church. But on reflection we see that all this was combined with a ruling spirit and view of things which was essentially heathen, and therefore fundamentally defective, as well as antagonistic, to all that we hold dearest and most vital. Julian was at bottom thoroughly one-sided. He was enthusiastic and even passionate in his religion; but it was the passion of the intellect and senses rather than of the heart.
Much of his natural warmth of feeling had been chilled and soured by the sense of injustice and secret enmity under which he so long laboured. He could not forget the murder of his nearest relations, nor the suspicions, intrigues, and actual personal indignities of which he was the subject. What we know of his early surroundings inclines us to suppose that their influence for good was but slight. His relation, Eusebius of Nicomedia, does not bear a high character. His pedagogue Mardonius was evidently more heathen than Christian in his sympathies, and a time-serving creature like Hecebolius was not likely to make much impression upon his pupil.
We have endeavoured to give a fair general
estimate of this remarkable character, with
the full consciousness how hazardous such an
estimate is. If any one wishes for a catalogue
of qualities, which can, as it were, be ticketed
and labelled, be cannot do better than read
Ammianus's elaborate award (xxv. 4). The
historian takes the four cardinal virtues—temperance,
prudence, justice, and courage—and gives a due
amount of praise tempered with some fault-finding
under each head. His chastity and abstinence
were remarkable. He aimed at justice, and to a
great extent earned a high reputation for it. He was
liberal to his friends, and careless of his own
comforts and conveniences in a very remarkable
degree; while he did much to lighten and
equalize the burden of taxation upon his
subjects. His successes in Gaul gained him
the affection of the people, and his popularity
with the soldiers may be gathered from the
manner in which the dwellers in northern and
In person he was rather short, and awkwardly though very strongly built. His features were fine and well-marked, and his eyes very brilliant; his mouth was rather over-large and his lower lip inclined to droop. As a young man he grew a beard, but was required to cut it off when he became Caesar, and seems only to have grown it again after taking possession of Constantinople. At Antioch it was allowed to grow to a great size. His neck was thick, and his head hung forward, and was set on broad and thick shoulders. His walk was ungraceful; and he had an unsteady motion of the limbs. There is a fine life-size statue of Julian, of good and artistic workmanship, in the ruined hall of his palace in the garden of the Hôtel Clugny at Paris. It is figured as the frontispiece to E. Talbot's translation of his works.
Theory of Religion.—Julian's theory was too superficial and occasional to leave much mark upon the history of thought. His book against Christianity became indeed a favourite weapon with infidels, but he never founded a school of positive belief. He was, in fact, an enthusiastic amateur, who employed some of the nights of a laborious career of public business in writing brilliant essays in the neo-Platonic manner. He tells us that the oration in praise of the Sun took him three nights; that on the Mother of the Gods was composed, "without taking breath, in the short space of one night." Such work may astonish us even now, but it is not surprising that it should be incomplete, rambling, and obscure.
There are, however, certain constantly recurring thoughts which may be regarded as established principles with Julian. Julian forms one of that long line of remarkable men in the first four centuries after Christ who endeavoured to give a rational form to the religion and morality of the heathen world in opposition to the growing power of Christianity—men whose ill-success is one of the strongest proofs of the deadness of their own cause, and the vitality of that against which they strove. Seneca, Plutarch, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius, Celsus, Plotinus, Porphyry, Iamblichus, and Hierocles were in this sense precursors of Julian. We may define the objects of their efforts on behalf of paganism as:
(1) To unite popular beliefs in many gods with some conception of the unity of the divine being, and to give some consistent, if not rational, account of the origin of the world and of the course of human history.
(2) To defend the myths and legends of heathenism, and generally to establish heathen morals on a higher basis than mere custom.
(3) To satisfy the yearnings of the soul for the knowledge of God, while rejecting the exclusive claims of the Jewish and Christian revelation.
(1) Doctrine as to the Nature of God.—The birth of Christ took place in the fulness of time, i.e. when mankind had been prepared for it, by many influences bearing them towards the acceptance of a revelation. One of the most important of these preparations was the movement towards monotheism. The old simple belief in many gods living together in a sort of upper world was gone, and thinking men would accept no system which did not assume the supremacy of one divine principle, and in some degree "justify " the action of Providence in dealing with mankind as a whole. But the worship of many gods had too deep a hold upon the fancy and affections, as well as the mind, of the people to be surrendered without a long struggle, and various methods were advanced to shelter and protect the current belief. The systems thus formed were naturally all more or less pantheistic, finding unity in an informal abstraction from the phenomena of nature. But, as we should expect to be the case on European soil, they were neither logically pantheistic in the abstract way of the Hindu philosophical sects nor sharply dualistic like the speculations of the Gnostics and Manicheans. The more practical minds of the Graeco-Roman world were satisfied to give an account of things as they appeared without overpowering and paralyzing themselves by the insoluble question as to the existence and potencies of matter; and thus they were at once more inconsistent and less absurd than some of their contemporaries. While looking upon matter as something degrading, and upon contact with it as a thing to be avoided, they nevertheless did not define matter to be non-existent, or merely phenomenal, nor did they regard it as absolutely evil. In the same way, while they lost all true hold upon the personality of God, and believed in the eternity of the world (e.g. Jul. Or. iv. p.132 C), they used the terms creation and providence, and spoke of communion with and likeness to God. Into an eclectic system of this kind it was not difficult to incorporate the gods of the heathen world, and to make them subserve a sort of philosophy of history. With Julian they take a double position: (a) as intermediate beings employed in creation who protect the Supreme Being from too intimate contact with the world; (b) as accounting for the difference between nations, and so enabling men to uphold traditional usages without ceasing to hold to one ideal law and one truth (Jul.Or. vi. p. 184 C, ὥσπερ γὰρ ἀλὴθεια μία, οὕτω δὲ καί φιλοσοφία μία).
The chief source of information on this part
According to this belief there are three worlds informed and held together by three classes of divine beings. The highest and most spiritual is the κόσμος νοηρός, or "intelligible world," the world of absolute immaterial essences, the centre of which is the One or the Good, who is the source of beings and of all beauty and perfection to the gods who surround him (p.133 C). Between this highly elevated region and the grosser material world comes the κόσμος νοερός, or "intelligent world," the centre of which is the sovereign sun, the great object of Julian's devotion. He receives his power from the Good, and communicates it not only to the gods around him, but also to the sensible world, the κόσμος αἰσθητός, in which we live. In this sphere the "visible disk" of the sun is the source of light and life, as the invisible sun is in the intelligible world. Any one who will read this oration with care will be convinced that Julian wished to find in his sovereign sun a substitute for the Christian doctrine of the second person of the blessed Trinity, and this appears in particular on pp.141,142 (cf. Naville, p.104; Lamé, pp. 234 ff.). The position specially given to the sun is a proof of the advance of Oriental thought in the Roman empire, and it was certainly no new idea of Julian's. Amongst others, Aurelian and Elagabalus had made him their chief divinity, and Constantine himself had been specially devoted to the "Sol invictus." Julian, we have seen, had from his childhood been fascinated with the physical beauty of the light. Towards the close of the century we find Macrobius arguing somewhat in the spirit of some modern inquirers that all heathen religion is the product of solar myths. Yet it is curious to observe the shifts to which Julian is put to prove this doctrine out of Homer and Hesiod, and from the customs of the ancient Greeks and Romans (pp. 135–137 and 148 ff.). He seems, indeed, conscious of the weakness of his arguments from the poets, and dismisses them with the remark that they have much that is human in their inspiration, and appeals to the directer revelations of the gods themselves—we must suppose in the visions which he claimed to receive (p.137 c).
The connexion of this theory with the national gods is nowhere distinctly worked out. It is, in fact, part of the pantheistic character of this belief, that the idea of the personality of the gods recedes or becomes prominent, like the figures in a magic lantern, according to the subject under discussion, without any shock to the dreamy neo-Platonist. At one time they are mere essences or principles, at another they are Zeus, Apollo, Ares, etc., ruling and directing the fortunes of nations, and imposing upon them a peculiar type of character and special laws and institutions. At one moment they are little more than the ideas of Plato, at another they are actual δαίμονες, acting as lieutenants of the Creator. This last view is in essentials the same as that put forward by Celsus (probably in the reign of Marcus Aurelius) in his book, known to us from its refutation by Origen (bk. v. cc. 25–33). It is the view asserted at length by Julian in his books against the Christians, especially as a defence of the customs and institutions of antiquity against the innovations of the religion which strove to break down all prejudices of class and nation. (St. Cyril. adv. Jul. iv. pp. 115, 116, 130, 141, 143, 148, etc.; cf. Fragmentum Epistolae, p. 292 C, D, ἄνθρωποι τοῖς γενεάρχαις θεοῖς ἀποκληρωθέντες, οἳ καὶ προήγαγον αὐτούς, ἀπὸ τοῦ δημιουργοῦ τὰς ψυχὰς παραλαμβάνοντες ἐξ αἰῶνος; for the subject generally, see Naville, c. iii. "Les Dieux Nationaux.") It is easy to see how fatal such a doctrine must be to moral progress. If everything is as it is by the will of the gods, no custom, however revolting, lacks defence. It is strange that, after the refutation of this absurdity by Origen, any one should have been bold enough to put it forward as a serious theory (cf. Orig. contra Celsum, v. cc. 25–28 and 34–39).
With regard to the relation of images and sacrifices to the gods, who are worshipped by these means, there is an interesting passage in the Fragment of the Letter to a Priest (pp. 293 ff.). He warns his correspondent not to consider images as actually receiving worship, nor to suppose that the gods really need our sacrifices. But he defends their use as suitable to our own bodily condition ἐπειδὴ γὰρ ἡμᾶς ὄντας ἐν σώματι σωματικὰς ἔδει ποιεῖσθαι τοῖς θεοῖς καὶ τὰς λατρείας, ἀσώματοι δέ εἰσιν αὐτοί, p. 293 D). "Just as earthly kings desire to have honour paid them and their statues without actually needing it, so do the gods. The images of the gods are not the gods, and yet more than mere wood and stone. They ought to lead us up to the unseen. And yet being made by human art, they are liable to injury at the hands of wicked men, just as good men are unjustly put to death like Socrates, and Dion, and Empedotimus. But their murderers afterwards were punished by divine vengeance, and so have sacrilegious persons manifestly received a due reward in my reign" (pp. 294 C to 295 B).
(2) Defence of Pagan Morality.—We have
already described at some length Julian's
attempts to raise the morality of his heathen
subordinates, especially in the priesthood.
He was conscious of a defect, and strenuously
set himself to remedy it, though he could do
little more in the way of quotation of texts
than allege a few general maxims drawn from
ancient writings as to kindness to the poor, etc.
His strongest argument is one that might well
have made him hesitate—the shame of being
so much outdone by the "Galileans."
Another branch of this subject was the relation of
The explanation of the myth of Attis is important as a specimen of Julian's theology. According to modern interpreters, this myth, as well as that of Adonis in its hundred forms, describes merely the succession of the seasons; Julian adapts it to his speculations on the triple hierarchy of worlds. With him the mother of the gods is the female principle of the highest and most spiritual world. He calls her the lady of all life, the mother and bride of great Zeus, the motherless virgin, she who bears children without passion, and creates things that are together with the father (p. 166 A, B). Here we are landed into the full obscurity of Gnostic principles and emanations, and the whole story is evidently only a kind of converse arrangement of that which meets us in the Valentinian myth of Achamoth (see Mansel, Gnostic Heresies, lects. 11, 12). Attis is a principle of the second or intelligent world, "the productive and creative intelligence, the essence which descends into the farthest ends of matter to give birth to all things" (p. 161 c). It is difficult to see how he is distinguished in his functions with regard to creation from the sovereign sun, but this is only one of the many weak points of this fanciful exposition. His material type in the lowest world is the Milky Way, in which philosophers say that the impassible circumambient ether mingles with the passible elements of the world (p. 165 c). The mother of the gods engages Attis to remain ever faithful to herself, that is, to look always upward. Instead of this, he descends into the cave, and has commerce with the nymph, that is, produces the visible universe out of matter. The sun, who is the principle of harmony and restraint, something like the Valentinian Horus (ὅρος), sends the lion or fiery principle to put a stop to this production of visible forms. Then follows the ἐπτομή of Attis, which is defined as the ἐποχή τῆς ἀπείριας, the limit placed upon the process into infinity. The part played by the sun is indicated by the season at which the festival took place, the vernal equinox, when he produces equality of day and night (p. 168 C, D). All this is explained as a mere passionless eternal procedure on the part of the supposed gods. A real creation proceeding from God's love and good pleasure was a thought far above the scope of this philosophy, to which the world was as personal as the so-called gods.
Enough has been said to shew how thoroughly pantheistic was Julian's interpretation of the myths; how destructive of any true conception of the divine nature, how thoroughly unmoral, how utterly incapable of touching the heart, was his theology. Yet he felt the need of some personal commerce with God, however inconsistent such a wish was with his intellectual view of divine things.
(3) Intercourse with God.—When Julian was in Asia Minor under the influence of the philosophers Eusebius and Chrysanthius, and heard the details of the wonderful works of Maximus, he said (according to Eunapius), "Farewell, and keep to your books if you will; you have revealed to me the man I was in search of" (Eunap. Vita Maxima, p. 51). This story has been discredited by some, who think it strange that so great a lover of books as Julian should speak slightingly of them. But it is confirmed by his own language in his Oration on the Sun (p. 137 C): "Let us say farewell to poetic descriptions; for they have much that is human mixed up with the divine. But let us go on to declare what the god himself seems to teach us both about himself and the other gods" (ix. II, 5). Julian here appeals from a book revelation, as it were, to a direct instruction given him in the numerous visions in which he was visited by the gods.
We have already noticed Julian's enthusiasm for the
mysteries and his love of all rites and practices which
promised a closer intercourse with the gods. He could
never bring himself to acquiesce in the colder
methods of some of the masters of the neo-Platonic
school. He was not satisfied with the intellectual
ecstasy described by Plotinus, nor with the
self-purification of Porphyry, who generally rejected
sacrifice and damnation (Ueberweg, Hist. of
Philosophy, § 68, notes, vol. i. p. 251, Eng. trans.).
The party of Iamblichus, to which Julian belonged,
required something approaching a control of a god
(theurgy), a quasi-mechanical method of
communication with him, which could be put in
force at will, and the result of which could
only be called a "Bacchic frenzy" (Or. vii. pp.
217 D and 221 D,
etc.). Julian was duped by men who were half
deceivers and half deceived. He is one among many
who are forced by an inward conviction to believe in
supernatural revelation, but who will only have it
on their own terms. Libanius tells us that Julian
knew the forms and lineaments of the gods
as familiarly as those of his friends, and we
have mentioned the visions which appeared
to him at great crises of his life. He himself
says, "Aesculapius often healed me, telling
me of remedies" (St. Cyril. adv. Jul. viii.
p. 234), and elsewhere he speaks of this
deity as a sort of incarnate Saviour (Or. iv.
p. 144 B, C). This temper of mind,
while it speaks in high-flown, positive language of
the knowledge of God and pours contempt on
the uninitiated, yet means something by
"knowledge" very different from the sober
and bracing certainty attained by Christian
faith, hope, and love. Here, as elsewhere, the
pantheistic temper speaks grandly, but feels
meanly. Death indeed is looked forward
to with some composure as the emancipation
of the divine element in man from darkness.
Julian several times prays for a happy death,
and expected after it to be raised to communion
with the gods. His orations to the Sun and
the Mother of the Gods both conclude with
such prayers, and we have seen how he
actually met his end (Liban. Ep.
p. 614; Amm.
Julian's Polemic against Christianity.—How near measures against Christianity were to his heart may be seen in his prayer to the Mother of the Gods, where he speaks of "cleansing the empire from the stain of atheism" as the great wish of his life (Or. v. p.18O B). He preferred, however, the method of persuasion to that of constraint, and his books against the Christians are an evidence of this temper. He begins by saying that he wishes to give the reasons which have convinced him that the Galilean doctrine is a human invention (Cyr. ii. p. 39). He then goes on to attack the narratives of the Bible as fabulous. He allows that the Greeks have monstrous fables likewise (p. 44), but then they have philosophy, while Christians have nothing but the Bible, and are in fact barbarians. If Christians attack the idolatry of heathens, Julian retorts, "you worship the wood of the cross, and refuse to worship the ancile which came down from heaven" (Cyr. vi. p. 194). On the whole, he does not spend much time in such questions, but accepts the Bible as a generally true narrative, and rather attacks Christianity on grounds of supposed reason, and in connexion with and in contrast to Judaism.
We may follow Naville in considering the main body of his works under three heads: (1) his polemic against the monotheism of the O.T.; (2) his attack upon the novel and aggressive character of Christian doctrine; (3) especially against the adoration of Christ as God, and the worship of "dead men," such as the martyrs (cf. Naville, pp. 175 ff.).
(1) Against the Monotheism of the O.T.—Julian regarded. the gods of polytheism as links or intermediaries between the supreme God and the material world, and so as rendering the conception of creation easier and more philosophical. He contrasts Plato's doctrine of creation in the Timaeus with the abrupt statements of Moses, "God said," etc. (pp. 49–57). One might almost suppose (he urges) that Moses imagined God to have created nothing incorporeal, no intermediate spiritual or angelic beings, but to have Himself directly organized matter (p. 49). He proceeds to argue against the supposition that the supreme God made choice of the Hebrew nation as a peculiar people to the exclusion of others. "If He is the God of all of us, and our common creator, why has He abandoned us?" (p. 106). Both in acts and morals the Hebrews are inferior. They have been always in slavery, and have invented nothing. As for morality, the imitation of God amongst the Jews is the imitation of a "jealous God," as in the case of Phinehas (Cyr. v. pp. 160–171). The worst of our generals never treated subject nations so cruelly as Moses treated the Canaanites (vi. p. 184). The only precepts in the Decalogue not held in common by all nations are the commandments against idolatry and for the observance of the Sabbath. The true view, to his mind, was that the God of the Jews was a local, national god, like those of other peoples, far inferior to the supreme God (iv. pp. 115, 116, 141, 148, etc.). Sometimes he seems inclined to accept Jehovah as the creator of the visible world, while at other times he throws doubt upon this assumption; but in any case he considered Him a true object of worship (Ep. 25, Judaeis. But in Cyril. iv. p. 148 he blames Moses for confounding a partial and national god with the Creator). Further, the Jewish usages of temples, altars, sacrifices, purifications, circumcision, etc., were all observed to have a close resemblance to those of heathenism, and were a foundation for many reproaches against the Galileans, who had abandoned so much that was laudable and respectable (vi. p. 202; vii. p. 238; ix. pp. 298, 299, 305, etc.).
(2) Julian's Attack upon Christianity as a
Novel and Revolutionary Religion.—In the
same spirit he puts Christianity much below
Judaism. "If you who have deserted us had
attached yourself to the doctrines of the
Hebrews, you would not have been in so
thoroughly bad a condition, though worse
than you were before when you were amongst
us. For you would have worshipped one God
instead of many gods, and not, as is now the
case, a man, or rather a number of miserable
men. You would have had a hard and stern
law, with much that is barbarous in it, instead
of our mild and gentle customs, and would
have been so far the losers; but you would
have been purer and more holy in religious
rites. As it is, you are like the leeches, and
suck all the worst blood out of Hebraism and
leave the purer behind" (Cyr. vi. pp. 201, 202).
It was thus natural that St. Paul should be the
special object of his dislike. "He surpasses
all the impostors and charlatans who have
ever existed " (Cyr. iii. p. 100). Julian
accuses the Jewish Christians of having deserted
a law which Moses declared to be
eternal (ix. p. 319). Even Jesus Himself said
that He came to fulfil the law. Peter declared
that he had a vision, in which God showed him
that no animal was impure (p. 314), and Paul
boldly says, "Christ is the end of the law";
but Moses says, "Ye shall not add unto the
word which I command you, neither shall ye
diminish ought from it" ; and "Cursed is
every one that continueth not in all things"
(Cyr. ix. p. 320 =
(3) The Worship of Jesus as God and the
Adoration of the Martyrs are the great objects
of Julian's attacks. His argument is partly
concerned with the prophecies just quoted,
partly with the N.T. itself. He asserts
that Moses never speaks of "the first-born
Son of God," while he does speak of "the sons
of God," i.e. the angels, who have charge of
different nations
(
"John began this evil. You have gone on
and added the worship of other dead men to
that of the first dead man. You have filled
all things with tombs and sepulchres; though
Jesus speaks of 'whited sepulchres full of
dead men's bones and all uncleanness'" (p.
335). "Why, then, do you bow before
tombs? The Jews did it, according to
Isaiah, to obtain visions in dreams, and four
apostles also probably did so after their
master's death" (p. 339). (The reference is
to
It is remarkable that Julian shews practically no appreciation of the need of redemption or of the contrast between Christian and heathen life. This we must ascribe in great measure to the misfortune of his early training, to the Arianism of his teachers, and the unloveliness and unlovingness of his early surroundings. Some allowance must also be made for the corruption and extravagance of some forms of popular religion, and for the rash and violent acts of fanaticism committed by many Christians. The superstitious cultus of martyrs, for instance, was no doubt disavowed by the highest minds of the 4th cent., such as St. Athanasius and St. Augustine. But in the masses newly converted from paganism it formed a natural centre for much of the old superstition and fanaticism (Athan. Or. cont. Arian. ii. 32; August. de Vera Relig. 55; and esp. cont. Faustum, xx. 21).
But besides all this there was in the family of Constantine generally a hardness and self-assertion, though accompanied with strong religious pressure, which made them inaccessible to Christian feeling on the subject of sin. The members of it believed strongly in their providential vocation to take a great part in religious questions, but were very rarely troubled by scruples as to their personal unworthiness. Julian's own character, as we have seen, was specially inconsistent, but its ruling element was self-confidence, which he disguised to himself as a reliance upon divine direction. In conclusion, we may draw attention to some of Julian's admissions. He accepts the account of the Gospel miracles. He rejects the Gnostic interpretation of St. John, which separated the Word of God from the Christ. He witnesses to the common use of the term θεοτόκος long before the Nestorian troubles. His remarks about martyr-worship and the adoration of the cross have some importance as facts in the history of Christian worship.
On the Coins of Julian see D. C. B. (4 vol. ed.) s.v. We conclude that from policy Julian did not make any general issue of coins with heathen inscriptions or strongly marked heathen symbols which would have shocked his Christian subjects. The statements of Socrates and Sozomen are in perfect harmony with this conclusion.
Julianus (105) Sabas, Oct. 18, an anchorite, whose history Theodoret tells. Sabas or Sabbas, says Theodoret, was a title of veneration, meaning an elder, corresponding with "abbas" or father, commonly applied to anchorites in the East. His cave was in Osrhoëne; he practised extraordinary asceticism and endured extremes of heat and fatigue. In 372, on the expulsion of Meletius, bp. of Antioch, the triumphant Arian party gave out that Julian had embraced their views; whereupon Acacius (subsequently bp. of Berrhoea), accompanied by Asterius, went to Julian and induced him to visit Antioch, where his presence exposed the slander and encouraged the Catholics. He returned to his cave and there died. Theod. H. E. iii. 19, iv. 24; Hist. Religios. No. ii.; Menol. Grace. Sirlet.; Ceillier, viii. 238; Wright, Cat. Syr. MSS. ii. 700, iii. 1084, 1090.
Julius (5), bp. of Rome after Marcus, Feb. 6, 337, to Apr. 12, 352, elected after a vacancy of four months. His pontificate is specially notable for his defence of Athanasius, and for the canons of Sardica enacted during it. When Julius became pope, Athanasius was in exile at Trèves after his first deposition by the council of Tyre, having been banished by Constantine the Great in 336. Constantine, dying on Whitsunday 337, was succeeded by his three sons, by whose permission Athanasius returned to his see. But the Eusebians continuing their machinations, the restoration of Athanasius was declared invalid; and one Pistus was set up as bp. of Alexandria in his stead. A deputation was now sent to Rome to induce Julius to declare against Athanasius and acknowledge Pistus; but having failed to convince the pope, desired him to convene a general council at which he should adjudicate upon the charges against Athanasius. Socrates (H. E. ii. 11) and Sozomen (H. E. iii. 7) state that Eusebius wrote to Julius requesting him to judge the case. But this is not asserted by Julius, and is improbable. Julius undertook to hold a council wherever Athanasius chose, and seems to have sent a synodical letter to the Eusebians apprising them of his intention. The dates of the events that followed are not without difficulty.
Early in 340 Pistus had been given up as
the rival bishop, and one Gregory, a Cappadocian,
violently intruded by Philagrius the
prefect of Egypt into the see; and the
Lenten services had been the occasion of
atrocious treatment of the Catholics of Alexandria.
Athanasius, having concealed himself
for a time in the neighbourhood and
prepared an encyclic in which he detailed the
proceedings, seems to have departed for Rome
about Easter 340, and to have been welcomed
there by Julius, who, after his arrival, sent
two presbyters, Elpidius and Philoxenes, with
a letter to Eusebius and his party fixing Dec.
340, at Rome, for the proposed synod. The
Eusebians refused to come, and detained the
envoys of Julius beyond the time fixed.
Elpidius and Philoxenes did not return to
Rome till Jan. 341, bringing then a letter, the
purport of which is gathered from the reply
of Julius to be mentioned presently. Julius
suppressed this letter for some time, hoping
that the arrival of some Eusebians in Rome
might spare him the pain of making it public,
and in this hope he also deferred the assembling
of the council. But no one came. The
Eusebians now shewed themselves by no
means prepared to submit to his adjudication,
but took advantage of the dedication of a new
cathedral at Antioch to hold a council of their
own there, known as the "Dedication council"
(probably in Aug. 341) and attended by
97 bishops. They prepared canons and three
creeds, designed to convince the Western
church of their orthodoxy, confirmed the
sentence of the council of Tyre against Athanasius,
and endeavoured to prevent his restoration
by a canon with retrospective force,
debarring even from a hearing any bishop or
priest who should have officiated after a
canonical deposition. Julius meanwhile had
made public their letter, and, not yet knowing
of the proceedings at Antioch, assembled his
council in the church of the presbyter Vito at
Rome, apparently in Nov. 341, Athanasius
being stated to have been then a year and a
half in Rome. It was attended by more than
50 bishops. Old and new accusations were
considered; the Acts of the council of Tyre,
and those of the inquiry in the Mareotis about
the broken chalice, which had been left at
Rome by the Eusebian envoys two years
before, were produced; witnesses were heard
in disproof of the charges and in proof of
Eusebian atrocities; and the result was the
complete acquittal of Athanasius and confirmation
of the communion with him, which
had never been discontinued by the Roman
church. Marcellus of Ancyra, who had been
deposed and banished on a charge of heresy
by a Eusebian council at Constantinople in
336 and had been 15 months in Rome, was
declared orthodox on the strength of his
confession of faith which satisfied the council.
Other bishops and priests, from Thrace,
Coelesyria, Phoenicia, Palestine, and Egypt,
are said by Julius in his subsequent synodal
letter to have been present to complain of
injuries suffered from the Eusebian party.
Socrates (H. E. ii. 15) and Sozomen (H. E.
iii. 8) say that all the deposed bishops were
reinstated by Julius in virtue of the prerogative
of the Roman see, and that he wrote
vigorous letters in their defence, reprehending
the Eastern bishops and summoning some of
the accusers to Rome. But there seems much
exaggeration here. Paul certainly, the deposed
patriarch of Constantinople (whom
Eusebius had succeeded and who is mentioned
by Socrates and Sozomen among the successful
appellants), was not restored till the death of
his rival in 342, and then only for a time and
not through the action of Julius; nor did
Athanasius regain his see till 346. Indeed,
Sozomen himself acknowledges (iii. 10) that
Julius effected nothing at the time by his
letters in favour of Athanasius and Paul, and
consequently referred their cause to the
emperor Constans. Julius's real attitude and
action are best seen in the long letter he
addressed to the Easterns at the desire of the
Roman council, which has been preserved
entire by Athanasius (Apol. contra Arian.
21–36). He begins by animadverting strongly
on the tone of the letter brought to him by his
envoys, which was such, he says, that when
he had at last reluctantly shewn it to others
they could hardly believe it genuine. His
own action had been complained of in the
letter. He therefore both defends himself and
recriminates: "You object to having your
own synodal judgment [that of Tyre] questioned
in a second council. But this is no
unprecedented proceeding. The council of
Nice permitted the re-examination of synodical
Acts. If your own judgment were right,
you should have rejoiced in the opportunity
of having it confirmed; and how can you, of
all men, complain, when it was at the instance
of your own emissaries, when worsted by the
advocates of Athanasius, that the Roman
council was convened? You certainly cannot
plead the irreversibility of a synodical decision,
having yourselves reversed even the
judgment of Nice in admitting Arians to
communion. If on this ground you complain
Athanasius remained still in Rome, till, in
his fourth year of residence there—probably
in the summer of 343—he received a summons
from Constans, now sole emperor of the West,
to meet him at Milan (Athan. Apol. ad Imp.
Constantium, 4), about the holding of a new
council, at which both East and West should
be fully represented. With the concurrence
of the Eastern emperor Constantius, this
council was summoned at the Moesian town
of Sardica on the confines of their empires,
probably towards the end of 343. The
scheme of united action failed, the Eastern
bishops holding a separate synod at Philippopolis.
The rest met at Sardica under the
At the close of its sittings the council of Sardica addressed letters to the two emperors, to Julius, to the church of Alexandria, to the bishops of Egypt and Libya, and an encyclic "to all bishops." In that to Julius the reason he alleged for not attending—viz. the necessity of remaining in Rome to guard against the schemes of heretics—is allowed as sufficient; and he is presumed to have been present in spirit. The documents sent him and the oral report of his emissaries would inform him of what had been done, but it was thought fit to send him also a brief summary: The most religious emperors had permitted the council to discuss anew all past proceedings, and hence the following questions had been considered: (1) The definition of the true faith; (2) The condemnation or acquittal of those whom the Eusebians had deposed; (3) The charges against the Eusebians themselves of having unjustly condemned and persecuted the orthodox. For full information as to the council's decisions he is referred to the letters written to the emperors; and he is directed, rather than requested ("tua autem excellens prudentia disponere debet, ut per tua scripta," etc.), to inform the bishops of Italy, Sardinia, and Sicily of what had been done, that they might know with whom to hold communion. A list is appended of those excommunicated by the synod. The whole drift of the letter is inconsistent with the council having been convened by the pope himself, or held in his name, or considered dependent on him for ratification of its decrees. He is not even charged with the promulgation of them, except to bishops immediately under his jurisdiction. The only expression pointing to his pre-eminent position is that it would appear to be best and exceedingly fitting ("optimum et valde congruentissimum") that "the head, that is the see of St. Peter," should be informed respecting every single province. Nor is there in the letter to the Alexandrians, or in the encyclic to all bishops, any reference to him as having initiated or taken part in the council; only in the latter a passing allusion to the previous council which he ("comminister poster dilectissimus") had convened at Rome. The letter to Julius is signed, first by Hosius, and then by 58 other bishops, being probably those present at the close of the council. But as many as 284 are given by Athanasius (Apol. contra Arian. 49, 50) as having assented to its decrees and signed its encyclic letter. They include, from various parts of the West with a few from the East 78, from Gaul and Britain 34, from Africa 36, from Egypt 94, from Italy 15, from Cyprus 12, from Palestine 15.
Not till Oct. 346, some three years after the council, was Athanasius allowed to return to his see. Before that he again visited Rome, and was again cordially received by Julius, who wrote a letter of congratulation to the clergy and laity of Alexandria, remarkable for its warmth of feeling and beauty of expression. He regards the return at last of their beloved bishop after such prolonged affliction as a reward granted to their unwavering affection for him, shewn by their continual prayers and their letters of sympathy that had consoled his exile, as well as to his own faithfulness. He dwells on the holy character of Athanasius, his resoluteness in defence of the faith, his endurance of persecution, his contempt of death and danger. He congratulates them on receiving him back all the more glorious for his long trials and fully proved innocence. He pictures vividly his welcome home by rejoicing crowds at Alexandria. The letter is the more admirable for the absence of all bitterness towards the persecutors.
The only further notice of Julius is of his
having received the recantation of Valens and
Ursacius, two notable opponents of Athanasius
who had been condemned at Sardica.
They had already recanted before a synod at
Milan, and written a pacific letter to Athanasius;
but went also of their own accord, A.D.
347, to Rome, and presented a humble
apologetic letter to Julius, and were admitted
to communion (Athan. Hist. Arian. ad Monachos,
26; Hilar. Fragm. i.). Their profession
however (in which they owned the falsity
of their charges against Athanasius and
renounced Arian heresy), proved insincere.
His only extant writings are the two letters, to the Eusebians and the Alexandrians, referred to above. Ten decreta are ascribed to him in the collections of Gratian and Ivo. One is interesting for its allusion to certain usages in the celebration of the Eucharist—viz. using milk, or the expressed juice of grapes, instead of wine; administering the bread dipped in the wine, after the manner of the Greeks at the present day; and using a linen cloth soaked in must, reserved through the year and moistened with water, for each celebration. All these are condemned, except the use of the unfermented juice of the grape, in which (it is said) is the efficacy of wine, in case of need, if mixed with water, which is declared always necessary to represent the people, as the wine represents the blood of Christ.
Julius was buried, according to the Liberian and Felician Catalogues, "in coemeterio Calepodii ad Callistum" on the Aurelian Way, where he had built a basilica.
Julius (9) (Julianus), bp. of Puteoli (Gesta de Nom. Acacii, in Labbe, iv. 1079 D), probably the bp. Julius to whom, A.D. 448, Leo the Great entrusted the execution of certain disciplinary measures in the church of Beneventum (Leo Mag. Ep. xix. 736). Certainly he, with Renatus the presbyter and HILARUS the deacon, carried to Flavian of Constantinople the famous "tome" of St. Leo in June 449, and acted as his legate in the "Robber" council of Ephesus (Leo Mag. Ep. xxxiii. 866, Migne). The legates are described by Leo as sent de latere meo (Ep. xxxii. 859, xxxiv. 870. He was not the first pope to use this phrase; see the Ballerini in loc. Migne). Because Julius appears in the "acta" of the council most frequently as Julianus he has been confused with Julian of Cos. That it was our Julius who was the papal legate at Ephesus is proved by Leo's letter to the latter (xxxiv. 870) and by the fact that the legate did not know Greek, which Julian of Cos certainly did (see JULIANUS (27); Labbe, iv. 121 B; Tillem. xv. note 21, pp. 901–902). Evagrius (H. E. i. x.), Prosper (Chron.), and Gesta de Nom. Acac. (in Labbe, iv. 1079 D), call the papal legate Julius, not Julianus (see also Marianus Scotus, Chron. ann. 450 in Patr. Lat. cxlvii. 726). On Quesnel's hypothesis, that Julius and not Renatus died on the road to Ephesus, and that Julian took his place, cf. Tillemont, l.c., and Hefele, Concil. ii. 368, 369. On their arrival at Ephesus the legates lodged with Flavian; on the ground that they had lived with him and been tampered with by him (συνεκροτήθησαν, Lat. munerati), Eutyches took exception to their impartiality as judges (Labbe, iv. 149 B).
The assertion of Liberatus (Breviarium, c. xii.) that the Roman legates could not take part in the council ("assidere non passi sunt" are his words) because the precedence was not given to them as representing Rome, and because Leo's letter was not read, is not in harmony with the acta of the council (see Tillem. xv. notes 26 and 27, p. 904). They undoubtedly did take part in the proceedings of the council, and Julius ranked after Dioscorus. His interpreter, as he could not speak Greek, was Florentius, bp. of Sardis (Labbe, iv. 122 B). We read that he made several efforts to resist DIOSCORUS, especially urging that Leo's letter should be read, but he does not seem to have been so prominent in opposition as Hilarus the deacon (ib. 128 B, 149 B, 302 D). Leo, however, expresses high commendation of the conduct of his legates generally. They protested in the council, he says, and declared that no violence should sever them from the truth (Ep. 45, 922). He speaks to Theodosius, the emperor, of intelligence having been brought him of the acts of the synod by the bishop whom he had sent, as well as by the deacon (Ep. xliii. 902); but this in other letters (xliv. 911, xlv. 919) is corrected by the statement that only Hilarus escaped to Rome. What happened to Julius we do not know, nor do we hear of him subsequently (Ughelli, Italia Sacra, vi. 272). Ughelli and Cappelletti (xix. 647, 669) name him Julianus and make him 6th bp. of Puteoli between Theodore and Stephen.
Junilius (Ἰούνιλος, Junillus), an African by birth, hence commonly known as Junilius Africanus. He filled for seven years in the court of Justinian the important office of quaestor of the sacred palace, succeeding the celebrated Tribonian (Procop. Anecd. c. 20). Procopius tells us that Constantine, whom the Acts of the 5th general council shew to have held the office in 553, succeeded on the death of Junilius, which may therefore be placed a year or two earlier. Junilius, though a layman, took great interest in theological studies. A deputation of African bishops visiting Constantinople, one of them, PRIMASIUS of Adrumetum, inquired of his distinguished countryman, Junilius, who among the Greeks was distinguished as a theologian, to which Junilius replied that he knew one Paul [PAUL OF NISIBIS], a Persian by race, who had been educated in the school of the Syrians at Nisibis, where theology was taught by public masters in the same systematic manner as the secular studies of grammar and rhetoric elsewhere. Junilius had an introduction to the Scriptures by this Paul, which, on the solicitation of Primasius, he translated into Latin, breaking it up into question and answer. Kihn identifies this work of Paul with that which Ebedjesu (Asseman. Bibl. Or. III. i. 87; Badger, Nestorians, ii. 369) calls Maschelmonutho desurtho. The work of Junilius was called "Instituta regularia divinae legis," but is commonly known as "De partibus divinae legis," a title which really belongs only to chap. i. It has been often printed in libraries of the Fathers (e.g. Galland, vol. xii.; Migne, vol. lxviii.). The best ed., for which 13 MSS. were collated, is by Prof. Kiln of Würzburg (Theodor von Mopsuestia, Freiburg, 1880), a work admirable for its thorough investigations, and throwing much light on Junilius.
The introduction does not, as has been
Junilius divides the books of Scripture into two classes. The first, which alone he calls Canonical Scripture, are of perfect authority; the second added by many are of secondary (mediae) authority; all other books are of no authority. The first class consists of (1) Historical Books: Pentateuch, Josh., Judg., Ruth, Sam., and Kings., and in N.T. the four Gospels and Acts; (2) Prophetical (in which what is evidently intended for a chronological arrangement is substituted for that more usual): Ps., Hos., Is., Jl., Am., Ob., Jon., Mic., Nah., Hab., Zeph., Jer., Ezk., Dan., Hag., Zech., and Mal. (he says that John's Apocalypse is much doubted of amongst the Easterns); (3) Proverbial or parabolic: the Prov. of Solomon and the Book of Jesus the Son of Sirach; (4) Doctrinal: Eccles., the 14 epp. of St. Paul in the order now usual, including Heb., I. Pet., and I. Jn. In his second class he counts (1) Historical: Chron., Job, Esdras (no doubt including Neh.), Judith, Est., and Macc.; (3) Proverbial: Wisdom and Cant.; (4) Doctrinal: the Epp. of Jas., II. Pet., Jude, II. III. Jn. Lam. and Bar. were included in Jer. Tobit is not mentioned, but is quoted in a later part of the treatise. Kihn is no doubt right in regarding its omission as due to the accidental error of an early transcriber; for no writer of the time would have designedly refused to include Tobit even in his list of deuterocanonical books. Junilius gives as a reason for not reckoning the books of the second class as canonical that the Hebrews make this difference, as Jerome and others testify. This is clearly incorrect with regard to several of them, and one is tempted to think (pace Kihn) that Junilius himself added this reference to Jerome and did not find it in his Greek original. The low place assigned to Job and Cant. accords with the estimate formed by Theodore of Mopsuestia. Junilius quotes as Peter's a passage from his second epistle, which he had not admitted into his list of canonical books. He describes Ps., Eccles., and Job as written in metre (see Bickell, Metrices Biblicae Regulae). The work of Junilius presents a great number of other points of interest, e.g. his answer, ii. 29, to the question how we prove the books of Scripture to have been written by divine inspiration.
The publication of the work Kihn assigns to
551, in which year the Chronicle of Victor
Tununensis records the presence at Constantinople
of the African bishops Reparatus,
Firmus, Primasius, and Verecundus. He
thinks that Junilius probably met Paul of
Nisibis there as early as 543. We do not
venture to oppose the judgment of one
entitled to speak with so high authority;
but we should have thought that the introduction
into the West of this product of the
Nestorian school of theology took place at an
earlier period of the controversy about the
Three Chapters than 551. It is not unlikely
that Primasius paid earlier visits to Constantinople
than that of which we have evidence.
A commentary on
Justina (5), empress, second wife of Valentinian I., a Sicilian by birth, and, teste Zosimus (iv. 19 and 43), the widow of Magnentius, killed in 353. Valentinian may have divorced his first wife (Chron. Pasch. 302), and then espoused Justina, probably in 368.
She was an Arian, but during her husband's lifetime concealed her opinions (Ruf. H. E. ii. 15, in Migne, Patr. Lat. xxi. 523). She, however, endeavoured to prevent him from allowing St. Martin of Tours to enter his presence (Sulp. Sev. Dial. ii. in ib. xx. 205). After her husband's death she at once used her influence as mother of the infant emperor Valentinian II. to advance the interests of her sect, and soon came into collision with St. Ambrose. Their first contest was probably c. 380, when St. Ambrose was summoned to Sirmium to take part in the consecration of Anemius as bishop of that see, the empress being desirous that the new bishop should be consecrated by the Arians (Paulinus, Vita S. Ambrosii, in ib. xiv. 30).
After the murder of Gratian and the seizure by Maximus of Spain, Gaul, and Britain in 383, Justina (who, with her infant son, was residing in the imperial palace at Milan) had recourse to her former opponent St. Ambrose. She placed her son in his hands, and induced him to undertake the delicate task of going as ambassador to Maximus, to persuade him to be contented with Gratian's provinces and to leave Valentinian in undisturbed possession of Italy, Africa, and Western Illyricum (St. Ambrose, Epp. 10, 21, 24; Id. de Obitu Valentiniani, 1182 in Patr. Lat. xvi. 1001, 1007, 1035, 1368). His mission was successful, at any rate for a time; but the ungrateful Justina assailed him at Easter 385 with the object of obtaining a church at Milan for the use of her fellow-Arians. For an account of this memorable struggle see AMBROSIUS. By a constitution (Cod. Theod. xvi. 1, 4), dated Jan. 21, 386, and drawn up at her direction (Soz. H. E. vii. 13), those who held the opinions sanctioned by the council of Ariminum were granted the right of meeting for public worship, Catholics being forbidden under pain of death to offer opposition or to endeavour to get the law repealed.
When danger again threatened, Justina again had recourse to Ambrose's services. After Easter 387 he was sent to Trier to ask that the body of Gratian should be restored to his brother and to avert Maximus's threatened invasion of Italy (Ep. 24). His mission was unsuccessful; Maximus crossed the Alps in the autumn and made himself master of Italy without striking a blow. Valentinian and his mother and sisters fled by sea to Thessalonica, whence she sent to Theodosius imploring his help. Zosimus (iv. 44) narrates how she overcame his reluctance by the charms of her daughter, the beautiful Galla, whose hand paid for his assistance. (See Duc de Broglie, L᾿Eglise et l᾿emp. iii. 228.) In 388, the year of her son's restoration, Justina died (Soz. H. E. vii. 14; Ruf. H. E. ii. 17).
Justinianus (6) I., Roman emperor (275–565).
I. Life and Character.—Justinian was born
In 526 he married Theodora, a woman of singular beauty, and still more remarkable charms of manner and intellect, said to have been a native of Cyprus and a comedian. The gossip of the time, starting from this undoubted fact, has accumulated in the Anecdota, or unpublished memoirs, ascribed to, and no doubt written by (although there has been a controversy on the point), Procopius, a variety of scandalous tales regarding her earlier career. [THEODORA.] She soon acquired an almost unbounded dominion over Justinian's mind, and was commonly regarded as the source of many of his schemes and enterprises. She died in 548, and he did not marry again.
Most of what we know directly about Justinian comes from PROCOPIUS, which does not diminish the difficulty of forming a comprehensive and consistent view of his abilities and character. For Procopius wrote of him with servility in his lifetime, and reviled him in the Anecdota, a singular book which did not come to light till long afterwards. Setting aside exaggerations in both directions, it may be concluded that Justinian was a man of considerable, if not first-rate, abilities. He was well educated, according to the ideas and customs of the time, and more or less conversant with many branches of knowledge. Procopius accuses him of being a barbarian both in mind and speech, which probably means only that he spoke Greek like an Illyrian provincial (Anecd. c. 14). His artistic taste is shewn by the many beautiful buildings which he erected, two among which—those of St. Sophia at Constantinople and St. Vitalis at Ravenna (though it does not appear that he had any share in designing this latter)—have had the unique distinction of becoming architectural models for subsequent ages, the one for the East, and the other for the West. Several hymns still used in the orthodox Eastern church are ascribed to his pen, and he is the author of a treatise against the Monophysites, which Cardinal Mai has published. The records of his government and administration shew that he possessed great ingenuity and enterprise; but the enterprise was often prompted more by vanity and lust of power than by regard to the welfare of his people, and his ingenuity was not guided by prudence or by a solid knowledge of the economical conditions of prosperity. There was much more cleverness than wisdom about him; we see in his policy few indications of deep and statesmanlike foresight. The chief feature of his character is his extraordinary industry. He seemed to live for work, and toiled harder than any of his own clerks. He was naturally abstemious and regular in life, observing the church fasts very strictly, able to go long without food, taking little sleep, and spending most of his time, when not actually giving audiences, in pacing up and down the rooms of the palace listening to readers or dictating to an amanuensis. He cared little for vulgar pleasures (though he shewed an excessive partiality for the blue faction, he does not appear to have been personally addicted to the games of the circus), and yielded to no influences except those of his wife Theodora. We are told that he was easy of access—a rare merit in the despotic centre of a highly formal court—pleasant and reassuring in manner, but also deceitful and capable of treachery and ingratitude. How far this ingratitude was in the most notable case, that of Belisarius, excused by apprehensions of danger, is a problem not wholly solved or soluble. Wantonly cruel he does not seem to have been, and on several occasions shewed an unexpected clemency, but he shrank from no severities that his intellect judged useful.
In person he was well formed, rather above the middle height, with a ruddy and smiling countenance. Besides his effigy on coins, we have two probably contemporary portraits among the mosaics of Ravenna—one in the apse of the church of San Vitale, built in his reign, in which he appears among a number of other figures; the other now preserved in the noble church of Sant’ Apollinare in Urbe.
II. The political events of his reign may be
read in Procopius, Agathias, Theophanes (all
three in the Bonn ed. of the Byzantine historians),
in the ecclesiastical history of Evagrius,
in Gibbon (see cc. xl.–xliii. for a full and
brilliant picture of Justinian's times), and in
Le Beau (Histoire du bas empire, vols. viii.
and ix., with St. Martin's notes). Finlay
(Greece under the Romans, vol. i. of new ed.)
has some valuable remarks, as also Hertzberg,
Griechenland unter der Römer, vol. iii.; see
also Dahn, Prokopios von Caesarea. At
Justinian's accession the empire was generally
at peace. An expedition was dispatched in
533, under Belisarius, which landed in Africa
without opposition and reduced the whole
Vandal kingdom to submission in little more
than three months. The Vandals who survived
seem to have been rapidly absorbed into
the African population; anyhow, we hear no
more of them. The fleet of Belisarius received
The success of his enterprise against the Vandals encouraged Justinian to attempt the recovery of Italy from the Ostrogoths, who had held it and Sicily since the invasion under Theodoric in 493–494. The emperors at Constantinople considered themselves, ever since the extinction of the Western branch of the empire in 476, de jure sovereigns of Italy and the whole West, regarding the Gothic kings partly as their lieutenants, partly as mere usurpers. Justinian dispatched Belisarius from Constantinople with a fleet and over 7,000 men in the autumn of 535. He reduced Sicily easily in a few weeks. Then he attacked Italy, occupying Rome in Dec. 536. The Ostrogoths had shortly before risen against their king Theodahad, and chosen Witigis, whom Belisarius took at Ravenna and carried to Constantinople, leaving the imperial power supreme in Italy. Totila, whom the Goths chose in the room of Witigis, recovered fortress after fortress from the incompetent generals who succeeded Belisarius, till he was master of most part of Italy; and at length restored the Gothic kingdom to a better position than it had held since the death of Theodoric. But in 552 his army was defeated, and himself slain by Narses, and with him died the last hopes of the Gothic kingdom of Italy. After Narses had destroyed Butelin and his host in a great battle near Casilinum in Campania, 544, the small remains of the Gothic nation either passed into Spain and Gaul to mingle with other barbarians or were lost among the Roman population of Italy, which now was finally in Justinian's hands. It was, however, a desolated and depopulated Italy. Nor was it long left to his successors.
The third great struggle of Justinian's reign was against the Persian empire, then under Kobad and Chosroes Anushirvan in the zenith of its power. After several campaigns Chosroes concluded in 533, on obtaining from the emperor 11,000 pounds of gold, a peace which gave rest to the eastern provinces. In 539 war broke out again, and also a revolt against Justinian in Armenia, a part of whose people appealed to the Persians for help. Chosroes commanded a vast force, which the Roman generals were quite unable to resist in the open field. In 540 Antioch, far the greatest town of the eastern part of the empire, was sacked, and many thousand inhabitants carried to a new city, built for them near Ctesiphon, his own capital. Towards the end of Justinian's reign the fighting slackened; a peace for 50 years was concluded in 562 on terms humiliating to Justinian, who undertook to pay yearly 30,000 gold pieces. This peace lasted only 10 years; but the war which began in 572 lies outside Justinian's reign.
Less famous, but perhaps even more ruinous, were the contests which Justinian had to maintain against the barbarians of Scythia and the Danube. From the Alps to the Black Sea, the N. border of the empire was the scene of seldom intermitted warfare. The various tribes whom the Roman historian calls Huns, and who included the race subsequently distinguished as Bulgarians, poured from the S. of what is now Russia down upon Thrace, ravaged it and Macedonia, penetrated on one occasion to the isthmus of Corinth, and six years before Justinian's death, in 559, appeared in great force under the walls of Constantinople, from which they were repulsed by the skill and vigour of Belisarius. In the N.W. provinces villages were destroyed, cultivated land laid waste, and immense numbers of the inhabitants carried into slavery. The only serious efforts the emperor made against these enemies (besides the building of fortresses) were by diplomacy. His policy was to foment hostilities between neighbouring tribes, taking sometimes one, sometimes another, into alliance with the empire, and offering large presents, often so regular as to amount to a kind of blackmail, to buy them off for the moment or induce them to turn their arms against some other barbarian power. His activity as a negotiator was unwearied. Embassies from all parts of the barbarian world arrived at Constantinople, excited the wonder of the people by their strange garb and manners, and returned home laden with gifts and promises. Even the tribes of the Baltic and the Turks of Central Asia seem to have thus come into relations with him. His policy was much blamed in his own time (see esp. Procop. Anecd.), and may appear shortsighted as supplying fresh inducements to the barbarians to renew their attacks and letting them know the wealth of the capital; but perhaps no other policy was possible, and the incidental advantages of Roman influence and culture upon the border tribes may have been considerable.
III. We possess no systematic account of
the internal state of the empire in Justinian's
time, and depend only upon occasional
notices by historians like Procopius and
Agathias, and a study of Justinian's legislative
measures. The civil service was, and had
long been, in a high state of efficiency. Such
alterations as Justinian made tended to perfect
this organization and to render all its members
more completely subservient to the crown.
He spent enormous sums not only on his wars
but in the erection of churches, fortresses, and
public buildings of every kind (a list will be
found in the de Aedificiis of Procopius), and
was therefore always in want of money. Oppressive
He made efforts to open up new channels for the traffic in silk, and ultimately succeeded, through the boldness of two Persian monks, who conveyed the eggs of the worm in a hollow cane from China to the empire. The manufacture of silk was thus no longer at the mercy of the Persians, who had stopped the supply in time of war, and the culture of the silk-worm became an important branch of industry in the Roman East.
As a whole, the faults of Justinian's domestic government appear greatly to outweigh its merits. His subjects had grown tired of him long before his death; but later ages looked back to his reign as a period of conquest abroad and magnificence at home, and accepted the surname of the Great.
IV. Ecclesiastical policy occupied no small share of Justinian's thoughts and care.
During the lifetime of Justin I., he sought to re-establish the communion of the churches of Constantinople and Rome, which had been interrupted owing to the Monophysite controversies. On his accession in 527 he professed himself a zealous supporter of the Two Natures and the decrees of Chalcedon, and the firmness of his throne was no doubt partly due to this coincidence of his theological views with those of the bulk of his subjects in Constantinople, Thrace, and Asia Minor. He had great confidence in his own powers as a theologian, and took an active part in all the current controversies. A diligent student and having some literary pretensions, he read and wrote much on theological topics. His ecclesiastical policy apparently had two main objects, not, however, consistently pursued—the maintenance of the orthodox doctrine of the Four Councils, and especially of Chalcedon; and the reconciliation of the Monophysites, or at least the inducing by apparent concessions the more moderate Monophysites to accept the decrees of Chalcedon. There was in his court an active, though probably concealed, Monophysite party, headed by, and sheltering itself under, the empress Theodora. One of the emperor's first acts was to summon a conference of leading theologians on both sides, so as to bring about a reconciliation. After several sittings, however, in one of which Justinian delivered a long allocution, vital points were reached on which neither side could yield, and the conference was dissolved. Among the Monophysite leaders were Severus, deposed from the patriarchate of Antioch in the time of Justin, and Anthimus, bp. of Trebizond. They seem to have acquired much influence in Theodora's coterie, and, probably owing to her, Anthimus was raised in 535 to the patriarchate of Constantinople, in spite of the doctrinal suspicions attaching to him. Pope Agapetus, having heard of these suspicions, and disapproving, as Rome was wont to do, of translations from one bishopric to another, refused to communicate with the patriarch till he should have purged himself from the charge of heresy, and insisted that, when purged, Anthimus should return to Trebizond. Justinian (perhaps owing to the support which Theodora seems to have given Anthimus) was at first displeased and resisted, but Agapetus prevailed. Anthimus was deposed, and Mennas, head of the hospitium of Samson in Constantinople, appointed in his place and consecrated by Agapetus, who soon afterwards died. By the directions of Justinian, Mennas called a local synod, which met during May and June 536 (Mansi, viii.; cf. Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, ii. pp. 742–753), and deposed Anthimus from his see of Trebizond. The synod anathematized Severus, Peter of Apamea, and Zoaras as suspected of Monophysitism. In Aug. 536 Justinian issued an edict addressed to Mennas confirming all that the synod had done.
After this there appears to have been a comparative calm in the ecclesiastical world of Constantinople, till the emperor's attention was called to the growth of Origenistic opinions in the East, and especially in Syria.
About the beginning of the 6th cent. there had been in the monasteries of Palestine, and particularly in that great one called the New Laura, a considerable diffusion of Origen's opinions, which excited the alarm of St. Sabas and of the patriarch Peter of Jerusalem. The latter in 543 induced Pelagius, apocrisiarius of the Roman bishop, to make representations to the emperor on the subject, and sent with him four monks to accuse the followers of Origen. The four monks were supported by Mennas the patriarch. Two Origenist bishops, Theodore Ascidas, archbp. of Caesarea in Cappadocia, and Domitian, bp. of Ancyra, resided usually at Constantinople and had much influence with the emperor. Nevertheless they seem to have feared the charge of heresy too much to resist the monks from Palestine, and perhaps did not own their attachment to Origen's writings. Anyhow, the emperor promptly condemned the accused opinions, issuing a long edict addressed to the patriarch Mennas, in which he classes Origen among the heretics, and singles out for anathema ten particular doctrines contained in his writings. A local council, convoked by Mennas, dutifully echoed the emperor's edict, publishing its anathemas against 14 propositions drawn from Origen, and condemning his person.
Theodore and Domitian had submitted, but their mortification drove them to take action in another way, and thus to awaken a long, needless, and most mischievous controversy. Justinian was at work upon a treatise on the Incarnation, whereby he trusted to convince and conciliate the stubborn Acephali (or extremer Monophysites) of Egypt. Theodore, according to our authorities, suggested to him that a simpler way of winning back those who disliked the council of Chalcedon would be to get certain writings condemned which that council had approved, but which the Monophysites disliked as being of a distinctly Nestorian tendency. (See Liberatus ap. Galland. Bibl. Patr. xii. 160, as to Theodore, and Facundus, bk. i. c. 2, as to Domitian of Ancyra; cf. Evagr. H. E. iv. 38; Vita S. Sabae.) They singled out 3 treatises for condemnation, which soon became famous as the τρία κεφάλαια (tria capitula), which we usually translate Three Chapters, but would be better called the Three Articles, viz. the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia, the treatise of Theodoret against Cyril and his twelve articles, and the letter of (or attributed to) Ibas, bp. of Edessa, to the Persian bp. Maris. Later, the term τρία κεφάλαια came to mean both the persons and writings impugned. This latter is the usual sense in the authors of the time (e.g. Facundus of Hermiane, whose treatise is entitled Defensio pro Tribus Capitulis) and in the protocols of the fifth general council. The Nestorians still appealed to Theodore as their highest authority, and triumphantly pointed to the fact that he had never been condemned. Against Theodoret and Ibas the case was weaker. Both had joined in anathematizing Nestorius at Chalcedon, and been restored to their sees. But both had attacked Cyril, who, though claimed by the Monophysites, was also a bulwark of orthodoxy, and the ep. to Maris was a violent assault on the council of Ephesus. It might therefore be with some show of plausibility alleged that the authority of that council was not established while these assailants seemed to be protected by the aegis of Chalcedon.
Seconded by Theodora (says Liberatus,
u.s.), Theodore Ascidas and Domitian persuaded
Justinian to compose and issue a
treatise or edict against the Three Articles.
Desisting from his book against the Acephali,
he forthwith composed the suggested edict,
which was issued between 543 and 545, probably in 545.
It has perished, only three or
four short extracts being preserved by Facundus.
It was circulated through the church
for the signatures of the bishops. The four
Eastern patriarchs were naturally afraid of
reopening any question as to the authority
of Chalcedon. Mennas, after some hesitation,
signed, but subject to a promise given him on
oath, that he might withdraw his signature if
the bp. of Rome refused to agree. The other
three, Ephraim of Antioch, Peter of Jerusalem,
Zoilus of Alexandria, under real or
imagined threats of deposition, obeyed and
signed, and after more or less intimidation and
the offer of various rewards, the great majority
of bishops through Syria, Asia Minor,
Greece, and Macedonia signed also. In the
West, the bishops having less to lose and being
accustomed to face Arian potentates, Justinian
found a less ready compliance. The
bishops of Africa led the opposition, and were
largely supported by those of Italy, Gaul,
Illyricum, and Dalmatia. In Rome much
alarm was produced by the arrival of the edict,
and by the emperor's command to Vigilius,
lately chosen pope, to repair to Constantinople.
Theodora enforced by terrible threats his
appearance. Vigilius, not venturing openly
to oppose the emperor, and fearing the anger
of Theodora, had also to reckon with the all
but universal loyalty to the council of Chalcedon
of the Roman church and of the Western
churches generally, and so temporized. He
arrived in Constantinople in 547, having
delayed nearly a year in Sicily. In 548 he
issued a document called the Judicatum, condemning
the Three Articles, saving, however,
the authority of Chalcedon. In 548 Theodora
died, but Justinian was now thoroughly
committed against the Three Articles. He
continued to coerce the recalcitrant bishops
of Africa, depriving some of their sees, and,
after various negotiations with Vigilius, issued
in 551 a second edict against the Three Articles
addressed to the whole Christian world, which
has been preserved under the name of the Confession of Faith,
ὁμολογία πίστεως
Ἰουστινιανοῦ αὐτοκράτορος
(Mansi, ix. 537). This edict
is really a theological treatise, taking the
writings of the three impugned doctors and
discovering heresies in them by minute scrutiny
and inference. Vigilius was required to
subscribe it, but refused, and took refuge in
the basilica of St. Peter at Constantinople,
and afterwards in the church of St. Euphemia
at Chalcedon. Here he remained, until the
emperor, anxious for his concurrence in summoning
a general council as the only solution
for the dissensions, induced him to withdraw
his censure of the edict. He then returned
to Constantinople to await the opening of the
council. The first sitting was on May 5, 553.
Justinian in his last days himself lapsed into heresy. The doctrine that the body of Christ was insensible to fleshly passions and weaknesses, was in fact incorruptible, and so not ordinary flesh at all, had been broached early in the century by bp. JULIAN of Halicarnassus, a leading Monophysite, in opposition to the view of Severus, patriarch of Antioch, that Christ's body was corruptible up to the resurrection, and only afterwards ceased to be so. Justinian published an edict declaring the doctrine of Julian orthodox and requiring the assent of all patriarchs and bishops to this new article. Eutychius of Constantinople was deposed for rejecting the edict. Before more could be done, Justinian died (A.D. 565) and the controversy at once collapsed, for his successor took comparatively slight interest in theological questions.
The general character of Justinian's ecclesiastical policy has been sufficiently indicated. In spite of his protestations of respect for the clergy, the important place they held at his court, and the privileges which his legislation gave them, he never hesitated to resort to despotism and banishment to bend them to his will. No previous Roman emperor had been so much interested in theological disputes, nor arrogated to himself so great a right of interference even with the popes. His control of the fifth council was much more direct and considerable than his predecessors exercised at Ephesus and Chalcedon.
Justinian was through his life a resolute,
though not always consistent, persecutor.
Nestorians and Eutychians were punished
with deposition from ecclesiastical office,
V. Justinian's legislation falls under two principal heads—his work as a codifier and consolidator of pre-existing law; and his own new laws, some of which were incorporated in the Codex Constitutionum, while others, published subsequently, remain as detached statutes, and go by the name of the Novels (Novellae Constitutiones.) The vast changes involved in the establishment of Christianity had rendered much of the old law, though still formally unrepealed, practically obsolete. There was therefore overwhelming necessity for sweeping reforms both in the substance and in the outward form and expression of the law. Such reforms had been attempted in the time of THEODOSIUS II., when the Theodosian Codex, containing a collection of the later constitutions, had been prepared and published A.D. 438. This, however, dealt only with the imperial constitutions, not with the writings of the jurists; and now, nearly a century later, the old evils were found as serious as ever, while the further changes in society had made the necessity for abolishing antiquated enactments even greater.
Justinian set to work so promptly after his accession that he had probably meditated already upon the measures which were called for and fixed his eyes on the men to be used as instruments. He began with the easier part of the task, the codification of jus novum, the imperial constitutions of more recent date. A commission was appointed in Feb. 528 to go through the whole mass of constitutions and select for preservation those still in force and of practical importance. In Apr. 529 the Codex Constitutionum was formally promulgated, and copies sent into every province of the empire, with directions that it should supersede all other constitutions previously in force. (See Const. Summa Reipublicae prefixed to the Codex.)
The next step was to deal with the jus vetus,
the law contained in the writings of the
authorized jurists, which practically included
so much of the old leges, senatus consulta, and
edicta as retained any practical importance.
But there were many differences of opinion
among the jurists whose writings had legal
authority. Justinian accordingly issued a
series of 50 constitutions, known as the
Quinquaginta Decisiones, settling
the disputed points (see Const. Cordi Nobis
prefixed to the Codex). At the same time a
large number of other ordinances were promulgated,
amending the laws and abolishing
obsolete provisions. The ground being thus
cleared, he appointed a commission of 16
lawyers, under the presidency of Tribonian.
Their instructions were chiefly: to collect
into one body all best worth preserving in the
writings of the authorized jurists, making
extracts so as to avoid both repetition and
contradiction, and give one statement of the
law upon each of the many points where discrepant
views had, formerly prevailed. Redundancies
were to be cut off, errors in manuscripts
or in expression set right, alterations
introduced where necessary, no antinomia
(contradiction) allowed to remain, nothing
repealed which had been already enacted in
While the Digest was in progress, Justinian directed three of the chief commissioners—Tribonian, Theophilus professor of law in the university of Constantinople, and Dorotheus professor of law at Berytus (Beyrut in Syria, the other great law-school of the empire)—to prepare an elementary manual for educational purposes, based on the existing treatises, and especially on the deservedly popular Institutes of Gaius, but brought up to the state of the law as changed by recent emperors and by Justinian himself. This treatise, dealing in four books with the law of Persons, of Things, and of Actions, was published shortly before the Digest, not only as a text-book for teaching, but also as a law, a constitution with full imperial authority. It is the treatise now known as Justinian's Institutiones.
On Nov. 16, 534, a revised Codex, including constitutions published since 529, and omitting laws that had been in the interval repealed or become unnecessary, was issued with an introductory constitution (now prefixed to it) called Cordi nobis, abrogating the former edition altogether. The Codex we now have is this new one. It is divided into 12 books and 765 titles, containing 4,652 constitutions, the earliest dating from Hadrian, while far the larger part of the constitutions in the Codex were more recent, and perhaps half of them the work of the Christian emperors.
Between 534 and the end of Justinian's reign a large number of new laws appeared, the majority during the lifetime of Tribonian (d. 545). These are called Novellae Constitutiones post Codicem (νεαραὶ διατάξεις), or shortly Novellae (νεαραί), Novels. They mostly have the form of edicts or general laws rather than of the earlier rescripta. They do not appear to have ever been gathered into one officially sanctioned volume (although this had originally been promised, see Const. Cordi nobis), but several private collections were made from which our present text is derived. (See as to the Novels Biener, Gesch. der Novellen Justinians, and generally as to the history and edd. of the Corpus Juris, Rudorff, Römische Rechtsgeschichte, Leipz. 1857.)
The Corpus Juris Civilis, consisting of the four parts already mentioned—the Codex, the Digesta, the Institutiones, and the Novellae—became under Justinian the sole law of the Roman empire, was accepted in the early Middle Ages as the law of Germany, S. France, and Italy, and has exerted a great influence on the jurisprudence even of countries which, like England, repudiate (except in special departments) its authority. As we now understand by codification the reduction of the whole law into one scientific system of rules, new in form and expression though mostly old in substance, the work of Justinian would be better described as a Consolidation than a Codification. On the whole, it may be said that he exercised a wise discretion in attempting no more, and many as are the faults in the arrangement of his Codex and Digest and in the occasional disproportion of treatment, the work was done decidedly better than other literary and scientific productions of Justinian's age would have led us to expect.
The Corpus Juris held its ground as the supreme law book of the empire for little more than three centuries. Much of the earlier law had then become obsolete, and something shorter, less elaborate, more adapted to the needs and lower capacities of the time was required. Accordingly the emperors, Basil the Macedonian, Constantine, and Leo the philosopher, directed the preparation of a new law book, which, revised and finally issued under Leo c. 890, received the name of the Basilica, or Imperial Code. It contains, in 60 books, a complete system of law for the Eastern empire, retaining a great deal of the substance of the Corpus Juris, but in a wholly altered form; the extracts from the Codex of constitutions, and those from the Pandects and Novels being all thrown into one new Codex, and intermingled with later matter. It is in Greek; is much less bulky than the Corpus Juris, and has come down to us imperfect. The best ed. is Haimbach's (Leipz. 1833–1851), with supplement by Zacharia (Leipz. 1846). The Codex is cited in Herzog. vol. ix. (1901), according to the ed. of P. Krüger (Berlin, 1877); the Novellae according to the ed. of C. E. Zacharias a Lingenthal (2 vols. Leipz. 1881).
The new legislation of Justinian is contained partly in the Codex and partly in the Novels. The legal changes made by the constitutions of the first seven years of his reign, which have been incorporated in the Codex, are often merely solutions of problems, or settlements of disputes which had perplexed or divided the earlier jurists. These were promulgated in the Quinquaginta Decisiones already mentioned. A considerable number more relate to administrative subjects; while the rest are miscellaneous, running over the whole field of law. For his ecclesiastical constitutions see articles in D. C. A., to which this subject more properly belongs. A few remarks may, however, be profitably made here on the emperor's ecclesiastical laws as contained firstly in the Codex Constitutionum, where they are abbreviated; and, secondly, in the Novels, where they appear at full and often wearisome length. The earlier ones are in the Codex, the Novels extend from 534 to 565.
In Justinian's Codex the first 13 titles of
bk. i. are occupied by laws relating to Christian
theology and doctrine. Title I., styled "De
The topics of the Novels, or constitutions
issued by Justinian from 535 till his death in
565, are very various. Of the 153 to which
the 168 appearing in the largest collection may
be reduced, 33, forming the largest group,
relate to ecclesiastical and religious matters.
Next in number come those dealing with
civil and military administration. Marriage
and the legal relations arising therefrom are
These ecclesiastical Novels throw much
light on the state of the 6th-cent. Eastern
church, and the evils which it was thought
necessary to remedy. We hear once or twice
of the ignorance of the clergy, persons being
sometimes ordained who could not read the
prayers used in the sacramental services of the
Supper and Baptism (Novs. 6, 137). Irregularities
in monastic life were frequent, as
appears from the penalties threatened (Novs.
5, 133). Bishops too often resided away from
their sees, so that a prohibition to the
administrator to send money to them while absent
was needed (Nov. 6, § 3; Nova 123, § 9).
That a bishop must be unmarried, and a priest
either unmarried or married only once and
to a virgin, was insisted on. The habit of
building churches without funds sufficient for
their due maintenance and service is checked
Justinus (2) Martyr, St., son of Priscus, grandson of Bacchius; born at Flavia Neapolis, hard by the ruins of ancient Sychem (now Nablous), in Palestine (Apol. i. 1). He calls himself a Samaritan (Dial. c. 120, § 349 C), so that his family had probably settled there definitely; but he is obviously not a Samaritan by blood or religion; nothing in his writing would point to such an origin. He has not heard, even, of Moses or of the prophets until well on in life; he classes himself among those Gentiles to whom the Gospel was opened so largely when the main mass (Apol. i. 53, § 88 B) of the house of Jacob, in which he includes by name the Samaritans as well as the Jews, rejected it. He speaks of being brought up in heathen customs, being uncircumcised (Dial. c. 29, § 246 C), and receiving a thoroughly Greek education (Dial. c. 2, § 219). The name of his grandfather is Greek; of his father and himself Latin. What we know of him is gathered almost entirely from his own writings, and chiefly from his famous description of the studies through which he passed to his conversion, given in his Dialogue with the New Tryphon. The opening of the Dialogue discovers Justin walking in the colonnades of a city, which Eusebius identifies with Ephesus (H. E. iv. 18), shortly after the wars of the Romans against Bar-Cocheba in 132–136 (Dial. c. 1, § 217). To the Jew, who greets him as a philosopher, he recounts his philosophic experiences, though we gain but little clue as to where or at what time these experiences occurred. He speaks of his first longing to share in that wisdom "which is verily the highest possession, the most valued by God, to Whom it alone leads and unites us"; when with this hope he went successively to a Stoic teacher, a Peripatetic, and a famous Pythagorean, but in each case to no purpose. Much grieved at this, he thought of trying the Platonics, whose fame stood high. He went chiefly to one lately settled in his town, who was thought highly of by his school; advanced some way with him, giving him the greater part of every day; was delighted with the perception of the Incorporeal; the contemplation of the Ideas "gave wings to my mind, quickly I thought to become wise, and expected that, if it were not for my dull sight, I should be in a moment looking upon God; for this sight is the fulfilment of the Platonic philosophy." "While in this frame of mind I one day had a wish for quiet meditation, away from the beaten track of men, and so went to a bit of ground not far from the sea; and there, just as I was nearing the place where I looked to be alone with my thoughts, an old man, of a pleasant countenance, and with a gentle and dignified mien, came following me a little behind." The old man asked Justin, "'For what are you come here?' 'I delight,' I answered, 'in these strolls, in which I can hold converse with myself, without interruption; a place like this is most favourable for such talking as I love.' 'Ah! you are a lover of talk, and not of action or of reality,' he said. 'You are one, I suppose, who cares more for reasons than for facts, for words than for deeds.' 'And how, indeed,' I answered, 'can a man act more efficiently than in exhibiting the reason that governs all, or than in laying hold of it, and there, borne aloft on it, looking down on others who stray helplessly below, and do nothing sane, or dear to God? Without philosophy and right reason there is no possible wisdom. Every man, therefore, ought to esteem philosophy as his noblest work, and to let all else come second or third to it; for by philosophy things are made right and acceptable, without it they become common and vulgar.' 'Philosophy, then, is the true cause of happiness, is it?' he asked in reply. 'Yes, indeed, it is,' I said, 'it and it alone.'"
A discussion follows on the possibility of philosophy giving the true knowledge of God, which is Happiness; at its close Justin confesses that his philosophy supplies no clear account of the soul, of its capacity to perceive the Divine, nor of the character of its life; the old man speaks with a decision that he professes to owe neither to Plato nor to Pythagoras, who are the bulwarks of philosophy. What teacher is there who can give certainty where such as these fail? asks Justin. The old man replies that there have been men, far older than all these philosophers, men blessed and upright and beloved of God, who spoke by the spirit of God, and are called Prophets. These alone have seen the truth, and spoken it to men; not as reasoners, for they go higher than all argument, but as witnesses of the truth, who are worthy to be believed, since the events foretold have come to pass and so compel us to rely on their words, as do also the wonders they have worked to the honour and glory of God the Father and of His Christ. "Pray thou, then, that the gates of the Light may be opened too for thee; for these things can only be seen and known by those to whom God and His Christ have given understanding." Justin saw the old man no more; but in his soul the flame was fired and a passion of love aroused for these prophets, the friends of Christ; and as he reflected upon it he found that here indeed lay the one and only sure and worthy philosophy.
This is all we know of his conversion. The
scene is, perhaps, idealized; it has a savour
of Plato; but the imagination of Justin was
hardly equal to producing, unaided, such vivid
detail of scenery and character. The description
would imply that he was somewhat
advanced in study, but not past the enthusiasms
of earlier life. The event, apparently,
occurred in Flavia Neapolis, i.e. "our town,"
in which the Platonist teacher had settled;
One other motive he records to have affected his conversion, i.e. his wondering admiration at the steadfastness of Christians under persecution. "When I was still attached to the doctrine of Plato, and used to hear the accusations hurled against Christians, and yet saw them perfectly fearless in the face of death and of all that is terrible, I understood that it was impossible they should be living all the time a life of wickedness and lust" (Apol. ii. 12, § 50 A). This appeal, which the moral steadfastness of the Christians had made to him, he continually brings to bear upon others (i. 8, § 57; i. 11, § 58 E, etc.). Perhaps, too, the lack of moral reality and energy in the doctrines of philosophy was not unfelt by Justin, for his words seem sometimes to recall the old man's taunt, "You are a man of words, and not of deeds" (cf. i. 14, § 61 E, "For Christ was no Sophist, but His word was the power of God").
We have no details of his life after baptism. He seems to have come to Rome, and, perhaps, to have stayed there some time, according to Eusebius (H. E. iv. 11). His peculiar office was to bring the Christian apologetic into the publicity of active controversy in the schools. The collision with Tryphon in the Colonnades is probably but a specimen of the intellectual intercourse which Justin challenged by wearing the philosopher's cloak. The introduction to the Dialogue appears to record a familiar habit. The Second Apology mentions a dispute with Crescens the Cynic (3, § 43, B, C). The memory of Justin's characteristic attitude is recorded by Eusebius: "It was then that St. Justin flourished, who, under the dress of a philosopher, preached the word of God, and defended the truth of our faith by his writings as well as by his words"; and the Acts of his martyrdom speak of Justin as sitting in the house of Martinus, a recognized place of meeting for Christians, and there conversing with any who visited him, imparting to them the true doctrine. The persons condemned with him are companions whom he has gathered about him and converted. "I took delight," says one of them, Evelpistus, "in listening to Justin's discourse."
When persecution fell sharply upon the church, he was in the van of those who considered it their first duty to make public to their judges the doctrine and life so foully accused (Apol. i. 3, § 54). So, in the Dialogue with Tryphon, he speaks of the guilt he would incur before the judgment seat of Christ if he did not freely and ungrudgingly open to them his knowledge of the meaning of Scripture (Dial. c. 58, § 280 B).
This freedom of apologetic crowned itself towards the close of Justin's life in the three works which alone can be accepted as undoubtedly authentic: the two Apologies and the Dialogue with Tryphon the Jew. This same freedom brought him to his death.
The secret cause of his seizure is supposed by Eusebius to have been the enmity of an opponent whom he had convicted of ignorance, Crescens the Cynic. "Crescens," Tatian write, "who made himself a nest in Rome, while professing to despise death, proved his fear of it by scheming to bring Justin and myself to death as to an evil thing" (Or. c. 32; cf. Eus. H. E. iv. 16). For the reality of his violent death for Christ we have the indubitable testimony of his historic title, Justin Martyr. For the actual account of it we are dependent on the Acts of his martyrdom, which embody, probably without serious change, the simple and forcible tradition which the 3rd cent. retained of the death-scene. They have the appearance of containing genuine matter. According to these, he and his companions are brought before Rusticus, the prefect of the city, and are simply commanded to sacrifice to the gods, without any mention of Crescens, or of Justin's Apologies to the emperors. Justin, on examination, professes to have found the final truth in Christianity, after exploring all other systems; this truth, he declares, consists in adoring the one God, Who has made all things, visible and invisible, and Jesus Christ, the Son of God, Who was foretold by the prophets to be coming into the world to preach salvation and teach good doctrine. He declares that Christians meet wherever they choose or can, seeing that their God is not limited to this or that place, but fills heaven and earth; but that he himself, on this, his second visit to Rome, held meetings for his followers in the house of one Martinus only, near the baths of Timotinus. After a brave refusal to sacrifice, and an assurance of salvation in Christ, he and those with him were condemned to be beaten with rods and beheaded. They died praising God and confessing their Saviour. The faithful secretly carried their bodies to a fit burial.
Such are the fragments left to us of his life;
between what dates do they fall? The
title of the First Apology is decisive; it is
addressed to the "Emperor Titus Aelius
Antoninus Pius, Augustus, Caesar; to
Verissimus his son, philosopher, and to Lucius,
the natural son of a philosophic Caesar, the
adopted son of a pious Caesar." Here we
have Antoninus Pius as sole emperor, with his
two imperial companions, adopted by him as
According to some, this is not early enough, for the title omits to salute Aurelius as Caesar, which he became publicly in 140. Against this lie several weighty objections: (1) Lucius Verus is called, possibly philosopher, certainly "ἐραστὴς παιδείας," lover of culture; but by 140 he is only ten years old. (2) Marcion is in the Apology the greatest type of heresy, "with a following spread over every race of men." Justin's language seems to belong to a time when Marcion's pre-eminence had overshadowed the earlier heretics (cf. Lipsius, Die Quellen der Ketzergeschichte, 1875, pp. 21, 22), and this could hardly be till well after 140. It was under Antoninus (according to general authority, cf. Tertullian, Clement, etc.) that Marcion succeeded in putting himself .in the front, and arrived at Rome. Yet, already before the Apology, Justin has written a book against him, with other heretics (Apol. i. 26, § 70 C). It is difficult to attribute to Marcion this immense position in the very first years of Antoninus (cf. contra. Semisch, Justin, p. 73, 1840). (3) Justin professes to be writing 150 years after our Lords birth, a round number, it is true, but in a context where the object is to diminish the interval. Without very positive evidence against it, the year 148—i.e. Justin's A.D. 150—should be taken as the approximate date. These reasons would place the first Apology near the end of the first half of the reign of Antoninus. This would not conflict with two other references to times—to the deification of Antoninus, i.e. 131 (Apol. i. 29, § 72), and to the wars of Bar-Cocheba, 132, 136 (31, § 72). Both have the same formula: τῷ νῦν γεγενημένῳ πολέμῳ and Ἀντινόου τοῦ νῦν γεγενημένου. The expression is vague, but requires the two events to be well within the memories of Justin's readers.
The address of the second Apology has at last, after many confusions, been determined to refer to Antoninus again, and Marcus Aurelius. It is indirect, and found in 2, § 42 C, where a single emperor is definitely meant, and in the last chapter, where the rulers are spoken of in the plural; in 2, § 43 B there are two people in office, Pius the αὐτοκράτωρ, and a philosopher, who is saluted as son of Caesar; and continued reference is made to the mingled piety and philosophy of these personages. These two, with the well-known titles, can hardly be other than Antoninus and Marcus Aurelius. This is made almost a certainty when we consider that the second Apology seems to have followed close upon the first and bears all the mark of a sequel or appendix (cf. Volkmar, in Theolog. Jahrb. 1855, N. 14; cf. Hort, in Journ. of Classic and Sacred Philol. vol. iii. p. 155 (1857), of which much use is made in the art.). This is clear, among other things, from the references in the second to the first Apology (Apol. ii. 4, § 43; 6, § 45; 8, § 46) as to a writing close at hand and freshly remembered. The date of the Apologies may be thrown back as far in the reign of Antoninus as is consistent with the prominence attributed to Marcion.
Of the date of Justin's birth we have nothing certain. Epiphanius states that he died when 30 years old. The evidence is not forthcoming. For the date of his conversion we have scarcely any evidence except that it was before the wars of Bar-Cocheba, 132–136 (Dial. i. 1, § 217) Eusebius supposes he was unconverted at the date of Antinous, A.D. 131 (H. E. iv. 8), but it is doubtful if Eusebius had any ground for this except Apol. i. 29, § 72, which certainly does not require it.
The genuineness of the three writings already mentioned is universally accepted. The first Apology definitely pronounces itself to be Justin's; the second obviously belongs to the first; the Dialogue claims to be written by a Samaritan, who had addressed the emperor—its personal history of the writer exactly tallies with Justin's attitude towards philosophy in the Apologies. The peculiar phrase ἀπομνημονεύματα τῶν Ἀποστόλων occurs in these three works, and in them alone. The whole tone of the works agrees with the period assigned. The external evidence gathered by Eusebius is strong and unbroken (cf. Eus. H. E. iv. 18).
But it is otherwise with an Oratio ad Graecos; a λόγος παραινετικὸς πρὸς Ἕλληνας, Cohortatio ad Graecos; a fragment, περὶ Ἀναστάσεως; and a book, περὶ Μοναρχίας, which must be classed as very doubtful; others are decidedly not genuine.
Several works of Justin have been entirely lost: (1) The book Against all Heresies, to which he refers in Apol. i. 26, § 70. (2) Against Marcion, referred to by Irenaeus (iv. contra Haer. c. 14; cf. v. 26), supposed by some to be part of (1). (3) A book called Ψάλτης, and (4) περὶ ψυχῆς, in which he contrasts his own doctrine with that of the Greek philosophers (Eus. H. E. iv. 18).
"Many other works of his," says Eusebius, "are in the hands of the brethren." Evidently he must have written a great deal, and the three undoubted works still extant perhaps account for this voluminous character of his writings. For these three pieces are written loosely and unsystematically, and read like the outpouring of a mind that had ranged widely in heathen literature and philosophy, and had massed a large store of general knowledge, which could be easily and effectively brought to bear upon current topics, without any scrupulous regard to the artistic or symmetrical appearance of the result.
Justin's writing, especially in the first Apology, is full of direct and striking force; it moves easily and pleasingly; his thinking is fresh, healthy, vigorous, and to the point; his wide knowledge is used with practical skill; his whole tone and character are immensely attractive by their genuineness, simplicity, generous high-mindedness, and frank and confident energy.
In the first Apology, composed with much
more care and completeness than the second,
he defines and justifies his position of apologist
before the rulers, with supreme dignity, and
confidence. He calls upon them to let it be
seen whether they are the loyal guardians of
The charges against the Christians, encountered in pt. i., are: (1) The very fact of Christianity is itself treated as a punishable crime (c. iv.). (2) Atheism (c. vi.). How can they with any justice be called atheists, who reverence and worship the Father of all Righteousness, the Son Who came from the Father and taught us this, the whole Host of Angels and the Prophetical Spirit? "These are they whom we honour in reason and truth, offering our knowledge of them to all who will learn of us." (3) That some Christians have been proved malefactors. Yes, very likely, for we all are called Christians however much we vary. Therefore let every one be tried on his merits. If convicted of evil, let him pay the penalty, only as an evil-doer, not as a Christian. If innocent of crime, let him be acquitted though a Christian. (4) Christians are charged with aiming at a kingdom. But this can hardly be a kingdom on earth; for, then, we should be ruining all our hopes of it by our willingness to die for Christ. Yet we never attempt to conceal our faith; and here Justin makes a direct appeal. "Surely," he cries, "we are the best friends that a ruler could desire, we who believe in a God Whose eye no crime can escape, no falsehood deceive; we who look for an eternal judgment, not only on our deeds, but even on our thoughts! So our Master, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, has taught us." For the reality and true character of this faith in God through Christ, he offers the proof of the Christian's moral conversion. "We who once delighted in adultery, now are become chaste; once given to magic, now are consecrated to the one good God; once loving wealth above all things, now hold all our goods in common, and share them with the poor; once full of hatred and slaughter, now live together in peace, and pray for our enemies, and strive to convert our persecutors." All this is emphasised by our belief in the resurrection of the body, in which we shall hereafter suffer pain for all our sins done here (c. 18). Is this incredible? Yet it is believed not only by us, but by all who turn to magic rites, to spiritualists, to witches, to frenzied seers, to oracles at Dodona or Delphi; by Empedocles and Pythagoras, Plato and Socrates, by Homer and Virgil.
Here begins a defence of Christian doctrine, on the ground of its likeness to doctrines already held in heathenism (c. 21). We alone are hated, even though we hold the same as the Greeks; we alone are killed for our faith, even though we do nothing bad.
(C. 30.) He turns to a new objection. "How do you know the genuineness of your Christ, or that He was not some clever magic-worker?" Justin's answer is, by the proof of prophecy. The books of the Jews, translated in the LXX, in spite of the bitter hatred of the Jews against us, speak, years before the event, of us and of our Christ.
(C. 46.) A new objection: were all men irresponsible before 150 years ago, when Christ was born under Quirinus? No; there were Christians before Christ, men who lived in the power of the Word of God, Socrates and Heraclitus, Abraham and Elias.
(C. 56.) The demons have deceived men before Christ by the tales of Polytheism; and, after Christ, by the impieties of Simon, Menander, and Marcion: but have never been able to make men disbelieve in the end of the world and the judgment to come, nor to conceal the advent of Christ.
(Cc. 61–67.) He has spoken of Faith in Christ and Regeneration of Life; he will now tell what this exactly means; and so proceeds to describe the baptism by which the regeneration is effected; the reasons for this rite; its accomplishment in the Name of the Nameless God called the Father, in the Name of the Son Jesus Christ crucified under Pontius Pilate, and in the Name of the Holy Spirit Who spake by the Prophets. He describes (c. 65) the Eucharistic Feast to which the baptized are admitted, and gives a brief account of the character to be attributed to the bread and wine then consecrated and of the authority on which this rests.
He speaks once more of the feast, as it recurs on the Sundays, when they all assemble together, and (c. 68) closes rather abruptly, with the personal directness which throughout gives dignity to the Apology. "If my words seem to you agreeable to reason and truth, then give them their due value; if they strike you as trifling, then treat them lightly as trifles; but, at least, do not decree death against those who do nothing wrong, as if they were enemies of the state. For, if you continue in iniquity, we foretell that you will not be able to escape the future judgment of God; we shall be content to cry, God's will be done!"
He adds an epistle of Hadrian to Minucius Fundanus, by which he could claim a fair trial; but he would rather ask that as a matter of plain justice than by right of law or precedent. This letter of Hadrian's, we are told by Eusebius, was preserved by Justin in its Latin form (H. E. iv. 8), and thrown by him into Greek. Its style suits the age of Hadrian (Otto, ed. of Justin, vol. i. note on p. 190); it is considered genuine by Aubé, Ueberweg, doubted by Keim (Theol. Jahrb. t. xv. Tüb. 1856, p. 387). It gives so little to the Christians, that it seems hardly likely to be fictitious.
The second Apology, possibly an appendix to the first (Otto, ed. p. lxxxi.; Volkmar, Baur and Zell. Theolog. Jahrb. t. xiv. Tüb. 1855; Keim, Protest. K.-Z. Ber. 1873, n. 28, col. 619), anyhow written at no long interval after the first, begins abruptly with an appeal directly to the Romans, but in reality addressed to the imperial rulers (cf. cc. 3, 14, 15), together with the whole people. These rulers, under whom the affairs which led to the Apology occurred, are, it has been argued, the emperor Pius and the philosopher Marcus Aurelius, and, according to a suggested reading, Lucius Verus son of Caesar. The opening betrays by its suddenness, and emphasizes by dwelling on the speed with which the Apology had been produced, the excitement under which it was composed. "Things had happened within the last two days in Rome," such as the irrational actions of the magistrates, which had driven Justin to write an Apology for his own people, who are, though the Romans know it not and will not have it, their brothers, of like feelings with themselves.
(C. 2.) He relates the case which had so fired him with indignation; it is very typical of what Christians were subject to. The dissolute wife of a dissolute man is converted and is anxious to separate from her husband. He holds out some hopes of amendment, so she forces herself to remain, but he plunges into worse debauchery. She sends a writ of divorce and leaves him. Then this "good and noble husband" bethought himself of accusing her of being a Christian. While her case was pending, a certain Ptolemaus, the wife's master in the faith, whom Urbicus had imprisoned, is challenged with being a Christian. Ptolemaus, brought up before Urbicus, is asked, "Are you a Christian?" and on confessing it is at once condemned to death. Lucius a Christian publicly challenges Urbicus to justify a decision which punished a man simply for the name of Christian. "You, too, are a Christian, I suppose?" is the only answer he gets from Urbicus; and on confessing it he is condemned to death, declaring as he goes that he is glad to be free of rulers so unjust and to depart to the Father and King of Heaven. A third in the same way passes to a like punishment; "And I myself," breaks in Justin, "look for the same fate, for I, too, have enemies who have a grudge against me, and are likely enough to take this way of avenging themselves; Crescens especially, the sham philosopher, whom I have convicted of entire ignorance about the Christianity which he slanders."
(C. 4.) It may be said in scorn, "Be off, then, to your God to Heaven by killing yourselves, and trouble us no longer!" But Christians believe the world to be made by God to fulfil His purpose; they are not at liberty to destroy, as far as in them lies, the human race, for whom the world was created. Nor yet can we deny our faith; for this would be to allow its guilt and to lie, and would leave you in your evil prejudices.
(C. 5.) "Why does God not help His own?" He spares to punish and destroy the evil world, for the sake of this holy seed, the Christians, who are the real reason why God still preserves the order of nature, which the fallen angels have so corrupted.
The effect of these Apologies upon the rulers of Rome is unknown; but Justin's expectation of death was not disappointed, and Marcus Aurelius still mistrusted the motives which made Christians martyrs and saw no reason to stay the outcry of the Roman crowd when it demanded Christian victims. It remained a legal crime to be a Christian. Indeed, according to Roman ideas of government, it could hardly cease to be criminal as long as Christianity continued its private and peculiar organization and found it impossible to conform to the tests of good citizenship, such as the oath to the emperor. The Apologies never hint at concession on such points, but persist that their present position is entirely innocent. Their vigour must have revealed the irreconcilability of Christian life with the mass of pagan custom and temper in which the solidity of Rome had its foundation.
The Dialogue with Trypho follows the first
Apology, and probably the second also, between
142 and 148 according to Hort; in 155
(Volkmar); or in 160–164 (Keim). It was
written to report to a dear friend, Marcus Pompeius (cf. c. 8, §
225 D; c. 141, § 371 B),
a discussion which Justin had held with the
Jews during the Bar-Cocheba wars. The discussion
represents the Christian polemic
against the Jews; but Trypho makes his
advance as a philosopher rather than as a
Jew, and it is Justin who turns the talk to the
Jewish Scriptures by expressing his surprise
at a Jew being still engaged in searching for
truth in the pagan philosophers when he possessed
already in those Scriptures the authorized
exponent of revealed wisdom, for the
sake of whose secured certainty Justin himself
had left all other human systems. Trypho is,
indeed, a curious type of Judaism; a light
and superficial inquirer in the courts of the
schools, surrounded by a band of loud and
lively friends, he begins with a reference to a
Socratic at Argos, who had taught him to
address courteously all who wore the philosopher's
cloak, in the hope of finding, through
the pleasant interchange of thoughts, something
useful to both. He smiles gracefully as
he inquires what opinion Justin holds about
the gods, and, apparently, justifies his philosophic
studies in the face of Scripture, by
claiming that the philosophers are equally
with Moses searchers after the Being of God.
The noisy friends having been avoided by
retirement to a quiet seat, Trypho opens the
question with the air of a free and tolerant
seeker after truth; he has read the Gospel,
and found in it a morality too high for real
practice, and is ready to acknowledge the
piety of the better Christians. What he
wonders at is that with so much goodness,
they should nevertheless live as Gentiles
without keeping the pure laws of God, e.g.
the Sabbath and circumcision, by which He
separates the holy from sinners; he wonders,
too, how those who place their hope in a man
can yet hope for a reward from God. He
would gladly have all this explained (cf. c. 57,
§ 280 A; c. 68, § 293 A).
Trypho, then, is no fierce Jewish opponent, prepared to attack,
but adopts the tone almost of an inquirer. It
The Dialogue takes two days. Some fresh friends of Trypho join him on the second day (c. 118, § 346 C); he speaks sometimes of them as if only two, at other times as if many. One is named Mnaseas (c. 85, § 312). They shout disapproval once, as if in a theatre (c. 122, § 351 A). The whole is spoken as they sit on some stone seats in the gymnasium, Justin being about to sail on a voyage.
The actual argument begins at c. 10. The points especially raised by Trypho were two, i.e. how the Christians could profess to serve God and yet (1) break God's given law, and (2) believe in a human Saviour (cf. c. 10, § 227 D). The purity of Christian living is acknowledged; the problem is its consistency with its creed.
Justin's argument may be roughly divided into three parts (Otto, Prolegomena). In cc. 11–47 he refutes Trypho's conception of the binding character of the Jewish law, which refutation involves him also in a partial answer to the second part of the problem, i.e. the nature of the Christ in Whom they trust; for the passing away of the Law turns on the character of the Christ of Whom it prophesies. In cc. 48–105 he expounds the absolute divinity of Christ, His pre-existence, incarnation, passion, resurrection, and ascension, by virtue of which the belief in Him is proved consistent with belief in God alone. In c. 109 he passes to the necessary outcome of these two principles—the conversion of the Gentiles, the new Israel, and the abandonment of the old Israel, unless they accept the new covenant. The whole is rested on the Scriptures, on the interpretation of prophecy. Justin starts with a claim to believe absolutely in the God of Israel; here is his common ground with Trypho (c. 11)—both accept the old revelation (c. 68, § 298 A; cf. 57, § 279 B; 56, § 277 D). "I should not endure your argument," Trypho says (c. 56, § 277 D), "unless you referred all to the Scriptures; but I see you try to find all your reasons in them, and announce no other God but the Supreme Creator of the world."
The Dialogue, therefore, is a perfect storehouse of early Christian interpretation of Scripture. This forms its wonderful value; it carries us back to that first effort at interpretation which dates from St. Peter's speech at the election of Matthias, and knits itself so closely with the walk to Emmaus, when the Scriptures were first opened and it was seen from them that Christ must suffer. The O.T. is still the sacred guide and continual companion of the Christian life, the type of the written revelation; everything is there. Yet by the side of it we already feel in Justin that a new power has appeared, a fresh canon is forming, another book is beginning to assert itself. The work is full of crucial interest, just because Justin appears at the moment when this is gradually becoming clear.
In the two Apologies and the Dialogue Justin covers a large part of the theological field. His treatment is peculiarly typical of the earliest form of Christian speculation outside and beyond the immediate lines laid down by the apostolic writings. The apostolic Fathers were rather practical than speculative. The doctrinal works of people like Melito of Sardis are lost. In the Apologists Christianity, according to its preserved records, first prominently applies itself to the elucidation of its dogmatic position, and of them Justin is among the earliest and the most famous. But in considering his theology we must remember that we only possess his exoteric utterances. He is not spontaneously developing the Christian's creed, but is striving, under the stress of a critical emergency, to exhibit it most effectively and least suspiciously to an alien and unsympathetic audience, prepared not merely to discuss but to judge and kill. The whole position tended to quicken the natural tendency of Justin's mind towards an optimistic insistence on likenesses and agreements, rather than on differences between himself and his opponents. This is not said to discredit his utterances, but simply in order to consider them, as all intelligent criticism must consider them, under their actual historical conditions. Justin is on what is yet new ground to a great extent; he is pioneering, he is venturing along unmarked and unexamined roads. Christian doctrine is still forming itself under his hands, even on some essential and cardinal points.
Justin's Theology, then, begins in the presence of (1) Jewish Monotheism, and (2) of the Primal and Absolute and Universal Cause of all Existence, posited by the philosophic consciousness of paganism. He has to state how his conception of the Deity stands to these.
He answers, that he believes (1) in a God
identical with the God of the Jews: "There
is no other God, nor ever has been, but He
Who made and ordered the Universe; that
very God Who brought your fathers, Trypho,
out of Egypt, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob" (Dial. 11, § 228 A). his God of
creation is the one cause of all existence,
therefore known as the Father:
ὁ πατὴρ τῶν ὅλων
(ib. 114, § 342 A), or
τῶν πάντων
(Apol. i. 8, § 57 A).
In Apol. ii. 6, § 44 D, he sums up all
the names by which the absolute God may be known,
πατήρ, Θεός, κτίστης, κύριος, δεσπότης.
This is his cardinal and prevailing expression
for God the Father—that He is the Maker and
Ordainer and Lord of all creation. (2) But,
besides the Father, Justin undertakes to exhibit
the Divinity of a Second Person, the Son,
ὁ μόνος λεγόμενος κυρίως υἱός
(Apol. ii. 6, § 44).
υἱὸν αὐτοῦ τοῦ ὄντως Θεοῦ
(ib. i. 13, § 60 C), to
whom is allotted the second place, in honour and worship, after the
ἄτρεπτον καὶ ἀεὶ ὄντα Θεὸν γεννήτορα τῶν ἁπάντων.
He is, primarily,
ὁ Λόγος,
the Word of God, with God before creation began,
συνῆν τῷ πατρὶ πρὸ πάντων τῶν ποιημάτων
(Dial. 62, § 285 D). With Him the
Father communicated (προσομιλεῖ), having
Justin has next to consider in what relation
these two Divine Beings stand to each other.
Given the existence of a Second Person Who
can so effectually identify Himself with the
First as to be called
ὁ Θεός,
how can we conceive the harmony and unity of such a
duality? Justin is clear that the distinction
between the two Beings is real; it is a numerical
distinction. The Word is no mere
emanation of the Father, inseparable from
Him as the light is inseparable from the sun.
He is a real subsistence, born of the Father's
Will (Dial. 128, § 358 B). The words used,
therefore, to express their relation are words
of companionship, of intercourse, of
συνῆν,
προσομιλεῖ
(cf. ib. 62, § 285 C, D,
where he brings out the fact of this personal intercourse
as involved in the consultations at the creation
of man). They are two distinct Beings, but
yet must be One in order not to dissolve the
absoluteness of the only Godhead. Such a
unity may be pictured by the connexion
between a thought and the Reason that thinks
it, or by the unity of a flame with the fire
from which it was taken. Each of these
examples of the unbroken unity has the shortcoming
that they compel us to think of a
Justin does not appear to definitely pronounce on the question how the process of Begetting consists with the absolute eternity of the Personal Word begotten. There is no precise realization of a Λόγος ἐνδιάθετος and προφορικός. He hardly seems conscious of this difficulty in his two analogies of the thought and the flame; he is satisfied with expressing, by them, the unity, and yet distinctness, of the Father and the Son. He is content to state that this unity in difference existed from the very first, before all created things. His analysis seems hardly to have pressed back to the final question, which Arian logic discovered to lie behind all minor issues, i.e. was there a moment when the Father was not yet a Father? Such a suspension of analysis is not unnatural, since Justin, in the writings before us, hardly enters on the contemplation of the Nature of God in and to Himself. It is always as the source of all things—the Father, the Maker, the Lord of the Universe—that he presents God to us. It is God in His relation to His works that we contemplate. What He was in Himself before all His works does not seem considered, and it is therefore all the more sufficient to state that God came to the making of the world already dual in character. The moment at which creation was to begin found the Son already existent, as ὁ Θεός, in personal intercourse with the Father. With this he leaves us, only affirming that that character of paternity which constitutes the relation of God to the world had a prior and peculiar significance and reality in the relation that united the absolute God and His Word (cf. Apol. ii. 6, § 44, ὁ μόνος λεγόμενος κυρίως υἱός).
Justin's metaphysic, then, culminates in the assertion of this essential Sonship pre-existent to the creation. This being so, his language remains as indecisive on the ulterior question of the origin of the Sonship as is the language of Proverbs on the eternity of the Wisdom. In both cases the utmost expression for eternity that their logic had attained to is used. It is useless to press them for an answer to the puzzles of a later logic, which carried the problem back into that very eternity which closed their horizon. It was inevitable that the natural and unsystematized language used before the Arian controversy should be capable of an Arian interpretation. Since the Father is indeed alone ἀγένητος, the sole unoriginate fount of the Divine life, the expressions used about Him, and about the Son, must necessarily impute to Him an underivative, to the Son a derivative Being; and must, therefore, tend to class the Son rather with the rest of τὰ γενητά than with the sole ἀγενητόν. It could only be at the end of a most subtle and delicate reflection that Christian logic could possibly realize that it was bound, if it would be finally consistent with itself, to class the derived Being of the Son, by virtue of the absolute eternity of its derivation, on the side of τὸ ἀγενητόν rather than on that of τὰ γενητά. Justin, in the full flush of readiness to sweep in to the service of faith the dear and familiar language of his former Platonism, may have left himself unguarded and careless on this uttermost point of the philosophy of the Incarnation; but it will not easily be doubted—by any one who has observed how he develops the full divinity of the Son over all the ground which his logic covered with a boldness and a vigour that, in face of the inevitable obstacles, prejudices, misunderstandings excited by such a creed, are perfectly astonishing—what answer he would have given if the final issue of the position had once presented itself definitely to him.
Justin had also affirmed the moral unity of the Son with the Father. This is not stated to be the ground of the Unity. The analogies of the thought and of the flame, on the contrary, imply a unity of substance to be the ground of the κυρίως υἱότης, but it is introduced in order to explain the consistency of his belief with the reality of a single supreme Will in the Godhead (Dial. 56, § 274), and the explanation naturally led him to affirm the complete subordination of the Son to the will of the Father. The Son is the expression of the Father's mind, the δύναμιν λογικήν, which He begat from Himself. He is the interpreter of His Purpose, the instrument by which He designs. In everything, therefore, the Son is conditioned by the supreme Will; His office, His very nature, is to be ὁ ἄγγελος, ὁ ὑπηρέτης. All His highest titles, υἱός and λόγος, as well as others, belong to Him by virtue of His serving the Father's purpose and being born by the Father's Will (ἐκ τοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς θελήσει γεγενῆσθαι, ib. 61, § 284 B). "I say that He never did anything but what the Maker of the world, above Whom there is no God at all, willed that He should do" (ib. 56, § 276). The Father is above all. Trypho would not endure to listen to Justin if he did not hold this (ib. 56, § 278 B). The Son is then subordinate, and perfectly subordinate, but this subordination is such that it can allow the Son to identify Himself utterly with the Father, as with Moses at the bush, and so to be called ὁ Κύριος and ὁ Θεός.
In the expression "born of the Father's
Will" we are once more close to Arian controversy.
Was there, then, a moment when
the Father had not yet willed to have a Son?
If so, how can the Son be eternal? Yet, if
not, how was the Father's will free? Justin
has no such questions put to him. He states
this dependence of the Son for His very Being
on the Will of the Father without anxiety as
to His right to be named
ὁ Θεός,
and to receive
On the ministerial activities of the Son for the Father Justin is much more explicit.
The Word has one chief mission from the
Father, that of interpreting Him to man;
hence He received the name of
ἄγγελος (cf.
Dial. 56, § 275). He accomplishes this (1) to
the Jews by means of the Theophanies and
through the lips of the prophets. The Word
is the direct inspirer Whose spirit moves the
prophets, and Whose words they speak (cf.
Apol. i. 36, § 76 D). The whole manifold
Scripture, with all its many parts and voices,
is, as it were, a great play written by a single
author, the Word of God, Who alone speaks
through all the characters displayed. Of this
Justin gives instances in cc. 37, 38, 39.
Again, He is not only the inward force, but
the outward object also, to Which all prophecy
is directed. The Jewish Scripture has in Him
a permanent aim, a fixed canon; it all
arranges itself round Him (cf. Apol. i. 31,
§ 73 A). To foretell Him and His work is the
one purpose of prophecy. By it His whole
life in its main outlines is described, His
advent, His birth from the virgin, His coming
to man's estate, His curing of the sick, His
raising the dead, His being hated, and unknown,
and crucified, His death, resurrection,
and ascension, His divine sonship, His mission
of the apostles, His success among the Gentiles
(ib. i. 31, § 73). (2) Justin attributes a
revelation of the Word to the Gentiles, as well
as to the Jews; to them He is the
ἄγγελος,
the interpreter of the Father, not by prophetic
anticipations, but by partial manifestation,
of Himself. Every man in every race possesses
a germ of the Word, by the power of
which men knew what truth they did know,
and did what good they did do; above all,
the philosophers and lawgivers who, in their
rational inquiries and speculations, were
obeying the measure of the Word within them
(κατὰ λόγου μέρος . . .
δἰ εὑρέσεως καὶ θεωρίας,
ib. ii. 10, § 48 C). It is Justin who
promulgates the famous formula:
"Οσα παρὰ πᾶσι καλῶς εἴρηται ἡμῶν τῶν Χριστιανῶν ἐστι (ib. ii. 13,
§ 51). "We do not believe less, but more,
than Empedocles and Pythagoras, Socrates and
Plato," he says: "we approve what they
rightly said; but our doctrine is higher than
theirs;" and so too with the Stoics, poets,
and historians (cf. ib. i. 18, § 65 C; ii. 10, 13).
This is the principle the Alexandrians are to
develop. These ancient friends of Christ, for
their obedience to the Word, were hated as
Christians are hated, as impious and curious
busy-bodies; chief of them was Socrates, who
was martyred for Christ. With him are mentioned
Heraclitus, Musonius the Stoic, etc. In
the exercising of human reason to search out
God such as these obeyed the power of the
Word, the Reason of God
(λόγῳ πειραθέντες τὰ πράγματα θεωρῆσαι καὶ ἐλέγξαῖ . . . διὰ λόγου ζητήσεως θεοῦ τοῦ ἀγνώστου ἐπίγνωσιν; ib. ii. 10,
§ 48; cf. i. 5, § 55 E:
λόγῳ ἀληθεῖ καὶ ἐξεταστικῶς).
This general differs from the Christian
revelation in the partial character of the
λόγος σπερματικός;
each philosopher, etc., saw only
a part of the Word. Hence the contradictions
of the philosophic system, the inconsistencies
of human law; some had one right part, some
another. Christians possess the whole Word of
God, in the person of Christ Jesus; they, therefore,
hold the canon of truth which distinguishes
all that was good and true of old, from the
false and the confused with which it was mixed
(ib. ii. 9, 10, § 47). This distinction is radical;
"since the germ and image of something,
given to man according to the measure of his
capacity, is quite distinct from that very
thing itself which permits itself, by its own
favour, to be so given and communicated "
(ib. ii. 113, § 51 C). This clear distinction
exhibits the full reality of the personality
attributed by Justin to the Word revealed in
Christ; it is personality which distinguishes
The purpose of the Incarnation is to save
men from evil deeds and evil powers, and to
teach assured truth (Apol. i. 23, § 68 C;
ἐπ᾿ ἀλλαγῇ καὶ ἐπαναγωγῇ τοῦ ἀνθρωπείου γένους; ii. 9 § 48, B).
He brings to bear the full divine energy
(ἡ δύναμις τοῦ Πατρός)
on a race diseased and deceived through the action of
devils. So He is the medicine to cure (ib. ii. 13, § 51
D), which He becomes by sharing our humanity
(τῶν παθῶν τῶν ἡμετέρων συμμέτοχος).
He is therefore called the Saviour (ib. i. 61, § 94
A), in Whom we receive remission of sins
and regeneration. His mode of action is by
(1) teaching, as the Word, which is no mere
persuasive argument but is a Power penetrating
deeper than the sun into the recesses of
the soul (Dial. 121, § 350 A), enabling us not
only to hear and understand, but to be saved
(Apol. ii. 12, § 49). His truth is an absolute
canon by which to sift the true from the false
in human speculations, since He, the Entire
Word, distinguishes with certainty, amid the
confusion of the philosophies, that in them
which is His own working. So completely and
uniquely authoritative is He, that it is by His
teaching alone that men rightly know and
worship the one Father and God (ib. i. 13).
(2) He saves, secondly, by suffering on the
cross: so sharing in all the reality of our flesh
(cf. Dial. 98, § 324 D,
γέγονεν ἄνθρωπος ἀντιληπτικὸς παθῶν).
He destroys death by death.
He gains possession of men by the cross (cf.
ib. 134, $ 364 C,
δἰ αἵματος καὶ μυστηρίου τοῦ σταυροῦ κτησάμενος αὐτούς).
By His blood
The eternal kingdom comes with Christ's
second advent, in glory, as judge. He will
judge every man, up to Adam himself (ib.
132, § 362 A); then shall sinners
and devils weep, for to them He will allot a place
in that eternal fire which will destroy this world;
believers He will admit to the kingdom, recalling
the dead to life and establishing them
in an eternal and indissoluble kingdom, themselves
incorruptible, immortal, painless (ib.
117, § 345, B). This is the
Melchisedec, King of Salem, eternal Priest
of the Most High, Who
will remake a new heaven and a new earth,
into which holy land His circumcised shall
enter (ib.113, § 341 A).
This kingdom is generally spoken of as in heaven,
as not earthly (cf. Apol. i. 11, § 59
A, etc.); it is a home with
God, for the sake of which Christians easily
despise all earthly delights and lusts and the
fear of death. In one famous passage in the
Dialogue (80, § 306 B;
cf. 113, § 341 A) he
accepts the Jewish belief of a millennium in a
restored and beautified Jerusalem; he claims
to have dealt already with this point, though
no such explanation is in the Dialogue;
many share this belief with him, he says, yet
many pious and orthodox Christians reject it;
only those who are, according to Justin,
ὁρθογνώμονες κατὰ πάντα Χριστιανοί, hold this faith with
him, based on
When this Advent will be, we know not, though it maybe soon. It will be preceded by the appearance of the Man of Iniquity.
On the action of the Third Person, Justin is
not so definite; he is continually speaking of
Him, but His person and office are not always
distinguished with precision from those of the
Second Person. He is there, in Justin's creed,
a recognized element in it, constantly occurring;
but apparently Justin's metaphysic had
not yet had time or occasion to dwell on this
point with anxiety or exactness. The most
The Holy Spirit is concerned with creation (ib. i. 60, § 93 B), in His distinct personal fullness, as ὁ τρίτος with a third station peculiar to Himself (τρίτη χώρα) in the Godhead. His main office is with inspiration; He is τό Πνεῦμα τὸ προφητικόν; this is His cardinal name. He speaks as Himself to man, using men as His organ (διὰ Μωϋσέως προεμήνυσε, ib. i. 60, § 93 B); here, since the words follow the statement of the place of the Holy Spirit in the Triad, they must definitely intend Him, in His distinction from the Word, to be the spring of inspiration; so, too, in the formula of baptism, it is the name of προφητικός which marks His distinction from the Word; and we must, therefore, apply to Him, in His separate right and existence, the constantly recurring use of this name (cf. ib. i. 38, § 77 C; 47, § 84 A, etc., etc.), on all which occasions He is spoken of as the direct author and speaker of prophecy, and prophecy is spoken of as peculiarly the note of God (ib. i. 30, § 72 B, etc.). This Spirit is one throughout; It spoke once in Elias, and afterwards in the Baptist (Dial. 49, § 268). Yet Justin sometimes attributes to the Word this action of inspiration which gives to the Spirit His name (cf. Apol. i. 36, § 76 D); the prophets speak through the Word which moves them (so again ib. i. 33, § 75 D, θεοφοροῦνται λόγῳ θείῳ; cf. Dial. 61, § 284 C; 62, § 285; 63, § 236 D). In both cases it is the effective agency by which the prophets are stirred to speak which is attributed to the Word; and Justin attributes this on grounds which he expects the heathen emperors to acknowledge, it is language they must understand (Apol. i. 33). The action of God on man is so intimately bound up with the Word, in Justin, that it is wonderful how much inspiration he attributes to the Spirit, rather than how little.
Justin holds very decisively the belief (1)
in good angels, attached intimately to our Lord
(cf. former quotations), messengers of God in
O. and N. T., fed in heaven on some manna
(Dial. 57, § 279 C),
accompanying Christ in
His glory on the last day; and (2) more
particularly in bad angels, to whom the earth
and man had been committed by God (Apol.
ii. 5, § 44 A), but who
overstepped their limits
in wicked intercourse with women, who, from
them, bore sons, the devils; they reduced the
human race to servitude, by deceitful magic,
and by terror, and by instituting sacrifices,
etc., to themselves, for which they lusted now
that they had known the passion of fleshly
desires: they sowed the seeds of war, adultery,
The problem of the human soul occupies the chief place in the account of Justin's conversion; the philosophers were felt to be uncertain and insecure in their conception of it, especially as regards its immortality, its consequent transmigration, and its relation to the divine substance. Justin holds that the soul is no particle of the absolute mind; has no life in itself; is created; is not life, but partaker of life, so that it could perish; but receives immortality by the will of God, as is proved by a mass of practical testimony, by the word of Revelation, and by its consonance with the needs of justice; this immortality includes as its essential requisite the resurrection of the body, without which justice could not fulfil itself; it will be given both to the just and to the unjust (cf. Dial. 4, 5, 6; Apol. i. 21, § 67 D; 18, 19, § 65), though it is only rightly "immortality" for the just; for the others, eternal fire.
Man, according to Justin, has been imprisoned in sin since the fall of Adam, the first man, deceived of the devil, who fell greatly by deceiving Eve; hence "ye shall die" (Dial. 124, § 353 D, ὁμοίως τῷ Ἀδὰμ καὶ τῇ Εὔᾳ ἐξομοιούμενοι, θάνατον ἑαυτοῖς ἑργάζονται), though originally made θεῷ ὁμοίως ἀπαθεῖς καὶ ἀθανάτους (cf. ib. 88, § 316 A). Man, as the angels, was made incorruptible, if he kept God's laws. This Biblical view falls in with his account of the whole human race, as sinning through the deceit of evil angels who made them think their own bad passions possible in gods. This evil state, thus brought on, is spoken of as a tyranny from which man had to be delivered by another (cf. ib. 116, § 344 A; Apol. ii. 6, § 45 A; Christ comes ἐπὶ καταλύσει τῶν δαιμόνων. The whole race is under the curse; for, if the Jews were, by the laws of Moses, much more were the Gentiles with their horrible idolatry (Dial. 95, § 322 D). Only by Christ is the curse removed; He, our Israel, wrestles for us with the devil (ib. 125, § 354 D). Only by His grace are the devils made subject. But Justin combines with this a great anxiety to keep man's free-will intact; he is continually explaining himself on this point. Man is never deserted of God; he possesses, after the fall, the germinal Λόγος, by which he discerns between good and evil, between true and false (cf. ib. 93, § 320 D; Apol. ii. 10).
The gift of Christ to man is primarily remission of sins (cf. Dial. 116, § 344, etc.), effected through penitence on man's part, excited by his call into true faith in the Creator; by Christ's power, sin is stripped off and remitted; we are made regenerate (Apol. i. 61, § 94 D. This regeneration accomplished and the truth being now known and confessed, we become bound, and fit, to accomplish a good life, to keep the commandments, to attain eternal life (ib. i. 65, § 97 C). We are clothed with garments prepared of Christ (Dial. 116, § 344); we are to imitate God's own virtues, to exhibit ourselves worthy of His counsel by works (Apol. i. 10, § 58 B). The entire change of character is beautifully given in Apol. i. 14, § 61, 15, etc.
The most effective guard of this pure living is belief in the resurrection of the body; for this hope consecrates the entire man to the holiness of the eternal kingdom and renders real the sense of future punishment; we shall feel torture, hereafter, in our bodies; without this, future pain would be unreal and meaningless (ib. i. 18, § 65). God will raise and endue with incorruptibility the dead bodies, now dissolved and scattered like seeds over the earth (ib. i. 19).
This human race will endure until the number of those willing to become Christians is complete. It is because God acts by the free choice of man that He does not destroy evil by force, but offers men the chance of escape, and gives them time to use the chance (Dial. 102, § 329 A). The punishment that awaits sinners, when the end comes, will be by fire and for ever. On this Justin is very pronounced (cf. Apol. i. 8, § 57 B: "an eternal punishment" (αἰώνιον κόλασιν), he says, "and not a mere period of a thousand years," ἀπαύστως κολάζεσθαι (Dial. 45, § 264 B); the kingdom is αἰώνιος καὶ ἄλυτος, the κόλασις πυρός is αἰώνιος too (Dial. 117, § 345). He uses the language freely and frankly, unhampered, apparently, by his theory of the soul, which makes its immortality dependent on the Will of God, Who wills it in the shape of Holiness (cf. Iren. bk. iii. 36; cf. Apol. i. 21, § 67). He justifies the existence of reward and punishment by the forcible argument, that, without them, you are compelled to believe God indifferent to good and evil, or else good and evil to have no real actuality; both which beliefs are impious. The judgment is the witness of God's regard to the reality of the distinction (cf. Apol. ii. 9, § 47 E; i. 28, § 71 C).
The church is that society of Christians in which the power of the regeneration is faithfully manifested and the pure knowledge revealed in Christ loyally held; so Justin is anxious to explain that not all so-called Christians are real Christians, any more than all so-called philosophies mean the same thing (ib. i. 7, § 56 D). Many, professing to confess Christ, hold impious and immoral doctrine, with whom the "disciples of the true and pure doctrine" do not communicate; they are marked as heretical by assuming the names of their founders, e.g. Marcion, Valentinus, Basilides (Dial 35, § 253 D.
The true Christians hold "the pure teaching of Jesus Christ"; possess "a pure and pious doctrine" based on Scripture, and the words of Christ, not on human doctrine (ib. 48, § 269 D); prove them true by holiness (cf. Apol. i. 26, § 70 B); heretics may be capable of any wickedness for all Justin knows. He himself has written a work against all the heresies (ib. i. 26, § 70 C). The heresies confirm true believers in the faith, since Christ foretold them (cf. Dial.82, § 308 B; 35, § 253 C), though they lead many away.
True believers are admitted to the body by
the rite of baptism, on their acceptance of
Christian verity and their promise to live
accordingly (Apol. i. 61, § 93
A). This baptism is the true
circumcision of the Spirit (Dial. 43,
§ 261 D);
works with the cross to
Justin mentions, beside the Eucharist which followed the baptism, that the Christians met every Sunday (ἡ τοῦ ἡλίου ἡμέρα), the day on which God began creation and raised Christ (Apol. i. 67, § 97). All came in who could, from country and town, to one place; the memorials of the apostles or the books of the prophets were read publicly; then, the leader preached and admonished; after which all rose together and prayed; then the Eucharist is administered as before described. At such times, offertories were made of voluntary gifts, laid in the hands of the leader, who distributed them to the sick, widows, etc. "Ever," says Justin, "do we remind ourselves of this rite" which followed our baptism; and "ever we live together; we who are rich give to the poor; and for everything that we have we bless the Creator of all through Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit" (ib. i. 67); sendIing up to Him solemn prayers (πομπάς) and hymns, not deeming Him to be in need of blood and libations and sweet smells (ib. i. 13, § 60 C). Sunday, then, was observed as a peculiar day (cf. Dial. 24, 241 B); this is in contrast with σαββατίζειν, and "regarding the stars," which mean, distinctly, keeping the Jewish feasts; this the main body of Christians repudiated, so that it was by most treated as a criminal heresy to keep the sabbath, and they refused to hold communion with those Christians who still held to these Jewish customs. This severity Justin condemns; but his whole argument with Trypho accepts thoroughly the abolition of the Fourth Commandment. The sabbath symbolizes Moses, and Christians hope not in Moses but in Christ; the Christian does not think himself pious for keeping one day idle, but for keeping a continual sabbath. The sabbath was given for the hardness of the Jews' hearts (cf. ib. 10, § 227 B, etc.; 19, § 237 C; 21, § 238),
Justin's conception of the Law is very
strong and decided. Definite as he is against
Marcion, in his belief in the revelation of the
true God made in O.T., he yet takes an extreme
view of the partial, local and temporal
character of the law. He bases himself,
mainly, on his principle of the complete
universality of God: God is everlasting,
throughout all time, over all people; He is judge of
all the earth; His justice must be alike everywhere.
Hence He cannot shut up His relations to man
within the limits of a law addressed to a single
people, and for a limited period of time (Dial.
23, § 240 E; 93, 320
C).
Facts prove this: for God was well-pleased
with Abel, Enoch, Noah, Melchisedec, though
they were uncircumcised and kept no sabbaths
(cf. ib. 19, § 236 C).
Again, if virtue lay in the
mere act of circumcision, women would be in
a worse case than men (ib. 23, § 241
C). It
would be against God's nature to value such
rites, and limitations, and new sacrifices, for
their own sake, as if the good lay in them.
Did the Law, then, not come from Him? Yes;
but God in it accommodated Himself to the
Jews; it was for you Jews alone that it was
necessary; because you forgot Him, He had
If Christ took away sin, He took away the reason for the Law; He gave us the circumcision of the heart, which made the carnal circumcision needless (cf. βαπτίσθητε τὴν ψυχὴν ἀπὸ ὀργῆς καὶ ἰδού, τὸ σῶμα καθαρόν ἐστι : ib. 14, 231 D). Justin does not consider that such a principle as this negatives the necessity of an outward baptism, or of an outward Sunday; fox both these he holds. Prophecy speaks of a new covenant to be made in a Christ; and this for Jew as well as for Gentile, for both are to be saved in the same Christ (ib. 64, § 287 B). Why, then, did Christ keep the Law? Out of the economy of God; He accepted the Law as He accepted the Cross, and the becoming-man: it was in order to carry out the Father's will; but He was not justified by keeping the Law; otherwise He could not be the Saviour of all men (ib. 67, § 292 A) nor have introduced a new covenant. The admission of the eternal significance of Christ necessarily carries us back behind the Law, to the conditions under which all men had always lived (ib. 23, § 241 B).
The failure of the Jews to believe in the Christ is no argument for their being right; for it is foretold all along that the Gentiles are the children of prophecy, the true Israel, the perfect proselytes; it is of them that all the good promises are spoken. The whole of the end of the Dialogue is devoted to shewing this.
We realize in Justin the complete Gentilism of the Christianity of A.D. 140. He regards the Law rather as an evidence of peculiar evil, than of peculiar good, in the Jews; so he even says in scorn that circumcision only serves to mark them out for condemnation, as the accursed who are forbidden to enter Jerusalem; it enables the Romans to exclude them from the Holy Land.
But if Justin is hard upon the Law, he is very different towards Prophecy. On Prophecy, on Scripture, he relies absolutely; he asks to be believed, only so far as he can prove his truth by Scripture. It is the word of God, given by God through the Word, or chiefly through the Spirit. This is reiterated continually. The whole O.T. is as a great drama, with various actors, but of which there is a single author, the Spirit of God (Apol. i. 36, § 76 D). It is a unity; so that Justin does not believe that any one part can contradict any Other; rather he would feel bound to confess his own ignorance, where such seemed the case (Dial. 65, § 289 C). His definition is: "Certain men existed among the Jews, God's prophets, through whom the prophetic spirit foretold things before they occurred" (Apol. i. 31, § 72 B). Moses he calls the first; after Moses he speaks of an "eternal prophecy going forth" (ib. i. 31; Dial. 30, § 247 A). They foretold Christ, His coming, His birth from a virgin, His man's estate, His curing disease and raising the dead, His being hated and despised and fixed to a cross, His death, resurrection, and ascension, His being, and being called, the Son of God, His sending out apostles, His success among the Gentiles (Apol. i. 31, § 73 A).
Justin offers a very storehouse of Christian interpretations of Scripture, such as cannot be classified briefly; the strongest lines lie:—
(1) In the exhibition of the divine plurality, through which Justin can, while retaining the absolute purity and separateness of God the Father such as the Jewish monotheism made imperative, yet justify and correlate all the manifold manifestations of Himself by God under local and temporal qualifications, all receiving their true and complete elucidation in the Incarnation. He Whose nature it is to be the expression and exhibition of the Father's will, was at the tent door with Abraham, in the dream with Jacob, in the burning bush with Moses, at the camp side with Joshua, above the cherubim with Isaiah, and now is made man of Mary (cf. Dial. 75, § 301 A).
(2) Justin ably gathers into one the many-sided
characteristics of the Messianic prophecy—the
many human, mingled with the many
divine, names attributed to the Christ: He is
man—yet to be adored; He is suffering, yet
triumphant; He saves His people, He is
rejected by His people. Justin, in the paradox
of the Cross, has a key to the endless
paradox of prophecy. All the shifting double-sided
revelations of Godhead and manhood, of
triumph and suffering, meet in a crucified king.
He can give a unity of solution to a Christ Who
is called "Angel of great Counsel" and "Man"
by Ezekiel, "As a Son of man" by Daniel,
"Servant" or "Child" by Isaiah, "Christ"
and "God" and "Adorable" by David,
"Christ" and "the Stone" by many, "Wisdom"
by Solomon, "Joseph, Judah, and the
Star" by Moses, "the Morning Star" by
(3) He is powerful in his deduction from prophecy of the failure, unbelief, and ruin of the Jewish race—as the favoured people; and in the change of the manifestation of God from them to the Gentiles. Here he had much to use which was only a stumbling-block to strict Jewish reliance on blood and privilege.
(4) He is successful in exhibiting the newness of Christ's covenant, the New Law, the New Heart; under this conception the continual discontent of God with the old sacrifices and sabbaths gains intensity of meaning; the calls to wash and be clean, and put away sins, are vivified; the prophetic types of a new and wider dispensation are brought into daylight. Cf. the whole latter part of the Dialogue.
Where Justin is weakest is, naturally, in knowledge. He is ignorant of the original tongue and very arbitrary in his interpretation of details; he uses Christ as the accepted key to the whole complicated history, in a way that to a believer is often full of devotional suggestiveness, but to an unbeliever has no argumentative force. Instances may be found in such chaps. as 77, 78 of the Dialogue, or c. 81, etc. He often takes the wrong sense of a passage. He interprets the passages condemnatory of the Jewish sacrifices, etc., in a way that wins them a new meaning from Christ, but is certainly not their intended meaning. He can only meet Trypho's sharp criticism on this point by appealing to his own presumption that God's approval of the Law can only have been an accommodation to the people's sins (Dial. 27, § 244 B).
Prophecy is to Justin the main form of Christian evidences; and this for Gentile as much as for Jew. It is to prophecy he turns to prove that the Christian story of the Incarnation is not a poetic tale, without foundation; Greek mythology offers no testimony to its own reality (Apol. i. 54, § 89 A). Christ's miracles were no magic or conjuring because they were foretold (ib. i. 30, 31, § 72 A). Justin is shy of arguing from miracles: there had been too much false wonder-working for him to appeal to them. The miracles of the old Prophets he speaks of as worthy to win them credit, since they were coincident with a lofty desire to reveal God and with prophecy of Christ (Dial. 7, § 225 A). Christ's miracles are to be believed on the ground of prophecy (Apol. i. 30). Miracles are, to him, proofs, when they have been testified to, but cannot stand alone as evidence.
The other evidence to which Justin appeals is the (1) purity of Christian precepts (Apol. i. 14, § 61); (2) their constancy under torture (ib. ii. 12, § 50 A; Dial. 110, § 337 B); (3) the consecrated lives of uncorrupt virginity, the conversion of penitents to holiness (Apol. i. 15, 62 B, C; cf. ib. i. 29, § 71 E); (4) the exorcising of demons (ib. ii. 6, § 45 B); (5) the existence of prophetical gifts in the church (cf. Dial. 82, § 308 B), as well as of gifts of spiritual power (ib. 35, § 254 B), miracle, and healing (ib. 39, § 258 A).
We may briefly ask what knowledge Justin shows of (1) Jewish, and (2) Gentile learning.
(1) He refers frequently to Jewish modes of interpreting texts and seems used to dealing with them (cf. ib. 50, § 269 D); but perhaps he knows them rather in their polemic against Christians than in their own inner teaching. He charges them with escaping from texts against them by throwing doubts on the LXX, while all the Messianic texts that can be accommodated to human affairs they attach to whom they choose, but not to Christ (ib. 63, § 294 B). Thus they attribute the fulfilment of the triumphs spoken of in the Psalms to Solomon, in Isaiah to Hezekiah (ib. 64, § 287 A; 77, § 302 B). Justin does not seem to know of any Jewish theorizing on the problem of the Λόγος. The Jews expect a purely human Christ (ib. 49, § 268 A), to be heralded by Elias in person, and anointed by him; till which time the Christ is to be in obscurity; He will not even know Himself (ib. 110, § 336 C). The texts that speak of Christ as passible, yet as God and adorable, they are compelled, Justin says, to attribute to Christ, but they refuse to allow this Jesus to be the Christ, though they have to confess that the Christ will suffer and be worshipped. The divinity of Christ is, according to this, forced upon the Jews' belief by Christian logic, but they do not know what to make of it, and are in straits.
(2) As to Gentile philosophy, Justin's
general knowledge was evidently large; but
it is a question how far he held to any system
accurately or scientifically; he sits pretty loosely
to them all. He places Plato highest, and
delights in his doctrine of Eternal Ideas, but
no definite Platonic formulae are used; the
Ideas do not appear; the doctrine of the Word
has general relations to Platonism, but that is
all; it is itself utterly unlike any teaching in
Plato; it belongs to the process of thought
which has its roots in O.T., and works through
Philo up into Christianity. He gives us nothing
of Plato's except the account of the
"X" as the law of creation, in the Timaeus,
which Justin supposes him to have taken from
the account of the brazen serpent; and the
statement of the triad character of things,
which is taken from an epistle attributed till
lately to Plato. He declares Plato's account
of creation from formless matter to have been
taken from Genesis; but he only means this
in the most general way, for he seems to fancy
that Plato's formula is consistent with Moses'
One problem remains to be considered, i.e. the relation of Justin to our four Gospels. The amount and frequency of his references to our Lord's life and words, in the generation immediately preceding the day in which the present Gospels emerge, secure and alone, into the full daylight of history, make him of salient importance in determining their character; and the state of the present controversy, which has detected the subtle transition, through which the gospel story passed, from the conditions of a living, oral tradition to those of formal written exemplars, increases the importance of Justin, as he begins the definite references to written records, of a fixed character, capable of being used for devotional purposes. Are these records identical in substance and in form with our Gospels?
(1) The substantial characteristics of our Lord's life, down even to minute details, are, obviously, the same for Justin as for us. We can compose, from his quotations, a full summary of the whole gospel life, from the angel's message to the Virgin until the ascension, entering into many particulars, illustrating prophecies, supplying the very words of our Lord, in many instances relating all the circumstances; and, as a whole, it is perfectly clear that the lines which limit and determine in detail our Gospel did so, too, to his. The same body of facts is selected; the same character, the same limits preserved, the same characteristics brought forward; the same motives, the same interests are concerned; the same prophetic aspects dwelt upon. This is noticeable, when we remember how very special and remarkable a choice must have been originally exercised upon our Lord's life, to select and retain the peculiar fragments, no more and no less, which are collected and sorted by our Synoptists.
Justin makes some additions or changes in detail to this main story; so few that they can be mentioned and their character seen. He had a genealogy which, whether ours or not, he attributed to Mary, not to Joseph; Cyrenius he calls the first procurator of Judaea; our Lord's birthplace is a cave; the Magi come from Arabia; all the children in Bethlehem are killed; our Lord is not "comely of aspect"; He made ploughs and yokes, emblems of righteousness; the Baptist sat by Jordan; a fire shone in Jordan at our Lord's baptism, and the words from heaven complete the text of the second Psalm; the Jews ascribed our Lord's miracles to magic; John ceased his mission at our Lord's public appearance. The Lord said, "There shall be schisms and heresies"; and "In whatsoever I find you, in that will I judge you." Of these several are, probably, confusions or amplifications of Justin's own; some represent additions found in various texts of our present Gospels, and were, probably, floating, popular, traditional interpretations of various passages. The only remaining points definitely distinct are, the home of the Magi, the cave of the Nativity, the posture of the Baptist, the two sayings of our Lord. Does Justin, then, take these from tradition or from any uncanonical gospel? We must hypothesize the gospel that he used, if it is not ours; for we have no relic of it in our hands, and here the remark seems convincing (Sanday, Gospels in the Second Century, p. 202) that this gospel, if it existed, belongs not to an earlier but to a later stage of the story than our canonical works.
That they were books that he used he tells us
frequently; it is all "written"; the books
are called by a name peculiar to Justin,
ἀπομνημονεύματα τῶν
Ἀποστόλων;
they are records of our Lord's sayings and doings,
written either by apostles or their followers
(Apol. i. 66, § 98 B; Dial.
103, § 333 D). These books constitute
τὸ εὐαγγέλια, (ib. 10, § 227
E); a quotation is referred to this
εὐαγγελιον (ib. 100, § 326
C); the
ἀπομνημονεύματα
are themselves called
εὐαγγέλια, he
tells us, if the text is right (Apol. i. 66). All
this points obviously to the existence of
various records, "written either by apostles
or by their followers," constituting altogether a single story,
τό εὐαγγέλιον. So far our
Gospels exactly correspond. More than this,
it is almost incredible that he should not
have known Matthew, at least; besides the
general mass of reference, which exhibits
remarkable resemblance to this Gospel, he
has marked notices that distinguish Matthew
from the other forms of the evangelical tradition:
the visit of the Magi, the descent into
Egypt, Joseph's suspicions of Mary, texts,
elsewhere unparalleled, from the Sermon on
the Mount, the application of
The inexactness of quotation is the one opposing element. Justin is inexact, it is true, in his O.T. quotations, but he is more than three times as inaccurate in his N.T. ones. It is intensely difficult to know how much to discount for free combination which Justin uses extensively, how much for lack of memory, how much for mere paraphrase; or to determine, after such discounting, how much evidence remains to shew Justin's use of any other gospel besides our own. But if Justin used some form of the gospel not now in the canon, it was either a text used by the side of Matthew and Luke, and not differing from them in any degree more than they differ from each other; and if so, it would multiply the evidence for the authenticity of the narrative embodied in our canon; or else it was a text compounding and combining with some freedom the other two; and if so, it supposes these canonical gospels to be already the formal authorities. The supposition that Justin used a perfectly distinct form of the gospel story from any we now possess is met by the invincible difficulty that, though ex hypothesi of sufficient importance and acceptance to be used in the public offices of the metropolitan church as late as the boyhood of St. Irenaeus, it has, nevertheless, totally disappeared.
As to John, the main argument against its use is that from silence. Justin is full of doctrine on the subject of the Word, on the pre-existence and divine authority of Christ, yet no words from the Johannine discourses appear in his work. This argument has necessarily great weight, yet any single distinct reference to John must outweigh such a negative. Is there any such reference?
In Dial. 88 Justin attributes to the Baptist
himself the words of the prophet,
φωνὴ βοῶντος.
This attribution is one of those remarkable
distinctions peculiar to St. John's Gospel.
We know of no other ground for it. Twice
(in Apol. i. 22, § 68 B, and Dial. 69,
§ 296 A) he speaks of our Lord healing people infirm
ἐκ γενετῆς:
the only recorded instance of this is
the blind man in
In connexion with this there must be mentioned
a passage in Dial. 123, § 353 B, in which,
if not the gospel, then the first ep. of St. John
can hardly be supposed absent from the
writer's mind. The peculiar conjunction of
καλούμεθα καὶ ἐσμέν
is essentially Johannine
(
As to the rest of the canon, Justin mentions the Apocalypse by name, attributing it to St. John (Dial. 81, § 308 A). He can hardly but be thinking of Romans in ib. 23, § 241 B. He has references to I. Corinthians (ib.14, § 231 D; 111, § 333 C; Apol. 1, 60, § 93), and to II. Thessalonians (Dial. 32, § 110). He constantly repeats the πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως, which suggests Colossians; he has references which seem to recall Hebrews (ib. 13, § 229 D; Apol. i. 12, § 60, ἀπόστολος . . . Ἰησοῦς Χριστός); his words appear in several places to point to Acts (cf. Apol. 50, § 86 B; 40, § 79 A). Everywhere he exhibits traces of St. Paul; and his controversy with Marcion must have involved a complete acquaintance with the theology and language of the great apostle.
Throughout Justin claims to shew forth,
with a certainty attested by sacrifice and
death, a solid body of certified doctrine, which
Justinus (3), a Gnostic writer, author of several books, only known to us by the abstract which Hippolytus (Ref. Haer. v. 23, p. 148) has given of one of them, called the book of Baruch. The account which that book gives of the origin and history of the universe makes it to have sprung from three underived principles, two male, one female. The first of these is the Good Being, and has no other name; He is perfect in knowledge, and is remote from all contact with the created world, of which, however, He is afterwards described as the Ultimate Cause. It is the knowledge of this Good Being which alone deserves the name, and it is from the possession of it that these heretics claimed the title of Gnostics. The second principle is called Elohim, the Father of the creation, deficient in knowledge, but not represented as subject to evil passion. The third, or female principle, identified with the earth, is called Eden and Israel, destitute of knowledge and subject to anger, of a double form, a woman above the middle, a snake below. Of her, Elohim becomes enamoured, and from their intercourse spring 24 angels—12 paternal, who co-operate with their father and do his will, and 12 maternal, who do the mother's will. The principal part is played by the third paternal angel, Baruch, the chief minister of good, and the third maternal, Naas, or the serpent, the chief author of evil.
Lipsius regards this work of Justinus as probably written later than the middle of 2nd cent., representing in its fundamental ideas one of the oldest, perhaps the very oldest, form of Gnosticism, and as exhibiting the passage of Jewish Christianity into Gnosis. We cannot share this view. On comparing the system of Justinus with that of the Ophite sect described by Irenaeus (i. 30), the points of contact are found to be too numerous to be all accidental. In the system of these Ophites the commencement is made with two male principles, and one female. On the whole, we feel bound to refer the system of Justinus to the latest stage of Gnosticism, when a philosophy, in which any unproved assumption was regarded as sufficiently justified by any remote analogy, had reached its exhaustion, and when its teachers were forced to seek for novelty by wilder and more audacious combinations; and we are not disposed to quarrel with the verdict of Hippolytus that he had met with many heretics, but never a worse one than Justinus.
Justinus (12) I., proclaimed emperor (July 9, 518) on the death of the emperor Anastasius by the troops under his command and by the people (Chron. Pasch. 331, in Patr. Gk. xcii. 858), the choice being approved by the senate (Marcell. Chron.). He was a man of no education, and the affairs of the state were managed chiefly by his prudent minister Proclus the quaestor and afterwards by his nephew and eventual successor Justinian. For the most memorable event of his reign, the end of the schism between the Eastern and Western churches, see HORMISDAS. For his relations with Persia see CHOSROES I. in D. C. B. (4-vol. ed.).
In 523 Justin issued a constitution against the Manicheans and other heretics (Codex, i. tit. v. 12). The former were punished with exile or death; other heretics, pagans, Jews, and Samaritans, were declared incapable of holding a magistracy or entering military service. The allied Goths were exempted from these provisions. Because of the persecution of his Arian co-religionists, Theodoric sent pope John I. in 525 to Constantinople to remonstrate with the emperor. [EPIPHANIUS (17)]
In Apr. 527 Justin caused Justinian, who had long taken the chief part in government, to be proclaimed emperor and crowned, and on Aug. 1 died, in his 75th year.
Justinus (13) II., emperor, nephew of Justinian, son of his sister Vigilantia. He was appointed Curopalates or Master of the Palace by his uncle (Corip. i. 138). The night Justinian died, a deputation of the senate, headed by the patrician Callinicus, hurried to his house and persuaded him to accept the crown. In the early morning he was saluted emperor by the populace in the hippodrome. The same day (Nov. 14, 565) he was crowned by the patriarch John (Theophan. Cron. in Patr. Gk. cviii. 525), and received the homage of the senate and people in the hippodrome.
Justin, on his accession, declared himself an adherent of the decrees of Chalcedon, and restored to their sees the bishops who had been banished by his predecessor (Venantius Fortunatus, ad Justinum, 25–26, 39–44, in Patr. Lat. lxxxviii. 432). The edict is given in probably a corrupt form by Evagrius (H. E. v. 1, in Patr. Gk. lxxxvi. 2789), and also by Nicephorus Callistus (H. E. xvii. 33) Soon afterwards another edict was published, given at length by Evagrius (H. E. v. 4), in which, after setting forth the orthodox belief as to the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation, he exhorted all to return to the Catholic Church, which should remain firm and unchanged for ever; and that no one should for the future dispute about persons or syllables, probably referring to the person of Theodore and the writings of Theodoret and Ibas, and also to the question as to the Incorruptibility of the body of Christ. This edict gained general approval, as all interpreted it in favour of their own views, but none of the various sects returned to communion, in consequence of the emperor's declaration that no change was to be made in the church. Justin also early in his reign sent Photinus, the stepson of Belisarius, with full powers to reconcile the churches of Egypt and Alexandria, but his mission seems to have been fruitless.
For the secular events of his reign see JUSTINUS II., D. of G. and R. Biogr.
In May 568 a rescript was issued to Spes-in-Deum, the archbp. of the Byzacene province in Africa, confirming the privileges of his church and synod by which he was the sole judge of charges brought against any bishops or clergy within his jurisdiction, and in Nov. (Clinton, Fasti, 825) a law (Nov. cxlix.) was promulgated addressed to the bishops and leading men of each province directing them to choose the governors (praesides) themselves and to submit the names to the emperor, who would invest them with their offices. At the end of 570 or the beginning of 571, Anastasius, bp. of Antioch, was deposed and Gregorius substituted in his place. [ANASTASIUS SINAITA (1); GREGORIUS (31).] On May 18, 572, a stringent law was passed against the Samaritans (Nov. cxliv.). They were declared incapable of inheriting under a will or an intestacy and of exercising testamentary powers except in favour of Christians. Otherwise the goods of the deceased were forfeited to the treasury. For the sake of agriculture farmers were exempted from these provisions. Samaritans were also declared incapable of holding any civil or military employments. Baptized Samaritans who observed the sabbath or other rites of their creed were punished with perpetual exile. A Samaritan was declared incapable of having a Christian slave; if he bought one, the slave ipso facto became entitled to his freedom; while a Samaritan slave became free on embracing Christianity. Justin at length was seized with madness, and died, Oct. 5, 578, after reigning nearly 13 years.
Juvenalis (2) succeeded Praylius as bp. of Jerusalem c. 420. The ruling object of his episcopate was the elevation of the see of Jerusalem from the subordinate position it held in accordance with the seventh of the canons of Nicaea, as suffragan to the metropolitan see of Caesarea, to a primary place in the episcopate. Juvenal coveted not merely metropolitan, but patriarchal rank, and in defiance of all canonical authority claimed jurisdiction over the great see of Antioch, from which he sought to remove Arabia and the two Phoenicias to his own province. Scarcely had he been consecrated bp. of Jerusalem when he proceeded to assert his claims to the metropolitan rank by his acts. A letter of remonstrance against the proceedings of the council of Ephesus, sent to Theodosius by the Oriental party, complains that Juvenal had ordained in provinces over which he had no jurisdiction (Labbe, Concil. iii. 728). Cyril of Alexandria wrote to Leo, then archdeacon of Rome, informing him of this and begging that his unlawful attempts might have no sanction from the apostolic see. Juvenal, however, was far too useful an ally against Nestorius for Cyril lightly to discard. When the council met at Ephesus, Juvenal was allowed to take precedence of his metropolitan of Caesarea and to occupy the position of vice-president of the council, coming next after Cyril himself (ib. iii. 445), and was regarded in all respects as the second prelate in the assembly. The arrogant assertion of his supremacy over the bp. of Antioch, and his claim to take rank next after Rome as an apostolical see, provoked no open remonstrance. At the "Latrocinium" Juvenal occupied the third place, after Dioscorus and the papal legate, by the special order of Theodosius (ib. iv. 109). When the council of Chalcedon met, one of the matters before it was the dispute as to priority between Juvenal and Maximus, bp. of Antioch. The contention ended in a compromise agreed on in the Seventh Action. Juvenal surrendered his claim to the two Phoenicias and to Arabia, on condition of being allowed metropolitical jurisdiction over the three Palestines (ib. iv. 613). The claim to patriarchal authority over the bp. of Antioch put forward at Ephesus was discreetly dropped. The terms arranged between Maximus and Juvenal received the consent of the assembled bishops (ib. 618). Maximus, however, soon repented his too ready acquiescence in Juvenal's demands, and wrote a letter of complaint to pope Leo, who, replying June 11, 453 upheld the authority of the Nicene canons, and promised to do all he could to maintain the ancient dignity of the see of Antioch (Leo Magn. Ep. ad Maximum, 119 [92]) No further action, however, seems to have been taken either by Leo or by Maximus. Juvenal was left master of the situation, and the church of Jerusalem from that epoch has peaceably enjoyed the patriarchal dignity.
On the opening of the council at Ephesus, June 22, 431, Juvenal took a prominent part in the condemnation of Nestorius. As one of the eight legates deputed by the council, he aided in the consecration of Maximian in Nestorius's room, Oct. 25, 431 (Labbe, iii. 780; Baluz 571 seq.). In retaliation, John of Antioch and the Orientals on their way back from Ephesus held a synod at Tarsus, which excommunicated Cyril and the deputies of the council, Juvenal at their head (Baluz. 939).
When, in 449, the "Latrocinium" met at
Ephesus, Juvenal was the first to sign the
instrument of Flavian's deposition (Labbe, iv.
306). The natural consequence of this open
patronage of heresy was that the name of
Juvenal, together with those of Dioscorus and
the other bishops of the "Latrocinium," was
removed from the diptychs of Rome and other
orthodox churches (Leo Magn. Ep. ad Anatolium,
80 [60]). This alarmed Juvenal, and
he faced completely round at Chalcedon in
451, denouncing the doctrines he had supported
two years before at Ephesus. The
place he occupied in the council indicated that
he had been compelled to abate somewhat of
his overweening pretensions. Anatolius of
Constantinople and Maximus of Antioch both
took precedence of him, as did the Roman
legates and Dioscorus (Labbe, iv. 79 et passim).
The proceedings had not advanced far when
Juvenal, seeing the course events were taking,
rose up with the bishops of Palestine in his
train, and crossed over from the right, where
he had been sitting with the Alexandrine prelates,
to the Orientals on the left amid shouts
of "Welcome, orthodox one! It is God Who
has brought thee over here" (ib. 178). This
desertion of his old friends barely saved him.
Evidence being read as to the violence with
which Flavian's condemnation had been enforced,
and the brutality with which he had
been treated, the imperial commissioners proposed
Juvenal's deposition, together with that
His enjoyment of his newly acquired dignity was speedily disturbed. The decrees of Chalcedon were not at all acceptable to a large number of the archimandrites and monks of Palestine, who generally held Eutychian views, and they, in 452, addressed letters to Marcian and to Pulcheria against the conduct of their bishop. The emperor and empress administered severe rebukes to the remonstrants (ib. 874, 879). The imperial displeasure, however, failed to repress the turbulence of the malcontents, and under the leadership of Theodosius, a fanatical Monophysite monk, patronized by the empress-dowager Eudocia, who had made Jerusalem her home, they threw the whole province into confusion. Juvenal's life was threatened. The walls and gates were guarded to prevent his escape. But he concealed himself, and together with Domnus made his way to the desert, whence he fled to Constantinople and laid his complaints against Theodosius and his partisans before the emperor (ib. 858; Cyrill. Scythop. Euthym. Vit. 82; Evagr. H. E. ii. 5; Theophan. p. 92). Marcian took decided measures to restore order. After holding possession for two years, Theodosius was expelled from Jerusalem, 453, and Juvenal was restored. Eudocia returned to Jerusalem, and renewed communion with Juvenal, her example proving influential to bring back the large majority both of monks and laity to the cathedral church (Euthym. Vit. 86). One of Juvenal's first acts on his restoration was to hold a council which issued a synodical letter to the two Palestines, declaring the perfect orthodoxy of the decrees of Chalcedon and denying that anything had there been altered in, or added to, the Nicene faith (Labbe, iv. 889). Mutual ill-will and suspicion still embittered the relations of Juvenal to his province, and Evagrius complains of the evils which had followed his return (Evagr. H. E. ii. 5). Leo (Sept. 4, 454) offered congratulations on his restoration, but told him plainly that he had brought his troubles on himself by his condemnation of Flavian and admission of the errors of Eutyches, and that having favoured heretics he cannot now blame them. Leo expressed his satisfaction that he had come to a better mind, and advised him to study his tome to confirm him in the faith (Leo Magn Ep. 139 [171]). In 457 Leo addressed Juvenal among the metropolitans of the East, with reference to the troubles at Alexandria, urging him to defend the faith as declared at Chalcedon (Ep. 150 [119]).
The statement of Basil of Seleucia that Juvenal first "began to celebrate the glorious and adorable salvation-bringing nativity of the Lord" (Patr. Gk. lxxxv. 469) must be interpreted to mean that he separated the celebration of the Nativity and the Epiphany, which, till then, had been kept on the same day, Jan. 6. We may gather from a letter professing to be addressed by the bp. of Jerusalem to the bp. of Rome that this change was in accordance with the Western practice. Basil of Seleucia, being a contemporary of Juvenal and associated with him in his public acts, may be regarded as trustworthy evidence for the fact. According to Basil, Juvenal built a basilica in honour of St. Stephen on the site of his martyrdom, for which the empress Eudocia furnished the funds. The death of Juvenal probably occurred in 458 (cf. Tillem. Note sur Juvenal, xv. 867). He was succeeded by Anastasius. Tillem. Mém. eccl. xv.; Ceillier, xiii. 247; Cave, Script. Eccl. i. 419; Oudin, i. 1270.)
Juvencus, C. Vettius Aquilinus, a Christian
poet, by birth a Spaniard, descended from a
noble family. He was a presbyter, and composed
his poem on the gospels during the reign
of peace established by Constantine (Hist. Ev.
iv. 808 sqq.; Hieron. de Vir. Ill. c. 84;
(i) Historia Evangelica. This is the only
extant work attributed to him on the authority
of St. Jerome. It is an hexameter poem on our
Lord's life, based upon the gospels. It is of
interest as the first Christian epic, the first effort
to tell the gospel story in a metrical form.
Its chief merit lies in its literal adherence to
the text. Commencing with the events of
(ii) St. Jerome (u.s) attributes to him "nonnulla eodem metro ad sacramentorum ordinem pertinentia," but these are not extant.
(iii) Historia Vet. Testamenti. Only extant in parts, and its authorship doubtful.
(iv) Some later writers attribute hymns to him, but there is no trace of any except the canticles in Hist. Ev. and Hist. Vet. Test.
K
Kentigern (Conthigernus, Cyndeyrn, Kentegernus, Quentagern, Mongah, Munghu, Mungo, bp. of Glasgow and confessor). St. Kentigern shares, with St. Ninian and St. Columba, the highest honour among the early evangelizers of Scotland. The time, extent, and sphere of St. Kentigern's missionary enterprise are sufficiently recognized. Strictly speaking, there is only one Life of St. Kentigern known, that by Joceline of Furness, written probably c. 1180, for bp. Joceline of Glasgow (A.D. 1174–1199), from two earlier memoirs, but there is an older fragment which was probably one of the two used by him. From these all others are derived.
St. Kentigern, perhaps better and more popularly known as St. Mungo, was a Strathclyde Briton. His parentage is doubtful. He was born at Culross in Perthshire. From his master there he secretly departed, and travelling westward, crossing the Forth probably near Alloa, arrived at Carnock near Stirling, and thence was led by the oxen which carried the corpse of Fregus to Cathures, now Glasgow, where St. Ninian had already consecrated a cemetery. There he took up the unfinished work of St. Ninian. The picture presented of the time and field of his labour is a deplorable one. He was consecrated by a single bishop, called for the purpose from Ireland (c. 11). He was raised to the episcopate in his 25th year (c. 12), but all we know of the date is that it was before his departure to Wales. Ussher places it in 540, which is accepted by Stubbs (Reg. Sacr. Angl. 157). At Glasgow he formed a monastic school, and a beautiful account is given (cc. 12–18) of the man, his austere life and humble piety. He had a wide province, which he traversed mostly on foot, and his message was to the lapsed from the faith and to the morally degraded, as well as to the ignorant pagans. The disorders in the kingdom, and probably the increasing power of the pagan faction, induced the bishop to leave his see and find refuge in Wales a few years after his consecration (A.D. 543, Ussher). On his way he spent some time in Cumberland, where his work is marked by churches still dedicated to him (c. 23); thence he advanced as far as Menevia, where he visited St. David, and then appears to have returned northwards, settling for a time on the banks of the Clwyd and building his church at its confluence with the Elwy, at Llanelwy, now St. Asaph's, in Flintshire (cc. 23–25), c. 545 (Stubbs). The monastery which he erected at Llanelwy was soon filled. Old and young, rich and poor, prince and peasant, flocked to it, and we have a very graphic picture of how monasteries were raised in ancient days before stone was used for such erections, and how the laus perennis was carried out in large communities, such as this must have been with its 965 brethren in their "threefold division of religious observance" (cc. 24–25).
Meanwhile the sovereign had changed, and, as a direct consequence, the religious feeling of the kingdom of Strathclyde. Rhydderch Hael, son of Tudwal Tudglud, had come to the throne, and at the battle of Ardderyd, (now Arthuret, on the Esk near Carlisle), had defeated (573) the heathen party under Gwendolen, at Ceidio, whereby his kingdom was made to extend from the Clyde to the Mersey, and thus to the confines of St. Kentigern's Welsh see. The first-fruit of this battle was the recall of St. Kentigern to his Cumbrian diocese by Rhydderch, who, himself of Irish extraction, had received the Christian faith during his exile in Ireland. This date is of importance, giving one fixed point in St. Kentigern's chronology. Rhydderch's call he at once obeyed; and consecrating his disciple St. Asaph to fill his place in N. Wales, returned to Strathclyde, but went no farther than Holdelm (now Hoddam, Dumfriesshire), where for some years (probably eight) he had his episcopal seat. His leaving Llanelwy was a cause of much lamentation, and a great number of the monks accompanied him. At Hoddam a joyous welcome was given to the saint by king Rhydderch, who is represented (cc. 31–33) as going out with his people to meet him and as conceding to him all power over himself and his posterity. At Glasgow the still more famous meeting took place between St. Columba and St. Kentigern. The districts they evangelized were contiguous. Their meeting was typical of the two currents of Christian faith and practice running alongside and overflowing the land—viz. the Irish and the Welsh—which were to come in contact again at the great rampart of the Grampian range and give their character to the Scotic and the Pictish churches. The dedications to the N. of Glasgow, and on Deeside in Aberdeenshire, make it probable that St. Kentigern had extended his labours into the regions of the South Picts, and up, at least, to the dividing line between them and the Northern. His death is variously dated from 601 to 614; the Welsh authorities generally giving 612, as in Annales Cambriae; but the true date is probably 603 (Skene, Celt. Scot. ii. 197 n.; Bp. Forbes, Lives, etc., 369–370). He died on Sun., Jan. 13, and was buried where the cathedral of Glasgow now stands. The favourite name in dedications is St. Mungo. There are none to him in Wales, but there are in Cumberland at Aspatria, Bromfield, Caldbeck, Crosfeld (in Kirkland), Crosthwaite, Grinsdale, Lethington, Mungrisedale (in Greystock), and Sowerby. His chief dedication and episcopal seat, which, as in like cases, was near, but not quite at the ancient civil capital, Alclwyd or Dumbarton, is the cathedral church of Glasgow; and there appears to have been a Little St Mungo's kirk outside the city walls.
L
Lactantius (1), Lucius Caelius (or Caecilius)
Firmianus, a well-known Christian apologist
of the beginning of the 4th cent.: "Rhetor
erat ille, non theologus: neque inter ecclesiae
The tract de Opificio Dei may challenge comparison with Cicero's de Naturâ Deorum in point of style and is far superior to it in depth and originality. The tract de Irâ Dei, against the Epicureans and Stoics, is intended to prove God as capable of anger as of compassion and mercy. The tract de Morte Persecutorum is a collection of historical facts tending to show that all the emperors who persecuted the Christians died miserably, and may be compared with Spelman's de non Temerandis Ecclesiis of modern times.
As for his theology, the indulgence should be shewn him that all breakers of new ground may claim. Tertullian was the model that he looked up to most: and no writer had as yet eclipsed Origen. His account of the origin of all things (Inst. ii. 9) reminds us of the speeches of Raphael and Abdiel in Paradise Lost (v. 577 and 808). We cannot read his latest exposition of the Incarnation (Epit. c. 43) without discovering in it some well-known phrases of the Athanasian Creed—e.g. "The same person is the Son of God and of man, for He was twice born: first of God in the Spirit before the origin of the world; and afterwards in the flesh of man, in the reign of Augustus." Dupin, after having expatiated on his many merits, sums up very justly: "He is accused of doubting whether the Holy Ghost was the third Person, and to have sometimes confounded him with the Son, and sometimes with the Father; but it may be alleged in his defence that he meant nothing else but that the name of the Spirit in Scripture is common to the Father and the Son. But whatever the matter is, we find no footsteps of this error in any of his works, what are now remaining; though in some places he takes occasion to speak of the Holy Ghost. He seems to be of opinion that the Word was generated in time; but it is an easy matter to give a Catholic sense to that expression, as we have seen it done to others: and we may be with justice allowed to do so, since he plainly establishes the Divinity of the Word in that very place."
For further particulars see besides authorities already cited, Le Nourry (Apparat, ad Bibl. Max. Vet. Pat. t. ii. diss. 3), Fabricius (Bibl. Lat. lib. xi.), Oudin (de Script. Eccl. t. i. p. 307), Lardner (Cred. pt. ii. bk. i. c. 65), Schramm (Anal. Op. SS. Pat. vol. vii. p. 250), Fessler (Inst. Patrol. vol. i. p. 328), Nouv. Biog. Gen. vol. xxviii. p. 611. See esp. Brandt in Sitzungsberichte der phil.-histor. Klasse der Kgl. Akud der Wissensh. (Vienna, 1889–1891), cxviii.–cxxv.
Laeghaire (2) (Lagerie, phonetically Leary), pagan monarch of Ireland, reigning at Tara in the county of Meath. In the fifth year of his reign St. Patrick, having spent the winter in the counties of Down and Antrim, in the spring determined to hold his Easter festival near Laeghaire's palace. The monarch, surrounded by his nobles and his Druid priests, saw with wonder and rage the distant light of the Christian paschal fire which was to quench the lights of heathendom, and rode over in force to Ferta-fer-Feic to expel the intruder. But mollified by the stranger's address, or frightened by his words of power, he allowed the Christian mission to be established. We can hardly believe that he continued a persecutor while such progress was made in the spread of the Gospel around him and in his own family. His queen may perhaps have become a Christian; his two daughters, Fedhelm the ruddy and Eithne the fair, were certainly converted and numbered among the saints. Several of his descendants (Reeves, St. Adamnan, 173) are beatified.
He probably died a pagan. The Four Masters give the date as 458, but 463 is more likely (Ann. Tig., eo an., ap. O'Conor, Rer. Hib. Script. iv. 111). He reigned probably 35 years. His body was carried to and buried at Tara, in the S.E. side of the external rampart, with his weapons upon him, and his face turned towards the Lagenians, as if still fighting against them. Vitae S. Patricii, ap. Colgan, Tr. Thaum. pass.; Lanigan, Ch. Hist. Ir. i. c. 5; Moore, Hist. Ir. i. c. 10; O'Hanlon, Ir. Saints, i. 163 seq.; Nennius, Hist. c. 59, ap. Mon. Hist. Brit. pt. ii. 72; Keating, Gen. Hist. Ir. B. ii. pp. 325 seq.; Four Mast. by O'Donovan, i. 144–145 n. g; Wills, Ill. Ir. i. 60; Skene, Celt. Scot. ii. 100 seq. 428 seq.; Todd, St. Patrick, 6 seq.; Joyce, Irish Names of Places, d ser. 230–231.
Lampetius. [EUCHITES.]
Laurentius (10), antipope, elected on the
same day as Symmachus, four days after the
decease of Anastasius II., which, according to
Pagi (Critic. in. Baron.), occurred on Nov. 22,
498, Laurentius being brought forward in the
interests of concession, Symmachus in the
interests of unbending orthodoxy. Fierce
conflicts ensued. The members of the senate
as well as the clergy were arrayed in two
parties. At length it was agreed to refer the
settlement to Theodoric the Ostrogoth, now
reigning at Ravenna as king of Italy, and he
pronounced Symmachus the lawful pope
(Anastas.). Laurentius at first acquiesced,
and accepted the see of Nucerina, but his
partisans at Rome recalled him, and for three
years after his election Rome was divided
into two parties, headed by Festus and Probinus
on the side of Laurentius, and by Faustus
on the side of Symmachus. Anastasius
states that "those who communicated with
Symmachus were slain with the sword; holy
women and virgins were dragged from their
houses or convents, denuded and scourged;
there were daily fights against the church in
the midst of the city; many priests were
killed; there was no security for walking in
the city by day or night. The ex-consul
Faustus alone fought for the church." His
account implies that more influential laymen
were on the side of Laurentius, but that the
Authorities.—Anastasius (in Vat. Symmachi); Frag. Cat. Pontif. in Anastas. Bibl. ed. 1718–1835, Rome, t. iv. Prolegom. p. lxix.; Theodorus Lector (lib. ii.), Theophanes (Chron. p. 123, ed. Paris), and Nicephorus (lib. 16, c. 35); Acts of Councils under Symmachus; Libellus Apologeticus of Ennodius written in justification of Symmachus after his final triumph.
Laurentius (15), surnamed Mellifluus, thought to have been bp. of Novara c. 507. A Laurentius, surnamed Mellifluus, from the sweetness with which he delivered homilies, is mentioned by Sigebert (Scr. Eccl. c. 120 in Patr. Lat. clx. 572) as the author of a treatise de Duobus Temporibus, viz. one period from Adam to Christ, the other from Christ to the end of the world. That this Laurentius was the presbyter who instructed Gaudentius the first bp. of Novara was maintained by Cotta, an outline of whose arguments may be seen in the Acta Eruditorum (suppl. t. ii. pp. 525, 526, ed. Lips. 1696). La Bigne (Max. Bibl. Pat. t. ix. p. 465, Lugd. 1677) suspects that Laurentius Mellifluus was bp. of Novara, and subsequently the 25th bp. of Milan who is praised by Ennodius in his first Dictio. La Bigne grounds his opinion on certain allusions of Ennodius in his second Dictio, which was sent to Honoratus, bp. of Novara (e.g. Patr. Lat. lxiii. 269 B). Other corroborative passages have been adduced by Mabillon (ut inf.), as where Ennodius describes Laurentius bp. of Milan pacifying his haughty brethren by honeyed words of conciliation ("blandimentorum melle," ib. 267 A). The historians of literature usually therefore designate Laurentius Mellifluus bp. of Novara, but he is not admitted by the historians of the see, as Ughelli (Ital. Sac. iv. 692) and Cappelletti (Le Chiese d᾿Ital. xiv. 526). Three extant treatises are ascribed to Laurentius Mellifluus, viz. two homilies, de Poenitentia and de Eleemosyna, printed by La Bigne in his Bibliotheca and a treatise de Mulieye Cananaea, printed by Mabillon with a note on the author, supporting the view of La Bigne, in his Analecta (p. 55, ed. 1723). The homilies are in La Bigne (Max. Bib. Pat. t. ix. p. 465, Lug. 1677) and the three treatises in Migne (Patr. Lat. lxvi.87) with both La Bigne's and Mabillon's notices of the author. Cave mistakenly says (i. 493) that the de Duobus Temporibus is lost, for it is evidently the homily de Poenitentia, which opens with an exposition of the "duo tempora," which terms he employs somewhat in the sense of the two dispensations for the divine pardon of sin. The sin inherited from Adam is in baptism entirely put away through the merits of Christ. Christ the second Adam simply cancelled the sin derived from the first Adam. Original sin therefore corresponds, in a manner, with the pre-Christian period. For actual transgression each person is himself alone responsible and is to be released from it by penitence, with which the treatise is mainly occupied, and so has received its present title. For other notices see Ceillier (xi. 95), Dupin (Eccl. Writ. t. i. p. 540, ed. 1722), Tillem. (Mém. x. 259, 260).
Laurentius (36), Aug. 10, archdeacon of Rome, and martyr under Valerian, a.d. 258. Cyprian (Ep. 82 al. 80 ad Successum) mentions the rescript of Valerian directing that bishops, presbyters, and deacons should forthwith be punished, and records the martyrdom of Xystus bp. of Rome, in accordance with it on Aug. 6. Laurentius, the first of the traditional seven deacons of Rome, suffered four days afterwards. The genuine Acts of this martyrdom were lost even in St. Augustine's time, as he tells us (Ser. 302, de Sancto Laurent.) that his narration was gained from tradition instead of reciting the Acts as his custom was (S. Ambr. de Off. i. 41). Laurentius suffered by burning over a slow fire, the prefect thinking thus to extort the vast treasures which he believed the Christians to have concealed. He was buried in the Via Tiburtina in the cemetery of Cyriaca by Hippolytus and Justinus, a presbyter, where Constantine the Great is said to have built a church in honour of the martyr, which pope Damasus rebuilt or repaired. Few martyrdoms of the first three centuries are better attested than this one. St Laurentius is commemorated in the canon of the Roman Mass. His name occurs in the most ancient Calendars, as Catalog. Liberianus or Bucherianus (4th cent.), in the Calendar of Ptolemeus Silvius (5th cent.), and in others described under CALENDAR In D. C. A. (cf. Smedt, Introd. ad Hist. Ecclesiast. pp. 199–219, 514). He is commemorated by Prudentius in his Peristeph. (Mart. Rom. Vet.; Mart. Adon., Usuard.; Tillem. Mém. iv. 38; Ceillier, ii. 423; Fleury, H. E. vii. 38, xi. 36, xviii. 33). Cf. Fronton, Ep. et Dissert. Eccl. p. 219 (1720), where, in a note on Aug. 10, in Rom. Kai., an accurate account is given of the churches built at Rome in his honour.
Leander (2), metropolitan bp. of
Seville from (?) 575 to 600. His life covers the
most important period of Visigothic Christianity,
and with
LEOVIGILD,
HERMENIGILD , and
RECCARED
he plays an indispensable part in
that drama, half-political, half-religious,
which issued in the conversion council of 589.
All that is historically known of the origin of
the famous family, which included his two
brothers
ISIDORE and
FULGENTIUS,
and their only sister FLORENTINA,
is derived from the opening sentence in Isidore's Life of Leander
(de Vir. Ill. c. 41; Esp. Sagr.
v. 463) and from the concluding chapter of
Leander's Regula, or Libellus ad
Florentinam (Esp. Sagr. ix. 355).
Their father was Severianus "Carthaginensis Provinciae." At some unknown
date, while Florentina was a child, the family
left their native place (Libell. ad Florent.
c. 21), and settled probably at Seville. It is
probable that Leander was born between 535
and 540. He would thus be a youth at the
The exact date of this mission is unknown (see Görres, Zeitschrift für historische Theologie, i. 1873, p. 103); but we incline to place it in 583, about the beginning of the siege of Seville, when effectual support from the empire might have given victory to Hermenigild. In 584 Seville fell and Hermenigild was captured at Cordova. Thenceforward Arianism was triumphant, and that persecution of the Catholics by Leovigild, which is described by Isidore (Hist. Goth. Esp. Sagr. vi. 491) and Gregory of Tours (Hist. Franc. v. 39), was carried actively forward. In Apr. or May 586 occurred the death of Leovigild and the accession of his second son Reccared; and Leander, on receiving information as to the state of affairs, appears to have hurried home from Constantinople. (Cf. what Lucinian says of his "haste" on the journey homewards from Constantinople, Ep. Licin. ad Greg. Pat. Esp. Sagr. v.) In Feb. 587 the preliminary synod took place at Toledo, in which Reccared and his nobles abjured Arianism, and notice of the step was sent to the provinces.
The Conversion Council.—In 589 a great gathering at Toledo of the king and queen, the court, and 62 bishops, Arian and Catholic, changed the whole outer face of Visigothic history and entirely shifted its centre of gravity. The causes which led to it had been long at work (cf. Dahn, Könige der Germanen, v. on the political causes); but this third council of Toledo remains one of the most astonishing and interesting events in history. For a detailed sketch of the proceedings see RECCARED. Here we are only concerned with Leander's share in it. "Summa tamen synodalis negotii," says the contemporary bp. of Gerona, Joannes Biclarensis, "penes Sanctum Leandrum Hispal. ecclesiae episcopum et beatissimum Eutropium monasterii Servitani abbatem fuit." This justifies us in attributing to Leander the main outline of the proceedings and the wording of a large proportion of the Acts. Reccared's speeches are probably to be traced to him. They are quite in accordance with Leander's known, style, especially with that of the homily which concludes the council and was avowedly written and delivered by him. The homily (Homilia Sancti Leandri to laudem ecclesiae ob conversionem gentis) is an eloquent and imaginative piece of writing, with an undercurrent of reference to the great semi-religious, semi-political struggle which marked the reign of the last Arian king. "The peace of Christ, then," says Leander,"has destroyed the wall of discord which the devil had built up, and the house which division was bringing to ruin is united in and established upon Christ the corner-stone." Tejada y Ramiro, Colecc. de Can. de la Igl. Española, ii. 247–260; Gams, Kirchengeschichte von Spanien, ii. (2), 6, 41; Dahn, v. 1159, vi. 434; Helfferich, Entstehung und Geschichte der Westgothen Recht, 33–46; Hefele, iii. 44–49.
First Synod of Seville.—Eighteen months after the conversion council, Leander, as metropolitan of Baetica, and in obedience to the 18th canon of the council of 589, summoned the bishops of Baetica to a provincial synod in the cathedral of Seville, "in ecclesia Hispalensi Sancta Jerusalem" (cf. Florez, ix. on the use of "Sancta Jerusalem"). The Acts, on matters disciplinary, are drawn up in the form of a letter to the absent bp. Pegasius of Astigi (Ecija).
Correspondence with Gregory the Great.—Gregory and Leander, first made friends at Constantinople between 575 and 585, when Gregory was apocrisiarius of Pelagius II. at the East-Roman court. In May 591 Gregory, now pope, wrote a long letter to Leander (Ep lib. i. 43, apud Migne, Patr. Lat. lxxvii. 497) in answer to his old friend, who had congratulated him on his elevation, reported the Visigothic conversion and the third council of Toledo, and inquired as to the form of baptism to be thenceforward observed in Spain, whether by single or threefold immersion. The pope expressed his joy in the conversion of the Visigoths, declaring that Leander's accounts of Reccared have made him love a man of whom he has no personal knowledge. Let Leander look to it diligently that the work so well begun may be perfected. In a country where unity of faith had never been questioned, single or threefold immersion might be observed indifferently, as representing either the Unity or the Trinity of the God. head; but as in Spain the Arian mode of baptism had been by threefold immersion, it would be well henceforward to allow one immersion only, lest the heretics be supposed to have triumphed and confusion ensue. Finally, the pope sent Leander certain codices; part of the Homilies on Job, which he had asked for, were to follow, as the librarii had not been able to finish the copy in time.
Gregory's second letter, dated July 595 is a note accompanying the gift of the Regula Pastoralis with pts. i. and ii. of the Moralia.
The Pallium.—In Aug. 599 Gregory wrote
to Reccared, Claudius Dux of Lusitania, and
Leander. The letter to Leander announces
the gift of the pallium, to be worn at the
celebration of Mass, "solemnia Missarum."
To Reccared the pope writes: "To our honoured
Works.—The Libellus ad Florentinam consists of an introductory letter and 21 chapters, which constitute the Regula. The style is easy and flowing, rising at time to real pathos and sweetness, as in the beautiful concluding chapter with its well-known reference to Isidore. Its laudation of the celibate life and depreciation of marriage are quite in the taste of the time, and, to judge from can. 5 of C. Tol. iii., seem to have been then in Spain a distinguishing mark of the Catholic as opposed to the Arian clergy.
The Homily noticed above is the only other work of Leander now extant. Isidore, however, in his Life of his brother (de Vir. Ill. c. 41) speaks of three controversial treatises against the Arians, composed by him during his exile from Spain under Leovigild. IsIdore's description shews that they were especially intended to meet the arguments and expose the pretensions of the Arian council of 581. The last-named was probably in categorical answer to the libellus issued after the synod by the Arian bishops and expressly anathematized by the conversion council (Joh. Bicl. ad an. 581; Tejada y Ramiro, ii. p. 224).
Authorities.—Besides those already quoted, Baron. Ann. Eccl. a.d. 583, 584, 585, 589, 591, 595, 599; Nicolas Antonio, Bibl. Vet. ed. Bayer, 1788, i. 290; de Castri Bibl. Española, ii. 280; Aguirre, Coll. Max. Conc. Hisp. iii. 281–302; Fabric. Bibl. Lat. iv. 252, ed. 1754; Mabillon, Ann. Ord. S. Bened. i. 287; AA. SS. Boll. March ii. 275; Amador de los Rios, Hist. Coll. de la Lit. Españ. i. 312, 323; Montalembert, Moines de L᾿Occident, ii.
Leo (1) I., emperor (surnamed the Great, the Thracian, and the Butcher), born c. 400 in the country of the Bessi in Thrace, proclaimed emperor Feb. 7, 457, and crowned by Anatolius, patriarch of Constantinople, being the first Christian sovereign to receive his crown from the hands of a priest. Immediately upon the news of Marcian's death, religious troubles broke out in Alexandria, where the Monophysite party murdered the patriarch Proterius (Proteius), substituting for him Timothy Aelurus. The orthodox bishops of Egypt fled to the emperor to make complaint. Anatolius, bp. of Constantinople, reported their sad case to pope Leo, who energetically seconded their efforts for redress. The emperor, distracted by the demands of pope and patriarch on the one hand, of Aspar and the heretical party on the other, addressed a circular letter to Anatolius and all other metropolitans, commanding them to assemble their provincial councils, and advise him—(1) whether the decrees of the council of Chalcedon should be held binding; (2) as to the ordination of Timothy Aelurus. He also consulted the three most celebrated ascetics of the time, Symeon Stylites, James the Syrian, and Baradatus. We possess in the Codex Encyclius the answers of all the bishops and hermits consulted, a most valuable monument of ecclesiastical antiquity. It was apparently composed by imperial order by some unknown Greek, translated into Latin at the order of the senator Cassiodorus by Epiphanius Scholasticus, and first published in modern times by Laurentius Surius. It is in all collections of the councils, but in full only in Labbe and Coss. Concil. i. 4, pp. 890–980 (cf. Cave, Scriptt. Lit. Hist. i. 495; Tillem. Mém. xv. art. 167). The bishops, in Aug. 458, replied, unanimously upholding the decrees of Chalcedon and rejecting the ordination of Timothy, who, however, maintained his position at Alexandria till 460.
In 468 Leo sent an expedition under the command of Basiliscus, his brother-in-law, against the Arian Vandals of N. Africa, who were bitterly hostile to him on account of his orthodoxy. Aspar and Ardaburius secretly arranged with Basiliscus for its failure, as they feared any diminution of the great Arian power. The emperor, having discovered the conspiracy, put Aspar and Ardaburius to death, and banished Basiliscus a.d. 469. The Gothic guards, in revenge, raised a civil war in Constantinople, under one Ostrys, a friend of Aspar, and attacked the palace, but were defeated. Leo thereupon issued a severe edict against the Arians and forbade them holding meetings or possessing churches.
In another quarter controversy burst forth.
Gennadius, patriarch of Constantinople, dying
in 471, was succeeded by Acacius, whom Leo
admitted a member of the senate, where no
ecclesiastic had hitherto sat. Acacius obtained
from Leo an edict confirming the 28th
canon of Chalcedon, which raised Constantinople
to the same ecclesiastical level as Rome.
Pope Simplicius resisted the claim, and a
bitter controversy ensued, lasting many
Leo was very active in church legislation. He made laws in 466 confirming the right of asylum to churches; in 468 forbidding any persons save Christians to act as advocates. In 469 he issued an edict against simoniacal contracts and one of almost puritan strictness upon the observance of Sunday. He forbade judicial proceedings on that day, and even the playing of lyre, harp, or other musical instrument (Chron. Pasch. a.d. 467, where the words of the edict are given). The same year he passed stern laws against paganism and issued a fresh edict in favour of hospitals. In 471 a law was published, apparently elicited by the troubles at Antioch, commanding monks not to leave their monasteries. When Isocasius, a philosopher and magistrate of Antioch, was forced by torture to accept baptism at Constantinople, the emperor seems to have personally superintended the deed (Joan. Malalas, Chronogr. lib. xiv.). Leo died Feb. 3, 474, aged 73, and was succeeded by his grandson Leo II. Evagr. H. E. lib. ii.; Procopii, de Bell. Bandal.; Theoph. Chronogr.
Leo (5) I., the Great, saint, bp. of Rome, a.d. 440–461. We know but little of him before his papacy. He himself and Prosper of Aquitaine call Rome his "patria" (Prosp. Chron., Patr. Lat. li. 599; Leo Mag. Ep. xxxi. 4, p. 85, Migne). His birth must have been about the last decade of the 4th cent. He is said (Vig. Taps. contra Eutych. lib. iv.) to have been baptized by Celestine; but if so, this must have been while Celestine was still a simple priest. There is no trace in his writings that his education comprised any study of pagan authors, and he was throughout life ignorant of Greek (Epp. cxxx. 3, p. 1258; cxiii. 4, p. 1194); but his elaborate style indicates considerable training in composition. In 418 we hear, in the letters of St. Augustine (Epp. cxci. cxciv. 1), of a certain acolyte Leo, the bearer of a letter from Sixtus, afterwards pope, to Aurelius of Carthage and apparently also of pope Zosimus's letter in condemnation of Pelagianism, addressed to Aurelius, St. Augustine, and the other African bishops. The mention of Sixtus, with whom Leo was afterwards connected, and the date of the occurrence, would lead us to identify this acolyte with Leo the Great. If so, it is interesting that he should have come in contact early in life with the greatest of Latin theologians. Under the pontificate of Celestine (422–432) he was a deacon, or (according to Gennadius, de Vir. Illus. 61) archdeacon of Rome. His important place in the church is shewn by two incidents. In 430 the treatise of Cassian, de Incarnatione, against the Nestorians, was written at Leo's exhortation, and. dedicated to him with every expression of respect (Cassian, de Incarn. Praef. Migne, Patr. Lat. i. p. 11). In 431, during the council of Ephesus, St. Cyril of Alexandria wrote to Leo against the ambitious design of juvenal of Jerusalem to obtain for his see the dignity of a patriarchate (Ep. cxix. 4., p. 1216). In 439 Leo, on the alert against the Pelagians, urged the pope to offer a vigilant resistance to the movements of Julian of Eclanum, who was seeking to obtain readmission to the church without any real recantation of his errors (Prosper, Chron., Patr. Lat. li. 598). Very soon after; Leo was sent on an important civil embassy to Gaul. The Western empire was in a condition of extreme weakness. Nominally governed by Placidia and her youthful son Valentinian III., the real power lay almost wholly in the hands of the general Aetius, at this moment engaged in a quarrel in Gaul with general Albinus. It is a sign of the important civil position held by Leo the deacon that he was chosen to endeavour to bring about a reconciliation (Prosper, Chron., Patr. Lat. li. p. 599). During his prolonged absence pope Sixtus died, and Leo was promptly elected, and an embassy sent to recall him to Rome. "More than forty days," says Prosper, "the Roman church was without a bishop, awaiting with wonderful peace and patience the arrival of the deacon Leo." He was consecrated Sept. 29, 440. The first of his extant works is a brief sermon on this occasion, de Natali Ipsius, in which he praises God and returns thanks to the people, asking their prayers for the success of his ministry. (For date of consecration see Ballerini's note, Patr. Lat. lv. 193; Tillem. xv. note 2 on St. Leo.)
It was a difficult and trying time. The
Eastern empire was in its normal state of
"premature decay," the Western empire was
tottering to its fall. Africa was already a
prey to Genseric and the Vandals. The
devastation of the African church was well-nigh
complete. The church at large was in
evil case. Without, she was encompassed by
the Arian powers; within the Manicheans, the
Priscillianists, the Pelagians and the semi-Pelagians,
were disturbing her peace; in the
East Nestorianism was still rife. There was
an extraordinary paucity of men capable of
leading, whether in church or state. A man
was needed capable of disciplining and
consolidating Western Christendom, that it
might present a firm front to the heretical
barbarians and remain in unshaken consistency
through that stormy period which
links the ancient with the modern world.
The church, preserving her identity, must give
the framework for the society which was to be.
That she might fulfil her function, large sacrifices
must be made to the surpassing necessity
for unity, solidity, and strength. Leo was the
man for the post: lofty and severe in life and
aims, rigid and stern in insisting on the rules
of ecclesiastical discipline; gifted with an
indomitable energy, courage, and perseverance,
and a capacity for keeping his eye on
many widely distant spheres of activity at
once; inspired with an unhesitating acceptance
and an admirable grasp of the dogmatic
faith of the church, which he was prepared
to press everywhere at all costs; finally,
possessed with, and unceasingly acting upon,
an overmastering sense of the indefeasible
authority of the church of Rome as the
divinely ordained centre of all church work
and life, he stands out as the Christian
representative of the imperial dignity and severity
of old Rome, and is the true founder of the
medieval papacy in all its magnificence of
conception and uncompromising strength.
His is a simple character, if regarded with
In strengthening the framework of the church, Leo was playing an important part in the reconstruction of civil society. In 452 Attila, having spread desolation over the plains of Lombardy, was encamped upon the Mincius, ready to advance towards Rome. In this extremity Leo, accompanied by the consular Avienus and the prefect Trigetius, met the barbarian, and Attila, yielding to their persuasions, consented to withdraw beyond the Danube.
The terms were discreditable enough to the
Roman empire; but that the confidence and
courage of St. Leo in meeting the fearful Hun
made a great impression on the Eastern as
well as the Western world may be seen from
the somewhat curious allusion to it by the
Eastern bishops in the appeal to pope
Symmachus c. 510 (Patr. Lat.
lxii. p. 63). "If your
predecessor, the archbp. Leo, now among the
saints, thought it not unworthy of him to go
himself to meet the barbarian Attila, that he
might free from captivity of the body not
Christians only, but Jews and pagans, surely
your holiness will be touched by the captivity
of soul under which we are suffering." No
doubt later ages have exaggerated the
importance of Leo's action, as may be seen in
Baronius's account and that of later Roman
Catholic writers (Ann. 452, § 56 seq.).
Later
tradition has also introduced the well-known
legend which represents Attila as confessing
himself overawed by a miraculous presence,
the apparition of St. Peter, and, according to
another account, of St. Paul also, threatening
him with instant death if he refused to yield.
(Baronius boldly maintains the legend, which
can plead no respectable evidence. See
Tillem. xv. 751, etc.) Again, in 455, when
Genseric and the Vandals were at the gates of
Rome, the defenceless city, "without a ruler
and without a standing force," found its sole
hope in the dauntless courage of Leo.
Unarmed, at the head of his clergy, he went
outside the walls to meet the invader and
succeeded in restraining the cruelty and
licence of devastation. What exactly the
barbarian promised, and how much of his
promise he kept, is not quite certain, but at
least "the mediation of Leo was glorious to
himself, and, in some degree, beneficial to
his country" (Gibbon). To neither of these
two encounters between Leo and the
barbarians do we find allusion in his extant
writings. Clearly, if Leo was the "saviour of his
country," he was not inclined to boast of it.
He had little to complain of in the submissiveness
of the Western emperor in his relations with
himself. Nothing can exceed the
ecclesiastical authority which is recognized as
belonging to the pope in the constitution of
Valentinian, which accompanied Leo's letter
into Gaul in 448 when Leo was in conflict
with Hilary of Arles (Leo Mag. Ep. xi.).
This constitution, which has the names of both
emperors, Eastern and Western, at its head,
speaks of the "merits" of St. Peter, the
dignity of Rome and the authority of a council
as conspiring to confirm the primacy of the
Roman bishops. It declares that it is necessary
for the peace of all that all the churches
("universitas") should recognize him as their
ruler, and that his decree on the subject of the
Gallic church would be authoritative even
without imperial sanction; yet by way of
giving this sanction, it asserts that "no
bishops, whether of Gaul or of other provinces,
are to be allowed, contrary to ancient customs,
to attempt anything ("ne quid tentare") without
the authority of the venerable man, the
pope of the eternal city; but that the one law
for them and for all is "quicquid sanxit vel
sanxerit apostolicae sedis auctoritas"; and
if any bishop summoned to Rome neglect to
come, the provincial magistrate (moderator)
is to compel him. Nothing could be stronger
than this language; the document, however,
must be considered entirely Western, the
result of pressure put by Leo on the feeble
mind of Valentinian. (See Tillem. xv. 441,
who calls it "une loy . . . trop favorable à la
puissance du siége [de S. Léon] mais peu
honorable à sa piété.") That Valentinian and
his family were much under Leo's influence is
proved also by the letters which in the early
part of 450 he induced him, his mother
Placidia, and his wife Eudoxia, to write to
Theodosius II., the Eastern emperor, in the
interest of Leo's petition for a council in Italy,
all which letters reiterate the views of Leo
and assert the loftiest position for the see of
Rome (Leo Mag. Epp. liv.-lviii.). Theodosius,
however, was not so amenable to Leo's wishes.
In the matter of the councils, the pope had to
submit to the emperor. It was the emperor
who summoned the council of Ephesus in 449
(Epp. xxix. 840, xxx. 851); Leo speaking
always respectfully of him
As an ecclesiastical ruler we will consider Leo first in his relation to the various heresies in the West. Septimus, bp. of Altina, in the province of Aquileia, writes (Ep. i. Migne) to inform Leo that Pelagian ecclesiastics are being admitted to communion in that province without recantation, are being reinstated into their ecclesiastical degrees, and allowed, contrary to the canons, to wander from church to church. Leo writes to the metropolitan to complain, desiring him to summon a provincial synod and extract from suspected persons a condemnation of Pelagian errors (i. 591). Of his struggle with the Manicheans we know more. Recent troubles, especially the capture of Carthage by Genseric in 439, had driven many of these heretics to Rome. They were to be seen there moving about with pale faces, in mean apparel, fasting, and making distinctions of meats. They seem to have professed Catholicism and done their best to escape attention (Leo Mag. Serm. xvi. 4, xxxv.; Ep. xv. 16, p. 708). The vigilance of Leo, however, was too much for them. Of this sect he had a particular horror. Their heresy is a mixture, he says, of all others, while it alone has no element of good in it (Serm. xvi. 4, xxiv. 5). Accordingly, in the beginning of 444 Leo made a diligent search for them. A large number, both of teachers and disciples, and among them their bishop, were tried in the presence of numerous authorities, ecclesiastical and civil, a "senatus amplissimus," as Valentinian calls it, at which confession was made of the most hideous immoralities in their secret assemblies (Epp. vii. p. 624, xv. 16, p. 708; Serm. xvi. 4, and Constitutio Valent., Ep. viii.). Those who remained impenitent were banished in perpetuum by the civil power, and a constitution of Valentinian reviving the previous laws against the sect, dated June 19, 445, put them under all kinds of civil penalties. Leo, by sermons (ix. xvii. xxiv. xxxv. xlii.) and a circular letter to the bishops of Italy (Ep. vii.), did all he could to publish their infamy, and his exertions appear to have stirred up other bishops, both in the East and West, to similar activity (Prosper and Idatius, Chron., Patr. Lat. li. 600, 882).Theodoret, writing in 449, counts this exhibition of zeal against the Manicheans one of St. Leo's greatest titles to fame (Leo Mag. Ep. Iii. c. 2). In 447 we find Leo sending an account of these proceedings to Turribius, bp. of Astorga (Ep. xv. 16, 708. At this period the Priscillianists were exercising a very disastrous influence in Spain. St. Turribius, their active opponent, wrote to Leo for advice, and Leo replies in July 447 (Ep. xv.). He views the heresy as a mixture of Manicheism with other forms of evil, heretical and pagan, and exhorts Turribius to gather a synod of all the Spanish provinces to examine into the orthodoxy of the bishops; with this view he sends letters to the bishops of the various provinces, but urges that at least a provincial synod of Gallicia should be held (c. 17). We find subsequent allusions to a Gallician council, to which Leo is said to have written (Labbe, Conc. v. 837 A; Idat. Chron. xxiii.), and to a council of various provinces at Toledo in 447, which is said to have acted "cum praecepto papae Leonis" (Labbe, ii. 1227 B; cf. Tillem. xv. 555 seq.; Ceillier, x. 668). Though we hear still of Novatianism and Donatism in Africa (Ep. xii. 6), Leo did not take any special measures against these nor other heresies in the West.
Leo's introduction to Eastern disputes is a
somewhat curious one. Eutyches early in
448 wrote to Leo apparently deploring the
revival of Nestorianism. Leo replied on June
1, applauding his solicitude, and apparently
heard no more of Eutyches till early in 449
he received two letters announcing his
condemnation in the council of Constantinople—one
from the emperor Theodosius, the other
from himself. Eutyches (Ep. xxi.) appeals
to the judgment of the Roman pontiff. Leo,
however, maintains a cautious attitude;
writes to Flavian (Ep. xxiii.) complaining
that he has sent him no information about the
condemnation of Eutyches, that the appeal of
the condemned to Rome was, according to his
own account, not received and he himself
hastily condemned, though he professed
himself ready to amend anything in his faith
which should be found at fault. At the same
time Leo writes to the emperor, lamenting his
ignorance of the true state of the case
(Ep. xxiv.). Meanwhile, it appears that
Flavian had really written soon after the close
of the council to inform Leo, and to Domnus
of Antioch and other prelates. His letter, however
(Ep. xxii.) had not reached Leo by the end
of Feb. 449.
Had it arrived, it would have been calculated
to give Leo a clearer view of the dogmatic
question at issue. Flavian's second letter to
Leo, in reply to his (Ep. xxvi.), contains
no allusions to Leo's complaints of his silence
and want of consideration; he characterizes
Eutyches's representations as crafty and
false, explains clearly the drift of his teaching,
and urges the pope to send his subscription to
the condemnation, and to keep the emperor on
the right side (ib. p. 788); the matter, he
adds, only needs his assistance to keep it all
straight. Leo, now confirmed in his adhesion to
Flavian, writes briefly in May 449, assuring him
of his sympathy (Ep., xxvii.), followed in
June by "the tome" (Ep. xxviii.), one of
the most justly celebrated of pontifical decrees
nominally a letter to an individual bishop,
On Dec. 25 Leo, still surrounded by his
council, presses his request to the emperor
again (Ep. liv.); and in
In his replies to Valentinian, Placidia, and
Eudoxia (Epp. lxii. lxiii. lxiv.)
Theodosius
asserts his continued orthodoxy, but professes
his complete satisfaction with the Ephesine
synod. His reply to Leo is not preserved,
but contained an absolute refusal to do what
he wished. Leo had another cause of anxiety.
Anatolius had written to him in the end of
449. telling him of his election to succeed
Flavian (Ep. liii.). Anatolius had been
Dioscorus's representative at Constantinople,
and what security had Leo for his orthodoxy?
Moreover, he had simply announced his
consecration, without asking for Leo's consent
to it. Leo wrote in July 450 to Theodosius,
whom he still addresses with the utmost
respect, requiring that Anatolius should read
the Catholic Fathers and the Ep. of Cyril,
without overlooking his own Ep. to Flavian,
and then make a public profession of adherence
to their doctrine, to be transmitted to the
apostolic see and all bishops and churches.
This he demands somewhat peremptorily,
sending legates to explain his views, and
renewing his request for an Italian council
(Ep. lxix.). This letter he backs up
with others to
Pulcheria, Faustus, and the archimandrites
(Epp. lxx. lxxi. lxxii.). Leo appears even
now to have been full of hope (Ep. lxxiii.
to Martin), though Dioscorus had the audacity
to excommunicate him and the emperor was
all against him. But before his legates could reach
Constantinople, his chief cause of anxiety was
removed. Theodosius died, July 450, and was
succeeded by Pulcheria, always Leo's friend,
who united to herself as emperor, Marcian,
equally zealous for his cause. Dioscorus's
hopes were gone. The letter of the new emperor
(Ep. lxxiii.), announcing his election,
promised the council to beheld specially under
Leo's influence ("te auctore"), and the letter
which followed the arrival of Leo's messengers
at Constantinople asked him either to come
to the East to assist at it or, if that was
impossible, to let the emperor summon the
Eastern, Illyrian, and Thracian bishops to
some place "ubi nobis placuerit "
(Ep. lxxvi.). We hear nothing of Leo's
requirement that
While on this score Leo had every cause for joy, there was one decree of the council against which his legates had protested and which stirred his utmost indignation—viz. the 28th decree on the dignity of the see of Constantinople, which seemed to imperil the unique position of the see of Rome.
Before treating of this, we will take a general
review of the position and influence of Leo
as bp. of Rome up to this point of his pontificate.
The age into which Leo was born was
one which demanded, above all else, a firm
consistency and therefore centralization in the
church. It was an age of little intellectual
energy, and was to be succeeded by ages of
still less. The world wanted above all things
unity and strength, and this was found in
taking Rome for a centre and a guide both in
faith and in discipline. Accordingly the papal
supremacy made a great stride during Leo's
life. He has been well called "the first pope,"
"the Cyprian of the papacy," for we associate
with Leo's name the first clear assertion that
metropolitans and patriarchs are subject in
some way, still undefined, to Rome. What is
Leo's own view of his position? In his sermons
preached on his "birthday," i.e. the
day of his consecration—an occasion on which
a provincial council used annually to be
assembled at Rome—he expresses his sense of
his own insignificance but of the magnitude of his
position and of the presence of St. Peter in
his see, "ordinatissima totius ecclesiae charitas
in Petri sede Petrum suscipit" (Serm. ii. 2;
cf. iii. 3; v. 4). St. Peter is the rock; St. Peter
alone has to "strengthen his brethren" (iii.
3; iv. 3). Not only has he the primacy (iii.
4) but is the channel through which is given
whatever graces the other, apostles have, and
so, though there are many bishops and pastors,
yet Peter governs them all by his peculiar
office ("proprie"), whom Christ governs by
His supreme authority ("principaliter");
thus "great and wonderful is the share in its
own power which the divine condescension
assigned to this man" (Iv. 2). Just as the
faith of Peter in Christ abides, so also does the
commission of Christ to Peter, and "Peter's
care rules still all parts of the church" (iii. 2;
v. 4). Thus the see of Rome is the centre of
sacerdotal grace and of church authority; it
represents Peter, "from whom, as from a head,
the Lord wills that His gifts should flow out
into the whole body, so that he should know
he has no share in the divine mystery who has
dared to retire from the solid foundation of
Peter" (Ep. x. 1, in re Hilary of
Arles). The see of Rome again, occupies in the
ecclesiastical world more than the position which
the empire of Rome occupies in the secular
"gens sancta, civitas sacerdotalis et regia,
caput orbis effecta latius praesidet religione
divina quam dominatione terrena"—because
the Roman empire uniting the world was just
the divine preparation for the spread of the
universal Gospel (Serm. lxxxii.1 and
2). This,
then, is his theory: let us see how he put it
in practice. We see him standing as in a
watch-tower, with his eye on every part of
the Christian world, zealous everywhere for
the interests of the faith and of discipline, and,
wherever he sees occasion, taking the
opportunity of insinuating the authority of his
see, not only in the West, but in the East. The
"authority of the apostolic see" to regulate
discipline and depose bishops is asserted very
absolutely to the bishops of Aquileia and of
the home provinces in the beginning of his
pontificate ; as for the heretics, "obediendo
nobis, probent se esse nostros" (Epp. i. v. iv.).
Probably c. 446 we find Leo correcting some scandals and asserting his authority in the church of Africa, too weak and disorganized now, from the devastations of Genseric and the recently concluded war, to resist interference as in the days of Celestine. He had sent a representative to make inquiries into alleged violations of discipline there in the election of bishops; on receiving his report, Leo wrote (Ep. xii. to the bishops of Mauretania Caesariensis) assuming complete authority over the administration of their church. He even received an appeal from an African bishop, LUPICINUS, and reversed the decision of the African church in receiving him to communion.
In 447 we have seen Leo entering into the
affairs of the church of Spain, distracted like
the African with barbarian invasions, and
dictating the course to be pursued against the
Priscillianist heretics; and the same year he
Leo appears to make no exact or definite claim over the Eastern bishops through the Eutychian controversy. He professes his "universalis cura" for the welfare of the whole church (Ep. lxxv.) and claims to be kept fully alive to what goes on in the East (cf. Ep. to Flavian, xxiii.), while the power of excluding from his own communion gave him some hold on episcopal elections, which he requires to be notified to him with satisfactory proofs of the orthodoxy of new bishops (cf. his language at his confirmation of Anatolius's election); "nostra communio" all through his writings is an expression of much meaning and weight. Moreover, we have seen that he claimed a right of receiving appeals from all parts of the Christian world, and we shall see him trying to annul the authority of a canon of Chalcedon which displeased him. But when he writes his celebrated letter to Flavian, on the subject of the true faith of the Incarnation, he writes in a tone no wise different from that adopted by St. Cyril in his letters against Nestorius. The bp. of Ravenna (Peter Chrysologus), at the beginning of the Eutychian controversy, wrote to Eutyches recommending him to listen to Rome, because "the blessed Peter who lives and presides in his own see gives the truth of the faith to those who seek it" (Ep. xxv. ad fin.), but there is nothing of this tone in Leo's own words. He classes his letter with that of Cyril (Epp. lxvii.; lxix. 1006): "non aspernetur Anatolius," he says, "etiam meam epistolam recensere, quam pietati patrum per omnia concordare reperiet" (lxx. 1010). After the council of Chalcedon, he commends his own letter as confirmed by the council and witnessed to by patristic testimony (e.g. Ep. cxx. to Theodoret, c. 4; cf. esp. Ep. cx. 3, 117, where he fortifies himself by the authority of St. Athanasius, and Ep. cxxiii. 2, where he speaks of his tome simply as "synodalia decreta"; Ep. cxxxix. 4; Leo attached the "testimonia patrum" to his tome after the Robber council, Ep. lxxxviii. 3).
Of the Eastern bishops,
THEODORET,
in making his appeal (Ep. Iii.), addresses
Leo in language very reverential to his see: "If
Paul betook himself to Peter that he might
carry back from him an explanation to those
who were raising questions at Antioch about
their conversation in the law, much more do
I," etc.; but while he admits it expedient
that the pope should have the first place
("primas") in all things, he grounds this position
on (1) the greatness of Rome; (2) the
continuous piety of the church; (3) the
possession of the tombs of St. Peter and
St. Paul: not the sort of prerogatives on
which Leo would ground his primacy. Flavian
addresses Leo in a way entirely consistent with
the dignity of his own see. He informs him
of the condemnation of Eutyches (Ep.
xxii.), but only that Leo may put the bishops
subordinate to him on their guard; and when
Flavian asks for Leo's subscription (Ep.
xxvi.), he asks it for an already canonically made
deposition. At the council of Chalcedon, Leo
was treated with all possible respect. He had
required (Ep. lxxxix. to Marcian) that his
legates should preside, "on account of the
inconstancy of so many of his brethren."
Certainly the doubtful orthodoxy of so many of
the chief Eastern bishops, and the connexion
of Anatolius with Dioscorus, would have made
it difficult to find any one so fit as the Roman
legates to preside. Moreover, all the influence
of Marcian and Pulcheria was on the side of
Leo, "giving him entire authority" (Theodor.
Lector. lib. i.), except as regards the place
of the council; hence there were reasons
enough for giving him the presidency, even if
Leo had not been Leo and Rome Rome.
As it was, there was no direct opposition and
the influence of his legates was strong enough
to enforce in great measure his wishes as to
Dioscorus. When the synod proceeded to
read Leo's tome, some Illyrian and other
bishops raised doubts on certain expressions
in it. Explanations were given and conferences
held, where those points were shewn by
the legates and others to be in agreement with
the doctrines of councils and the Ep. of Cyril
(Labbe, iv. 367 C, D; 491
D). Finally, his
letter was unanimously received, because it
was in agreement with the decrees of Nicaea,
Constantinople, and Ephesus, and the Epp. of
St. Cyril (pp. 471 seq.). "Peter," the bishops
cried, "spoke thus by Leo! Leo teaches
truly! Cyril taught so! Eternal the memory
Thus Leo's letter was treated by the council
like the letter of any other highly respected
churchman; and in the eighth session of the
council Leo's decision on the orthodoxy of
Theodoret was not accepted till that bishop
had satisfied the synod that he really was orthodox
(621 C, D). On one or two points
especial reverence for Leo was shewn in the
council. According to the Acts of the council,
the form in which the papal legates expressed
the condemnation of Dioscorus was, "The
archbishop of the great and elder Rome,
through us and through the holy synod now
present, together with the . . . apostle Peter,
who is the rock . . . has stripped Dioscorus
of all sacerdotal dignity" (426 C). This "sentence" indeed exists in a widely different
form, as sent by Leo himself to the Gallic
bishops (Ep. ciii.), in which Leo is described
as "head of the universal church," and condemns
"by us his vicars with the consent of
the synod." The Acta are probably the best
authority, as we do not know exactly whence
Leo's version came. In any case, the papal
legates were regarded as passing sentence on
Dioscorus with the consent of the council (cf.
Patr. Lat. li. p. 989, note b; Evagr. H. E. ii. 4).
The title "oecumenical archbishop" is used
of Leo in the plea of Sophronius against Dioscorus
(Labbe, iv. 411 D), and "bishop of all the
churches," or "of the oecumenical church,"
by the papal legates.
Despite the reverential speeches of council, emperor, and bishops to Leo, neither this canon nor the attitude of the council towards Leo's tome, nor indeed Leo's own way of talking about it, give modern Romanists any great cause for satisfaction with the council of Chalcedon.
Meanwhile, in maintaining the cause of the faith, Leo was asserting his prerogative in many quarters. In 451 Leo's tome was approved in a council under Eusebius of Milan, which sent him a highly complimentary letter (Ep. xcvii.), in which, however, the tome is commended as agreeing with St. Ambrose, just as it was by the council of Chalcedon as agreeing with St. Cyril.
About 452 the East was troubled by the tumultuous proceedings of the Eutychian monks in Palestine, headed by one Theodosius, who elected a bishop in place of Juvenal, seized Jerusalem, and committed all sorts of violences (Tillem. xv. § 138, etc.). These disturbances caused Leo great anxiety (Ep. cix.), and drew from him (Ep. cxxiv.) a clear and admirable exposition of the faith, as lying between Nestorian and Eutychian error. On the death of Marcian in 457 Eutychian risings were attempted in Constantinople and Alexandria (Epp. cxl. cxliv.). Leo (Ep. cxlv.), writing to congratulate the emperor Leo on his accession, urged him to active measures against the heretics, and by constant letters did all he could to keep Anatolius and Julian also zealous for the Chalcedonian decrees and the suppression of heresy. He urged that the question of the faith should not again be allowed to come into discussion. He complained to Basil, the new bp. of Antioch, that he had not, "according to ecclesiastical custom," notified his consecration to him, and addressed other letters against Timotheus Aelurus to the bishops of Thessalonica, Jerusalem, Corinth, and Dyrrhachium, which he sends for distribution to Julian (Epp. cxlix. cl. clii.). He sent the expressions of agreement to his tome from the bishops of Gaul and Spain in a letter to Aetius, and wrote (Oct. 11, 457) condoling with the refugee Egyptian Catholics now in Constantinople (Epp. cliv. clv. clx.). "They are not," he says, "exiles from God." Meanwhile, a circular letter from the emperor, asking all the metropolitans to summon provincial councils and collect the opinions of their bishops on the conduct of Timotheus Aelurus and the authority of the Chalcedonian decrees, gave Leo an opportunity of again impressing his views on the emperor, and urging him to make up by his zeal for any laxity in Anatolius (Ep. clvi. c. 6). He had both to resist all inclination on the emperor's part to listen to the suggestions which accused his doctrine of Nestorianism, and to oppose strongly the idea of assembling another council, which the emperor had entertained. When the emperor dropped the idea of a council, he proposed, wherever the suggestion may have come from, a conference between some of the Eutychian heretics and an envoy of the pope (Ep. clxii.). This again Leo could not consent to, for it involved the discussion of the faith which had been once for all determined, as if it were an open question ("patefacta quaerere, perfecta retractare, definita convellere"). He sent legates, not, however, to dispute, but to teach "what is the rule of the apostolic faith"; and some time in the same year addressed to Leo a long dogmatic epistle (Ep. clxv.) sometimes, called the "second tome," closely parallel to the epistle he had before sent for the instruction of the Eutychian monks of Palestine. To it is attached a collection of testimonies, more ample than he had previously sent to Theodosius. In 460 Leo saw his wishes realized in the expulsion of Timotheus Aelurus, who, however, was allowed to come to Constantinople. Leo writes in June to congratulate the emperor on his energy against Aelurus, and to impress on him the need of a pious and orthodox bishop for Alexandria ("in summo pontifice," Ep. ccxix. c. 2). At the same time he writes to Gennadius, the new bp. of Constantinople, who had succeeded Anatolius in 468, urging him to be on his watch against Aelurus, whose arrival at Constantinople he deplored and who appeared likely to have a considerable following there. The bishop elected for Alexandria, Timotheus Solofaciolus, met with Leo's warm approval.
The letters which Leo wrote at this time (Aug. 461) to Timotheus, his church, and some monks of Egypt (Epp. clxxi. clxxiii.) are the last public documents of his life. Before his death Leo saw the peace of the church of Alexandria established and orthodoxy supreme, for a period at least of 16 years, in the elevation to its throne of Timothy Solofaciolus.
Though Leo was heedless of the rights of
national churches, harsh and violent in his
treatment of Hilary, and not always very
scrupulous in his assertions about the canons
of Nicaea, personal ambition was with him
Leo's theology is to be gathered chiefly from
some six or seven dogmatic epistles and from
his sermons (Epp. xxviii. the tome to
Flavian, xxv. to Julian, lix. to the church of
Constantinople, cxxiv. to the monks of Palestine,
cxxxix. to Juvenal, clxv. the "second tome,"
to the emperor Leo, all written between 449
Leo's style is generally forcible, and always to the point—businesslike and severe, epigrammatic and terse in expression. No doubt the love of epigram and antithesis, characteristic of his age, always tends to simple mannerism and obscurity, but in Leo the tendency is under control; he is almost always weighty and clear, and sometimes eloquent. To impress his meaning, he has no objection whatever to repeating himself (Serm. xxv. init.). Some epistles (e.g. Epp. cxxiv. and clxv.) are extremely similar even in language. His sermons are in very much the same style as his epistles. Sozomen (vii. 19) says "that in his day in Rome neither bishop nor any one else teaches the people in the church." This statement is denied and its meaning disputed (cf. notes in loc. and Migne, Patr. lv. p. 197), but at least we should judge from Leo's sermons that there is no tradition of pulpit eloquence behind him. His tone is that of the Christian bishop, reproving, exhorting, and instructing with the severity of a Roman censor (Milman, Lat. Christianity, i. 233). Sometimes indeed he rises to eloquence, but generally speaks with a terse brevity, more adapted, but for its epigrams which would catch the ear, to be read than merely listened to. The sermons are mostly very short, and the practical aspect of the truth as opposed to the speculative is specially prominent. If Christ has renewed our nature, we must live up to the possibilities of the nature He has renewed. The mystery of the Incarnation is incomprehensible by the understanding; but for that let us rejoice, "sentiamus nobis bonum esse quod vincimur" (Serm. xxix.). Christ must be God and man—man to unite us to Himself, God to save us, "Expergiscere igitur, o homo, et dignitatem tuae cognosce naturae; recordare te factum ad imaginem Dei, quae etsi in Adam corrupta in Christo tamen est reformata" (xxvii. 6).
Leo's theological statements are always characterized by great clearness, fulness, strength, an intense reverence for dogma, and a deep conviction of its supreme importance. His theology is throughout of the Western type, for he is wholly on the practical, not on the speculative, side of theology. Philosophical theory, speculation on the relation of the Persons in the Trinity, there is none, only a clear and powerful grasp upon the dogma as an inexpugnable truth of quite incomparable practical importance. Moreover, his statement of the doctrine of the Trinity is Western, tallying with the Athanasian Creed, with none of the Eastern doctrine of "subordination" remaining, "In Trinitate enim divina, nihil dissimile, nihil impar est, ut omnibus existentiae gradibus exclusis, nulls ibi Persona sit anterior, nulla posterior" (Serm. lxxv.; lxxvi. 2, cf. Serm. xxii. 2, where he interprets "My Father is greater than I" of the Incarnate Son only). Being ignorant of Greek, he could not be versed in Eastern theology; but in the "testimonia patrum" (Ep. ccxv.), more Greek than Latin fathers are quoted (of course from translations).
His Doctrine of the Incarnation.—This was
produced in antagonism to Eutychianism and
is coloured by this antagonism. The Eutychianism
which he opposes is not so much the
particular doctrine of the particular man as
that which he represents—namely, the denial
of the real and permanent humanity of Jesus
Christ. He presents a dilemma to Eutyches:
either, he says, denying as you do the two
natures in Christ, you must hold the impiety of
Apollinaris, and assert that the Deity was
converted into flesh and became passible and
mortal, or if you shrink from that you fall into
the Manichean madness of denying the reality
of the body and the bodily acts (Ep. cxxiv.
2). If he can escape from this dilemma, he is sure
to be only veering to the opposite pole of
Arianism. For Christ is spoken of as being
"raised," "exalted," etc. What is exalted
if the humanity is not real? You must assert
the divinity of Christ to be an inferior one,
capable of exaltation (Ep. lix. 3). Thus Eutyches is to Leo the
representative of the "Manichean impiety," as he is fond of calling it, which
denies the reality of our Lord's manhood. This gives him his starting-point to
assert our Lord's true and perpetual humanity, while avoiding the contrary
Nestorian error of abstracting from His perfect divinity, which was always being
charged upon the anti-Eutychians, "in integra ergo veri hominis perfectaque
natura verus natus est Deus, totus in suis, totus in nostris . . . humana augens, divina non minuens" (Ep. xxviii. 3)
The human nature was really created and
really assumed; created in being assumed
(Ep. xxxvi. 3). There is the whole of human
nature, body and soul, and the whole of the
divine (Ep. xxxv. 2); each nature remains
distinct in its operations, "glorificata permanet
in glorificante, Verbo scilicet operante
quod Verbi est et carne exsequente quod carnis
est. Unum horum coruscat miraculis, aliud
succumbit injuriis"; "proprietas divinae
humanaeque naturae individua permanet."
All through the life he traces the duality of
the operations in the unity of the Person
(Epp. xxviii.; cxxiv. 5). And so perfect is this unity
In proof of this doctrine of the Incarnation Leo appeals to several classes of evidence, sometimes to the analogies of reason—why, he urges, cannot the divinity and humanity be one person, when soul and body in man form one person? (Ep. xxvi. 2); constantly to Scripture—the very source of heresy is that man will not labour "in the broad fields of Holy Scripture" ("in latitudine SS.," Ep. xxviii. i and 2); constantly to the creeds and the past of the church (for he hates novelty) it is the creed which introduces us to Scripture (Ep. cxxviii. 1); we need not blush to believe what apostles and those whom they taught, what martyrs and confessors believed (Epp. clxv. 9; clii.); but Leo very often and very characteristically appeals also to consequences, and looks at a doctrine in the light of the necessities of the church's life. What becomes of the salvation of our human nature if Christ have it not? How can He be the Head of the new race? How can He clothe our human nature with His divine? ("Caro enim Christi velamen est verbi, quo omnis qui ipsum integre confitetur induitur," Ep. lix. 4). What is the meaning of the Holy Communion of His Body and Blood, the very purpose of which is that, receiving the virtue of the heavenly food, we may pass into ("transeamus in") His flesh Who became our flesh? (Ep. lix. 2; cf. also Serm. xci. 3). What becomes of the resurrection and ascension; nay, what becomes of His mediation? How does He reconcile man to God if He have not the whole of humanity, except sin? (Ep. cxxiv. 6, 7, and Serm. xxv 5, etc.).
The Atonement.—Leo holds the view once prevalent, but now utterly abandoned, which may be stated out of his writings as follows. Man in his fallen state was in slavery to the devil, and, as by his own free will he had fallen, justly so. The devil had certain rights over him which he would retain unless that humanity which he had conquered could conquer him again. In redeeming man, God chose to overcome the devil rather by the rule of justice than of power. To this end He became Man. The Incarnation deceived the devil. He knew not with Whom he was matched. He saw a Child suffering the sorrows and pains of childhood; he saw Him grow by natural stages to manhood, and having had so many proofs that He was mortal He concluded that He was infected with the poison of original sin. So he set in force against Him, as though exercising a right upon sin-stained humanity, all methods and instruments of persecution, thinking that, if He, Whose virtues exceeded so far those of all saints, must yield to death and His merits availed not to deliver Him, he would be secure of every one else for ever. But in persecuting and slaying Christ, Whom was he slaying? One Who was man, but sinless, Who owed him nothing, and thus, by exacting the penalty of iniquity from Him in Whom he had found no fault, he went beyond his right. The covenant which bound man to the devil was thus broken. His injustice in demanding too much cancelled the whole debt of man due to him. Man was free. (Serm. xxii. 3, 4; lxix. 3; cf. xvi. 1, lxi. 4. The nails which pierced our Lord's hands and feet transfixed the devil with perpetual wounds, lxiv. 2, 3.) Thus, to effect our redemption, Christ must have been both man and God; and it was necessary that He should suffer and die by the operations of the devil; and His death has a value different in kind from that of all the saints (Serm. lxiv. 2, 3; lix. 1). On the cross of Christ the oblation of human nature was made by a saving victim (lv. 3). His death, the just for the unjust, was a price of infinite value (lvi. 3; lvii. 4). According to this theory, the price was paid to the devil and man was free; "redemptio aufert captivitatem et regeneratio mutat originem et fides justificat peccatorem" (xxii. 4). Nothing is said about—there is hardly clear room left for—an oblation to God. Elsewhere, however, Leo speaks of Christ as offering a "new and true sacrifice of reconciliation to His Father" (Serm. lix. 5; cf. Ep. cxxiv. 2, where the sacrifice is clearly conceived as offered to the Father. Cf. also Serm. lxiv. 2, 3).
The Doctrine of Grace.—Living, though
Leo did, in a time when this doctrine was still
in dispute, and mixed up, as he had been, in
part of the dispute, we have little in his
genuine works on the subject. He speaks of
it indeed (Ep. i. 3) in orthodox terms.
"The whole gift of God's works depends upon
the previous operation of God ['omnis bonorum
operum donatio, divina praeparatio est'],
for no man is justified by virtue before he is
[justified] by grace, which is to every man the
beginning of righteousness, the fount of good,
and the source of merit." Nothing in us, he
implies, can antedate the operation of grace;
all in us needs the salvation of Christ; but
this grace of God which alone justifies was
given, not for the first time, but in larger
measure ("aucta non coepta") by Christ's
birth, and this "sacrament of great holiness"
(the Incarnation) was so powerful, even in its
previous indications ("tam potens etiam in
significationibus suis"), that they who hoped
in the promise received it no less than they
who accepted the gift" (Serm. xxii. 4).
On this subject he often dwells; the Incarnation
is the consummation of a previous presence
and operation of the Son (Serm. xxv. 4).
All through the O.T. men were justified by the
same faith, and made part of the body of
Christ by the same sacrament (Serm.
xxx. 7; liv. 1). This same truth comes out in his
sermons on Pentecost. There is perfect equality,
he there says, in the Trinity. "It is
eternal to the Father to be the Father of the
co-eternal Son. It is eternal to the Son to be
begotten of the Father out of all time. It is
eternal to the Holy Spirit to be the Spirit of
Leo holds that the "merits" of saints can work wonders and aid the church on earth (Serm. v. 4). He often speaks of St. Peter assisting his people with his prayers (xii. xiii. xvi. ad. fin., etc.) and with his merits (lxxi. 4). So also of St. Laurence (lxxxv.). He attributes the deliverance of the city from the barbarians to the "care of the saints" (lxxxiv. 1). The Leonine Sacramentary, which certainly contains much of Leo's age, is full of such prayers as "adjuva nos, Domine, tuorum prece sanctorum, ut quorum festa gerimus sentiamus auxilium" (cf. Ep. lviii. init.; ci. 3, for similar sentiments). But he never speaks of the blessed Virgin as aiding, nor of any saints but St. Peter, St. Paul (Serm. lxxxii. fin.), and St. Laurence; nor does he invoke them, or direct them to be invoked, though he believes that they are aiding the church by their patronage, prayers, or merits. Elsewhere, distinguishing the value of the deaths of the saints from that of Christ, he very zealously guards the prerogative of Christ as the real source of merit.
To relics he makes no allusion, except where he rejoices that those of St. Flavian had been brought back to Constantinople (Ep. lxxix. 2), and perhaps when, writing to Eudocia and Juvenal in Palestine, he seeks to stir their faith through the local memorials of Christ's passion (Epp. cxxxix. 2; cxxiii.). Comparing his works with Gregory's, we are struck by the total absence of superstition in Leo. His sermons "are singularly Christian—Christian as dwelling almost exclusively on Christ: His birth, His passion, His resurrection" (Milman, Lat. Christ. i. p. 233). We find constant reference to the special dangers and wants of his time—e.g. warnings against the prevalent Manicheism. When he converted a number of Manicheans, he at once applied his sermon, regardless of repeating himself, to instruct them (Serm. xxv. 1). He reproves the people for forsaking the commemoration of the deliverance of the city, probably from Genseric, which he had instituted on the feast of SS. Peter and Paul, for games and spectacles, and he exhorts them to gratitude to God (lxxxiv.). He reproves idolatrous practices in the church. Magic, charms, cabalistic doctrines, even a worship of the rising sun, were in vogue. Christians, on their way into St. Peter's basilica, would turn and bow to the sun (lxxxiv. 2; xxvii. 4). This worship, which, as he says, was half pagan, akin to that of the Priscillianists and Manicheans, and half due to ignorance in people who really meant to worship the Creator, but which in any case was akin to idolatry, he deeply deplores and earnestly prohibits.
Leo especially urges purity, strictness, and
severity of life, in an age no longer disciplined
by persecutions. "Kings now," he says,
"do not so much pride themselves on being
born to empire as rejoice that they are
reborn in baptism." The devil tries by
avarice and ease those whom troubles could
not alienate (xxxvi. 3). Hence the interest
of his sermons in Lent and at the other
fasts of the "Quattuor Tempora" and those
(on almsgiving) "de Collectis."
Another aspect of Leo's work as an ecclesiastical writer remains to be considered. "The collect as we have it is Western in every feature: in that 'unity of sentiment and severity of style' which Lord Macaulay has admired; in its Roman brevity and majestic conciseness, its freedom from all luxuriant ornament and all inflation of phraseology" (Bright, Ancient Collects, append. 206); and there is no early Western writer to whose style it bears a closer resemblance and with whose character it is more consonant than that of Leo, its reputed inventor. How much of Leo's work the fragment of the Sacramentary attributed to him by its first editor in 1735, P. Joseph Blanchinius, actually contains, it is impossible to say. "Muratori holds it to be a series of Missae, clumsily put together by a private person at the end of the 5th cent., containing much that [Leo] wrote." Certainly it is Roman, certainly the oldest Roman sacramentary, and certainly it contains much which is in the style and expresses the doctrine of St. Leo. As certainly Leo's work, Quesnel with propriety specifies two noble "prefaces," for the consecration of a bishop and a presbyter ("Deus honorum omnium," and "Domine sancte," § xxvii. 111 and 113, Migne), and an "Allocutio archidiaconi ad episcopum pro reconciliatione poenitentium" (at the end of the Sacramentary in Migne's ed.). In the Liber Pontificalis the addition of the words "sanctum sacrificium, immaculatam hostiam" to the Canon of the Mass is ascribed to Leo (Migne, Patr. liv. p. 1233). Collects in the English Prayer-book derived from the Leonine Sacramentary are those for the 3rd Sun. after Easter (referring originally to those who had been baptized on Easter Eve), the 5th Sun. after Trinity (suggested originally by the disasters of the dying Western empire), and the 9th, 13th, and 14th Sundays after Trinity. (See Bright, pp. 208, 209).
Before concluding this notice of Leo as a
theologian, we must mention a statement of
Gennadius (de Script. Eccles. lxxxiv.;
Patr. Lat. lviii. 1107), that the letters
of pope Leo
on the true Incarnation of Christ are said to
have been addressed to their various destinations,
and dictated ("ad diversos datae et
dictatae") by Prosper of Aquitaine. It is
also stated that one or two of Leo's sermons
are found in one MS. assigned to St. Prosper.
But Gennadius himself attributes "the tome,"
the chief of Leo's letters on the Incarnation,
absolutely to his own hand (c. lxx.). It
is very probable that Leo should have brought
Prosper, "doctissimus illorum temporum,"
with him from Gaul to Rome, to assist him in
his conflicts with heresy: he may have been
secretary to him, as Jerome was to pope
Damasus;
Leo is said to have restored the silver ornaments of the churches of Rome after the ravages of the Vandals, and repaired the basilicas of St. Peter and St. Paul, placing a mosaic in the latter which represented the adoration of the four-and-twenty elders; and to have built a basilica in honour of St. Cornelius, established some monks by the church of St. Peter, instituted guardians, called at first "cubicularii," and afterwards "capellani," for the tombs of the apostles (Tillem. xv. art. 73; Vita Anastasii, Migne, Patr. Lat. liv. 55, 1234); and received St. Valentine, bp. of Passau, at Rome and sent him to missionary work in Rhaltia (Tillem. xv. 175).
Leo died in 461 (Marcell. Chron., etc.), possibly on Nov. 10 (Tillem. xv. n. 73). He was buried in the church of St. Peter, where, it is said, no previous pope not a martyr was buried (Anast. Vita Pontif., Patr. Lat. liv. p. 60, Migne). He has been honoured as a saint and confessor. Benedict XIV. in 1754 decreed him the title of a doctor ecclesiae (Patr. Lat. Iv. 835). He is commemorated in the Roman church on Apr. 11; in the Eastern on Feb. 18 (AA. SS. Apr. ii. p. 15).
The genuine works of Leo which we possess
are 96 sermons and 173 letters. On works
ascribed to him (the de Vocatione, etc.)
consult discussions in Migne's Patr. Lat.
For history of edd. see Schoenemann's Notitia
Hist.-Lit. in S. Leonem, prefixed to Migne's ed.
The most famous editions of his whole works
Materials and Authorities.—i. Leo's own works. ii. The contemporary chronicles of Prosper, Idatius, etc.; Acta of council of Chalcedon, etc. iii. Various Lives of Leo, church histories, etc., especially (1) a very brief life in Hist. de Vitis Romanorum Pontificum of Anastasius Bibliothecarius (9th cent.) in Migne's Patr. Lat. cxxviii. pp. 299 sqq.; (2) De Vita et Gestis S. Leonis in ib. lv. 153 sqq.; (3) The exhaustive, accurate, and impartial Mémoire of Tillemont (Mém. eccl. xv. 414–832), (4) Ceillier's Auteurs sacres, vol. x. (for Leo's works); (5) The Bollandist Life by Canisino, AA. SS. Apr. ii. 15, of very little value; and, omitting various partisan lives on both sides; (6) an admirable judgment of Leo's life and works, viewing him chiefly as the architect of the papacy, in Böhringer's Die Kirche Christi and ihre Zengen, i. 4, pp. 170–309; (7) Milman's, Lat. Christ. vol. i. c. 4, an excellent account of Leo and his time; (8) Bright's Hist. of the Church, cc. xiv. xv.; (9) Alzog's Grundriss der Patr. § 78; and (10) "Leo I." in Herzog's Real-Encycl. A short popular Life by the present writer is pub. by S.P.C.K. in their series of Fathers for Eng. Readers. A trans. of Leo's letters and sermons is ed. by Dr. Feltoe in the Lib. of Nic. and Post-Nic. Fathers.
Leontius (2), bp. of Antioch, a.d. 348–357: a Phrygian by birth (Theod. H. E. ii. 10), and, like many leading Arians, a disciple of the celebrated teacher Lucian (Philostorg. iii. 15). When the see of Antioch became vacant by the removal of Stephen, the emperor Constantius effected the appointment of Leontius, who strove to avoid giving offence to either Arians or orthodox. One of the current party tests was whether the doxology was used in our present form or in that which the Arians (ib. 113) maintained to be the more ancient, "Glory be to the Father, through the Son, in the Holy Ghost." Those who watched Leontius could never make out more of his doxology than "world without end. Amen" (Theod. ii. 119). Among the orthodox of his flock were two ascetics, Flavian and Diodorus, who, though not yet advanced to the priesthood, had very great influence because of their holy lives. To them Theodoret ascribes the invention of the practice of dividing the choir into two and chanting the Psalms of David antiphonically, a use of the church of Antioch which legend soon attributed to its martyr-bishop Ignatius (Socr. vi 8). They assembled the devout at the tombs of the martyrs and spent the whole night in singing of hymns. Leontius could not forbid this popular devotion, but requested its leaders to hold their meetings in church, a request with which they complied. Leontius foresaw that on his death the conduct of affairs was likely to fall into less cautious hands, and, touching his white hairs predicted, "When this snow melts there will be much mud." The orthodox, however, complained that he shewed manifest bias in advancing unworthy Arians. In particular he incurred censure by his ordination to the diaconate of his former pupil Aetius, afterwards notorious as an extreme Arian leader. On the strong protest of Flavian and Diodorus Leontius suspended Aetius from ecclesiastical functions. Philostorgius (iii. 27) relates that Leontius subsequently saved the life of Aetius by clearing him from false charges made to the emperor Gallus. When Athanasius came to Antioch, he communicated not with Leontius and the dominant party, but with the ultra-orthodox minority called Eustathians, who had refused to recognize any other bishop while the deposed Eustathius was alive and who worshipped in private conventicles. Leontius accused Athanasius of cowardice in running away from his own church. The taunt stung Athanasius deeply. He wrote his Apologia de Fuga in reply to it, and always speaks bitterly of Leontius, seldom omitting the opprobrious epithet ὁ ἀπόκυπος. He even (de Fug. 26) accuses the aged bishop of criminality in his early relations with Eustolium. If there had been any proof of this, Leontius would have been deposed not for mutilation but for corrupting a church virgin; and if it had been believed at Antioch the respect paid him by orthodox members of his flock would be inconceivable. The censure of so great a man irretrievably damaged Leontius in the estimation of succeeding ages, and his mildness and moderation have caused him to be compared to one of those hidden reefs which are more dangerous to mariners than naked rocks. Yet we may charitably think that the gentleness and love of peace which all attest were not mere hypocrisy, and may impute his toleration of heretics to no worse cause than insufficient appreciation of the serious issues involved. The Paschal Chronicle, p. 503, quotes the authority of Leontius for its account of the martyrdom of Babylas. Leontius died at the end of 357 or beginning of 358. Athanasius, writing in 358, Hist. Ar., speaks of him as still living, but perhaps the news had not reached Athanasius.
Leontius (62), a scholasticus of Byzantium, and afterwards a monk in Palestine, who wrote c. 610 a Gk. treatise de Sectis (Patr. Gk. lxxxvi. 1193; Cave, i. 543; Ceillier, xi. 666). Cf. Fessler Jungmann, Inst. Patr. ii. 2, p. 95; but esp. F. Loofs, Leontius von Byzanz and die Gleichnamigen Schrifts teller der Griechischen Kirche (Leipz. 1887); also Herzog's Encycl. 3rd ed. s.v. "Leonz. von Byzanz."
Leontius (74), priest and martyr of
Armenia in the reign of Isdigerd II. of Persia.
He acted a conspicuous part in the stand of
the Armenian church against the court of
Persia, as related chiefly in the History of
Varian by Elisha Vartabed and in the
historical work of Lazarus of Barb. In Nov. 450
700 magian priests, sent under escort to instruct
the Armenians in the court religion,
arrived at Ankes in the centre of Armenia.
There having lain encamped for 25 days, they
ordered the church to be broken open. Thus
Leovigild (LEUVICHILD), Arian king of the Visigoths in Spain from 569 to Apr. or May 586. His reign and that of his successor, the convert RECCARED), represent the crisis of Visigothic history, religious and political.
Upon the death of Athanagild in the winter of 567, the Gothic throne remained unfilled until in 568 Leova, dux of the Septimanian province, was made king by the magnates of Gallia Gothica. In 569 he assigned to his younger brother Leovigild the government of the Spanish portion. In the first year of his reign Leovigild married Goisvintha, the widow of his predecessor Athanagild and a strong Arian (Greg. Tur. H. F. v. 39). By a previous marriage he had two sons, Hermenigild and Reccared. Leovigild faced the situation with success. His first campaign (a.d. 569) was against the Byzantine settlers and garrisons of the Baza and Malaga districts. For 20 years Cordova had refused to acknowledge the lordship of the Goths, and the great town of the Baetis had been the headquarters of the Imperialist and Catholic power in the Peninsula. Its fall (early in 572?) was a heavy blow to the imperial cause in Spain (Joannes Bicl. Esp. Sagr. vi. 377). In 572 (573 according to J. Biel.) Leova died, and Leovigild remained master of both divisions of the kingdom.
Hermenigild's Rebellion.—In 572 (or 573) the king had made both the sons of his first marriage "consortes regni" (J. Bicl. p. 378), and before 580 both were betrothed to Frankish princesses, Hermenigild to his step-niece Ingunthis, granddaughter of Goisvintha, Leovigild's second wife, Reccared to Ingunthis's first cousin, Rigunthis, daughter of Chilperic and Fredegonde. In 580 Hermenigild's bride, a girl of 12 or 13, passed the Pyrenees, "cum magno apparatu" (Greg. Tur. v. 39), having been exhorted on her way by bp. Fronimius of Agde to hold fast her orthodox profession in the midst of the Arian family into which she had married, and who no doubt expected her to become an Arian. She stood firm, and dissension speedily arose with her Arian grandmother. In order to secure family peace Leovigild assigned to Hermenigild and Ingunthis the town of Seville, where the influence of his wife, says Gregory of Tours—of the famous metropolitan of Baetica, Leander, according to Gregory the Great, Dial. iii. 41 converted Hermenigild to Catholicism (Hist. Fr. v. 39; Paul. Diac. W. iii. 21). He was confirmed in the orthodox faith by Leander. The son thus placed himself in opposition to his father and to all the Gothic traditions, and was brought into natural alliance with the forces threatening the Gothic state, with the Byzantines in the S., the Suevi in the N., and the disaffection smouldering among Leovigild's provincial subjects. The young couple may well have appeared to the Catholics convenient instruments for dealing a deadly blow at the heretical Gothic monarchy; while in the case of the Byzantines a strictly political motive would also be present.
The peril was a grave one. Leovigild, with a combination of energy and prudence, assembled a council of Arian bishops (581, mentioned in C. Tol. iii. as occurring in the 12th year of Leovigild), which drew up a formula designed to facilitate the conversion of Catholics to Arianism. Rebaptism was no longer demanded as heretofore. Converts should give glory to the Father "per Filium in Spiritu Sancto." (The Gloria Patri plays an important part in the history of Spanish Arianism. Cf. Greg. of Tours's conversation with Leovigild's envoy, the Arian Oppila—Hist. Franc. vi. 40, and C. Tol. iii.) A libellus containing the decisions of the council was widely circulated (C. Tol. iii. 16; Tejada y Ramiro, ii.) and other temptations were offered to the Catholic bishops and clergy. Isidore and Joannes mournfully confess that many yielded. The king also began to pay scrupulous respect to Catholic feeling and belief and to Catholic saints, and to pray in Catholic churches (Greg. Tur. vi. 18). "I believe," he is reported to have said, "with firmness that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, equal to the Father, but I do not at all believe that the Holy Ghost is God, since in no book of Scripture do we read that He is God." By such means Leovigild endeavoured to secure the Catholic party within the territory outside Hermenigild's influence.
During 581 and 582 Hermenigild had assumed
a more and more formidable position,
but Leovigild marched S. to the siege of
Seville, which lasted through 583 into 584, and
after the fall of Seville up the Guadalquivir
valley to Cordova. Here the rebellion collapsed.
Persecution of the Catholics.—Leovigild had crushed the Catholic and Byzantine conspiracy of which Hermenigild had been the instrument, and there followed an outbreak of that savage and fanatical temper so characteristic of the Visigothic race. The persecuting temper of the Arian kings, however, had always some political justification. The Catholic church was the natural foe of her Arian rulers, and when her attempts to shake them off failed, it was inevitable that the penalty should fall heavily on her and on her bishops. Leander of Seville was banished, Fronimius of Agde was obliged to fly into Merovingian territory (Hist. Franc. ix. 24), an Arian bishop was sent to Merida, and Masona, after ineffectual attempts by the king to win him over to Arianism, was imprisoned (Paulus Emerit. Esp. Sagr. xiii. p. 369). >From the signatures at the conversion council it is evident that in many sees, especially within the newly annexed Suevian territory, a large but indefinite number of Catholic bishops were replaced by Arians. (On the general subject of the persecution, cf. Greg. Tur. v. 39, and for various doubtful details of it, see Greg. Tur. Glor. Conf. xii.; Glor. Mart. Ixxxii.; and de Vit. et Mir. Patr. Emerit. c. xi.)
Leovigild died in Apr. or May, 586, at Toledo, according to some reports constant to the beliefs in which he had lived, according to others—less trustworthy—a repentant convert to Catholicism, mourning over the unrighteous death of his first-born son.
"Leovigild's reign," says Dahn, "represents the last attempt to maintain the Gothic state in its traditional aspects and character by the strenuous use of all possible weapons against its traditional dangers—war with Catholicism, chastisement of the nobility, reinvigoration of the monarchy, and defence of it against its hostile neighbours" (v. 150). An Arian monarchy, strong in all directions—towards its own pillars and supporters, the Gothic nobles, towards foreign outsiders, and towards its natural enemy Catholicism—this appears to have been Leovigild's ideal. To its influence may be traced most of the actions of his government, the association of his sons, his treatment of the rebellious and murderous nobles, his attitude towards the Catholic bishops, and, above all, certain alterations in the outer aspects of Gothic kingship which mark his reign and shew him prepared to accept just so much of Roman custom as would further his ends.
The conversations which Gregory of Tours reports between himself and Leovigild's Arian envoys on their way through Tours to Soissons or Paris (H. F. v. 44; vi. 40) throw much light upon the every-day social relations between Arianism and Catholicism at the time.
Sources.—Joannes Biclarensis, abbat of Biclaro and bp. of Gerona, a contemporary of Leovigild, his Chronicon, apud Florez. Esp. Sagr. vi.; Isidore of Seville, writing c. 630, Hist. Goth. ib.; Paulus Diaconus Emeritensis, fl. 650, de Vit. et Mir. Patr. Emeritensium Esp. Sagr. xiii. Dahn's Könige der Germanen remains the best account of the reign in point of insight and treatment; an exhaustive discussion of all the moot points is that by Prof. F. Görres, "Kritische Untersuchungen über den Aufstand and das Martyrium des westgothischen Königssohnes Hermenigild," in Zeitschrift für hist. Theol. (1873).
Leucius (1), the reputed author
of large
apocryphal additions to the N.T. history,
which originated in heretical circles, and
which, though now lost, were much current
in early times. The fullest account is that
given by Photius (Cod. 114), who
describes a book, called The Circuits
of the Apostles, which
contained the Acts of Peter, John, Andrew,
Thomas, and Paul, and purported to have
been written by Leucius Charinus. This
second name Charinus is peculiar to Photius,
earlier writers calling the author simply
Leucius, a name variously altered by
transcribers. Photius characterizes the
book as in style utterly unlike the genuine
N.T. writings, and full of folly, self-contradiction,
falsehood, and impiety. It taught the
existence of two gods—an evil one, the God
of the Jews, having Simon Magus as his
minister, and a good one, from Whom Christ
came. It confounded the Father and the
Son; denied the reality of Christ's Incarnation,
and gave a Docetic account of His life on
earth and especially of His crucifixion. It
condemned marriage and regarded all
generation as the work of the evil principle;
denied
that demons were created by God; related
childish stories of miraculous restoration to
life, of both men and cattle; and in the Acts
of John used language which the Iconoclasts
regarded as favouring them. From this
description we can identify as the same work
a collection of Apostolic Acts, from which
extracts were read at the 2nd council of
Nicaea (Actio v., Mansi, xiii. 167),
the story of Lycomedes (see D. C. B.
4-vol. ed.) being
that made use of by the Iconoclasts, and the
Docetic tales being from this work. In the
council was next read a citation from Amphilochius
of Iconium, denouncing certain heretical Acts of
the Apostles, and in particular
arguing against the truth of a story, evidently
that to which we have just referred, because
it represented St. John as on the Mount of
Olives during the crucifixion, and so
contradicted the gospel, which relates that
he was
close to the Cross. With this evidence that
the work read by Photius was in existence
before the end of the 4th cent., we may
probably refer to the same source a statement of
Epiphanius (Haer. 51, p. 427) that Leucius
was a disciple of John and joined his master
in opposing the Ebionites. Church writers
frequently reject the doctrine of heretical
apocrypha and yet accept stories told in such
documents as true, provided there were no
The testimonies we have cited are not earlier than the 4th cent., and several of them speak of Leucius as a Manichean; but Grabe, Cave, Mill, Beausobre, Lardner, and others consider that he lived in the 2nd cent.; and, as he therefore could not have been a Manichean, was probably a Marcionite. Some have identified him with the Marcionite LUCANUS. But no Marcionite would have chosen for the heroes of his narrative the Jewish apostles, John, Thomas, and Andrew. Beausobre (Manichésme, i. 350) gives six arguments for the early date of Leucius, not one of which is conclusive, all being vitiated by the tacit assumption that Leucius was a real person, and not, as we hold, merely the fictitious name of an imaginary disciple of St. John, whom the forger chose to make the narrator of the story.
Zahn (Acta Johannis, 1880) published some
new fragments of Leucius, which increase our
power of recognizing as Leucian things which
different fathers have told without naming
their authority. The Leucian character of
these fragments is verified by various coincidences
with the old. Names recur, e.g.
Lycomedes. There is a story of a miracle
performed on one Drusiana, who had submitted
to die rather than have intercourse
with her husband. This agrees with that
of Maximilla and Egeas in revealing the violently
Encratite principles of the author; cf.
that told in the Acts of Thomas (Tischendorf,
Acta Apoc. p. 200). Zahn has argued the case
for the early date of Leucius in a much more
scientific way than previous supporters of the
same thesis. He tries to shew that there are
statements in earlier writers really derived
from Leucius, though his name is not given.
All Zahn's arguments do not seem to us conclusive,
yet enough remains valid to lead us
to regard the Leucian Acts as of the same age
as the travels of Peter (which are the basis of
the Clementines) and the Acts of Paul and
Thecla. When a writer, who in one place
quotes Leucius, elsewhere makes statements we
know to be Leucian, they doubtless come from
Leucius though he does not there name his
authority; e.g. Epiphanius names Leucius only
once, but we may safely count as derived from
Leucius his reference to the manner of John's
death (Haer. 79, 5) and to John's virginity
(ib. 28, 7; 78, 10). Further, in the immediate
context of the passage where Epiphanius
names Leucius, he names other heretics of the
apostolic age, and the presumption that he
found these names in Leucius becomes almost
a certainty when in one of the new Leucian
fragments one of them, Cleobius, is found as
that of a person in John's company. Other
names in the same context are Claudius, Merinthus,
and the Pauline Demas and Hermogenes;
concerning whom see the Acts of Thecla and
the so-called Dorotheus (Paschal Chron. ed.
Dindorf, ii. 124). The Augustinian and Hieronymian
notices may be treated similarly.
We can identify as Leucian several statements
We next enumerate some of the statements
which may be characterized as Leucian, naming
some of the early writers who have repeated
them. (1) A Leucian fragment (Zahn,
p. 247) tells how John's virginity had been
preserved by a threefold interposition of our
Lord, breaking off the Apostle's designs each
time that he attempted to marry. There is a
clear reference to this story in a sermon
ascribed to Augustine (Mai, Nov. Pat. Bib. I.
i. 378), and from this source probably so many
of the Fathers have derived their opinion of
John's virginity, concerning which the canonical
Scriptures say nothing (Ambros. de Inst.
Virg. viii. 50, vol. iii. 324; Ambrosiaster on
II. Cor. xi. 2, vol. iv. 2, 232; Hieron. in Isaiam,
c. 56, vol. iv. p. 658; adv. Jovin. I. 26, vol. ii.
278; August. cont. Faust. xxx. vol. x. 535, in
Johan. c. 21, vol. iv. 1082; Epiph. Haer. 58,
4). The Leucian Acts, in conformity with
their strong Encratism, seem to have dwelt
much on the apostle's virginity, describing
this as the cause of our Lord's love to him,
and as the reason for his many privileges,
particularly the care of the virgin mother. In
Pistis Sophia the name of the apostle John has
usually the title
ὁ παρθένος
appended, and we may therefore set down Pistis Sophia as
post-Leucian, but uncertainty as to its date prevents
us from drawing any further inference.
The earliest mention of John's virginity is
found in the epithet "spado" given to St.
John by Tertullian (de Monog. 17), whence
Zahn infers that Tertullian must have used the
Acts of Leucius. We think Zahn does not
sufficiently allow for the probability in the case
of one who is said to have lived so long, that a
true tradition that he never married might
have been preserved in the churches of Asia.
Zahn contends that because Jerome uses the
word "eunuchus" not "spado," he is not copying
Tertullian, but that both writers use a
common source, viz. Leucius. But when the
passage in Tertullian is read with the rest of
the treatise, it appears more likely that the
epithet is Tertullian's own. (2) Other evidence
of Tertullian's acquaintance with Leucius is
found in his story of St. John's having been
cast into burning oil. Speaking of Rome he
says, "Ubi apostolus Johannes, posteaquam
in oleum igneum demersus nihil passus est, in
insulam relegatur." What was Tertullian's
authority? Now, though none of the extant
fragments of Leucius relate to this, yet that
these Acts contained the story is probable from
the following evidence. Jerome (vol. vii.
p. 655) commenting on
(3) An acquaintance with Leucius by Clement of Alexandria has been inferred from the agreement of both in giving on John's authority a Docetic account of our Lord. The "traditions of Matthias" may have been Clement's authority; but that John is appealed to no doubt gives probability to the conjecture that Clement's source is the Acts which treat of St. John, a probability increased on an examination of the story told by Clement (Hypotyp. ap. Eus. H. E. vi. 14) as to John's composition of Fourth Gospel at the request of his friends. In the Muratorian Fragment the request is urged by the apostle's fellow-bishops in Asia; he asks them to fast three days, begging for a revelation of God's will, and then it is revealed to Andrew that John is to write. The stories of Clement and the Muratorian writer are too like to be independent; yet it is not conceivable that one copied from the other; therefore they doubtless used a common authority, who was not Papias, else Eusebius, when he quotes the passage from Clement, would scarcely have failed to mention it. Now, several later writers (Jerome in pref. to Comm. on Matt., a writing pub. as St. Augustine's—Mai, Nov. Pat. Bibl. I. i. 379—Victorinus in his Scholia on the Apoc., Galland. iv. 59; and others, see Zahn, p. 198) tell the same story, agreeing, however, in additional particulars, which shew that they did not derive their knowledge from either the Muratorian writer or Clement. Thus they tell that the cause of the request that John should write was the spread of Ebionite heresy, which required that something should be added concerning the divinity of our Lord to what St. John's predecessors had told about His humanity; and that, in answer to their prayers, the apostle, filled with the Holy Ghost, burst into the prologue, "In the beginning was the Word." Other verbal coincidences make it probable that this story was found in the Acts of Leucius, which Epiphanius tells us contained an account of John's resistance to the Ebionite heresy; and if so, Leucius is likely to have been Clement's authority also.
Combining the probabilities under the three heads enumerated, there seems reasonable ground for thinking that the Leucian Acts were 2nd cent., and known to Clement and Tertullian. Irenaeus, however, shews no sign of acquaintance with them, and Clement must have had some other source of Johannine traditions, his story of John and the robber being, as Zahn owns, not derived from Leucius; for no later writer who tells the story shews any sign of having had any source of information but Clement.
We cannot follow Zahn in combining the two statements of Theodoret (Haer. Fab. iii. 4) that the Quartodecimans appealed to St. John's authority, and that they used apocryphal Acts, and thence inferring that Leucius represented St. John as sanctioning the Quartodeciman practice. If so, we think other traces of this Leucian statement would have remained. Theodoret would have found in Eusebius that the churches of Asia appealed to St. John as sanctioning their practice, and that may have been a true tradition.
A brief notice will suffice of other probable contents of the work of Leucius. He appears to have mentioned the exile to Patmos, and as resulting from a decree of the Roman emperor; but that the emperor was not named is likely from the variations of subsequent writers. Zahn refers to Leucius the story of St. John and the partridge, told by Cassianus, who elsewhere shews acquaintance with Leucius. A different story of a partridge is told in a non-Leucian fragment (Zahn, 190). The Leucian Acts very possibly contained an account of the Virgin's death. [MELLITUS.] But the most important of the remaining Leucian stories is that concerning St. John's painless death. Leucius appears to have given what purported to be the apostle's sermon and Eucharistic prayer on the last Sunday of his life. Then after breaking of bread—there is no mention of wine—the apostle commands Byrrhus (the name occurs in the Ignatian epistles as that of an Ephesine deacon) to follow him with two companions, bringing spades with them. In a friend's burying-place they dig a grave, in which the apostle laid himself down, and with joyful prayer blessed his disciples and resigned his soul to God. Later versions give other miraculous details; in particular that which Augustine mentions (in Johann. xxi. vol. 3, p. 819), that St. John lay in the grave not dead but sleeping, the dust heaped over him showing his breathing by its motions. For other Johannine stories, see PROCHORUS.
Besides the Acts Leucius has been credited
with a quantity of other apocryphal literature.
If, as we believe, he is only a fictitious personage,
it is likely enough that the author of the
romance wrote other like fictions, though our
information is too scanty for us to identify his
work. But there is no trustworthy evidence
that he affixed the name of Leucius to any composition
besides the Acts of Peter and John.
>From the nature of the case an apostle's martyrdom
must be related by one of the apostles'
disciples, but such a one would not be regarded
as a competent witness to the deeds of our Lord
Liberatus (7) Diaconus, archdeacon of Carthage, a Latin writer on the Nestorian and Eutychian heresies, an account of which he wrote entitled, Breviarium Causae Nestorianorum et Eutychianorum, in which he records some circumstances of his life. He visited Rome in the pontificate of John II. on the affair of the Acoemetae order of monks (c. 20). In 535 he was deputed to Rome, with the bps. Caius and Peter, by the council of Carthage, to consult John II. as to how conforming Arian bishops should be received. They arrived about the time of the pope's death (he was buried May 27, 535), and his successor Agapetus (consecrated June 3, 535) replied to the synod by the three envoys (Mansi, viii. 849) Liberatus was an ardent defender of the Three Chapters, and undertook many journeys in that cause. On his return home he composed his Breviarum, so named as being an abridgment in 24 chapters of a history which, beginning with the ordination of Nestorius in 428, reached to the meeting of the fifth synod in 553. The work was probably written c. 560. Liberatus intimates in his preface that he collected his materials from the Ecclesiastical History which had been recently translated from the Greek into Latin (as Garnier thinks, the Historia Tripartitia of Cassiodorus), from the Acts of the councils, and from episcopal letters. The Breviarum was ed. with copious notes and dissertations by Garnier in 1675 (8vo, Paris), and this ed. is reprinted by Migne (Patr. Lat. lxviii. 969). Accounts of Liberatus will be found in Dupin (Eccl. Wr. t. i. p. 558, ed. 1722), Ceillier (xi. 303), Cave (i. 527), Fabric. (Bibl. Lat. t. iv. p. 272, ed. Mansi, 1754).
Liberius (4), ordained bp. of Rome May 22, 352 (Catalog. Liber.), as successor to Julius I. The assassination of Constans (a.d. 350) and the subsequent defeat of Magnentius in 351 had left Constantius sole emperor. New charges against Athanasius were sent to the emperor and Julius the pope, and the latter dying before they reached him, the hearing of fell to his successor Liberius. These charges were that Athanasius had influenced Constans against Constantius, corresponded with Magnentius, used an unconsecrated church in Alexandria, and disregarded an imperial summons calling him to Rome (Athan. Apol. ad Constantium). They were considered, together with an encyclic of 75 Egyptian bishops in behalf of Athanasius, by a council under Liberius at Rome in 352, and on this occasion the first charge of compliance with heresy is alleged against Liberius. Among the fragments of Hilary (Fragm. IV.) there is a letter purporting to be addressed by Liberius to his "beloved brethren and fellow-bishops throughout the East," declaring that he agrees and communicates with them; and that Athanasius, having been summoned to Rome and refused to come, is out of communion with himself and the Roman church. Bower (Hist. of the Popes), Tillemont (Vie de S. Athan. t. viii. art. 64, note 68), and Milman (Lat. Christ. bk. i. c. 2), accept this letter as genuine. Baronius, the Benedictine editors of the works of Hilary, Hefele (Conciliengesch. bk. v. § 73)—the last very positively—reject it as an Arian forgery; their principal, if not only, ground being the improbability of his writing it.
The death of Magnentius in the autumn of 353 left Constantius entirely free to follow his own heretical bent, when Liberius certainly stood forth as a fearless champion of the cause under imperial disfavour. He sent Vincentius of Capua, with Marcellus, another bp. of Campania, to the emperor, requesting him to call a council at Aquileia to settle the points at issue. Constantius being himself at Arles, summoned one there, which was attended in behalf of Liberius by legates. The main object of the leaders of the council, in which Valens and Ursacius took a prominent part, was to extort from the legates a renunciation of communion with Athanasius. After a fruitless attempt to obtain from the dominant party a simultaneous condemnation of Arius, the legates at length complied. Paulinus of Treves refused, and was consequently banished (Sulp. Sev. l. 2; Hilar. Libell. ad Const.; id. in Fragm.; Epp. Liber. ad Const. et Eus.). Liberius, on hearing the result, wrote to Hosius of Cordova much distressed by the weakness of his messenger Vincentius, and to Caecilianus, bp. of Spoletum (Hilar. Fragm. VI.).
Subsequently (a.d. 354), most of the Western
bishops having, under fear or pressure,
expressed agreement with the East, Lucifer,
bp. of Cagliari, being then in Rome, was, at
his own suggestion, sent by Liberius to the
emperor, to demand another council. The
result was a council at Milan in the beginning
of 355, attended by 300 Western bishops and
but few Easterns. In spite of the bold remonstrances
of Eusebius of Vercelli, Lucifer,
Dionysius of Milan, and others, the condemnation
of Athanasius was decreed, and
required to be signed by all under pain of
banishment. The pope's three legates were
among the few who refused and were condemned
to exile (see Sulp. Sev. l. 2; Athan.
Hist. Arian. ad Monachos). Liberius at Rome
still stood firm. He wrote to Eusebius (ap. Act.
Eus.) congratulating him on his steadfastness,
and sent an encyclic (ib. et Hilar. Fragm. VI.)
to all the exiled confessors, encouraging them,
and expressing his expectation of soon suffering
like them. The emperor failed to turn him by
threats or bribes. Finally Leontius, the prefect
of Rome, was ordered to apprehend him
and he was taken to Milan (see Athan. op. cit.
c. 35 seq.). Theodoret (l. ii. c. 13) recounts in
detail his interview with the emperor there.
No sufficient grounds exist for doubting the genuineness of the fragment of Hilary which contains these letters, or of the letters themselves. It is resolutely denied by Hefele (Conciliengeschichte, Bd. v. § 81) and by the Jesuit Stilting in the work of the Bollandists (Acts SS. Sept. t. vi. on Liberius), but their arguments are weak, resting chiefly on alleged historical difficulties and on the style of the letters. All the great Protestant critics accept them; and among the Roman Catholics Natalis Alexander, Tillemont, Fleury, Dupin, Ceillier, Montfaucon, Constant, and Möhler. Dr. Döllinger does the same. Dr. Newman also (Arians of the Fourth Century) quotes them without any note of suspicion. Baronius accepts the letters to the Eastern bishops and to Vincentius, but rejects that to Valens and Ursacius, though only on the ground of its implied statement that Athanasius had been excommunicated by the Roman church. A refutation of Hefele's arguments is contained in P. le Page Renouf's Condemnation of Pope Honorius (Longmans, 1868), from which an extract, bearing on the subject, is given in Appendix to the Eng. trans. of Hefele's work (Clark, Edin. 1876). Even if the fragment of Hilary could be shewn to be spurious, the general fact of the fall of Liberius would remain indisputable, being attested by Athanasius (Hist. Arian. 41; Apol. contr. Arian. 89), Hilary (contra Const. Imp. 11), Sozomen (iv. 15), and Jerome (Chron. et de Vir. Illustr. 97). It was never questioned till comparatively recent times, when a few papal partisans—especially Stilting (loc. cit.), Franz Anton Zaccaria (Dissert. de Commentitio Liberii lapsu), Professor Palma (Praelect. Histor. Eccles. t. i. pt. ii. Romae, 1838)—have taken up his defence, relying primarily on the silence of Theodoret, Socrates, and Sulpicius Severus on his fall. Others, as Hefele, endeavour to extenuate its extent and culpability.
In the letter to the Eastern bishops Liberius
speaks of having already accepted the
exposition of the faith agreed upon "by many
brethren and fellow-bishops" at Sirmium. It
is a little uncertain what confession is here
meant. There had been two noted synods
of Sirmium and both had issued expositions
of doctrine. The first in 351, assembled by
the Eusebians, adopted a confession which
asserted against Photinus and Marcellus of
Ancyra the pre-existent divinity of the Son
before His human birth and, but for its
omission of the term consubstantial,
was not heretical. Hilary of Poictiers
(de Syn. 38 sqq.)
allows it to be orthodox. Baronius and the
Benedictine editors of Hilary (with whom
agrees Dr. Döllinger in his Papst-fabeln des
Mittelalters) maintain that this was the creed
accepted by Liberius at Beroea. The formula
of the second Sirmian synod, assembled in 357
by Constantius at the instance of the Anomaeans,
prohibited both the definitions,
homoousios and homoiousios,
as being beyond
the language of Scripture, and declared the
Father to be in honour, dignity, and majesty
greater than the Son, and, by implication,
that the Father alone may be defined as
without beginning, invisible, immortal, impassible.
The doctrine expressed was essentially that of
the Homoeans, though the phrase "like-unto
the Father," from which they got their name,
was not yet adopted. This may have been
the creed accepted by Liberius at Beroea.
His credit is not much saved by supposing it
to have been the former one, since his letters
are sufficient evidence of his pliability.
Whichever it was, his acceptance was not
enough to satisfy the emperor, who, having
gone from Rome to Sirmium, summoned him
thither, where he was required to sign a new
formula, apparently prepared for the occasion.
This was, according to Sozomen, concocted
from three sources: first, the creed of the old
Antiochene council of 269, in which the term
consubstantial, alleged to be used heretically
so as to compromise the Son's Personality by
Paul of Samosta, was condemned; secondly,
one of the creeds issued by the Eusebian
council at Antioch in 341, which omitted
Liberius was now allowed to return to Rome. Felix was compelled by the populace to retire from the city after tumults and bloodshed. Attempting afterwards to obtain a church beyond the Tiber, he was again expelled.
Two ways have been resorted to of excusing, in some degree, the compliance of Liberius. One, taken by Baronius and Hefele, is that the formulae he subscribed were capable of being understood in an orthodox sense, and so subscribed by him, though otherwise intended by the emperor: that "Liberius renounced the formula ὁμοουσιος, not because he had fallen from orthodoxy, but because he had been made to believe that formula to be the cloak of Sabellianism and Photinism" (Hefele). Baronius, however, condemns him so far as to say that his envy of Felix and his longing for the adulation to which he had been used at Rome led to his weakness. The other way is that of Bellarmine, who acknowledges his external but denies his internal assent to heresy: a view which saves his infallibility at the expense of his morality. The facts remain that in his letters from Beroea he proclaimed his renunciation of Athanasius and his entire agreement and communion with the Easterns, and that at Sirmium he signed a confession drawn up by semi-Arians, which was intended to express rejection of the orthodoxy for which he had once contended. Athanasius, Sozomen, Hilary, and Jerome all allude to his temporary compliance with heresy in some form as a known and undoubted fact. Athanasius, however, unlike Hilary, speaks of it with noble tolerance. He says, "But they (i.e. certain great bishops] not only supported me with arguments, but also endured exile; among them being Liberius of Rome. For, if he did not endure the affliction of his exile to the end, nevertheless he remained in banishment for two years, knowing the conspiracy against me" (Apol. contra Arian. 89). Again, "Moreover Liberius, having been banished, after two years gave way, and under fear of threatened death subscribed. But even this proves only their [i.e. the Arians'] violence, and his hatred of heresy; for he supported me as long as he had free choice" (Hist. Arian. ad Monach. 41). Once in possession of his see and surrounded by his orthodox supporters, Liberius appears to have resumed his old position of resolute orthodoxy. In 359 were held the two councils at Ariminum in the West and Seleucia in the East, resulting in the almost universal acceptance for a time of the Homoean formula, which Constantius was now persuaded to force upon the church in the hope of reconciling disputants. This called forth the famous expression of Jerome (Dial. adv. Lucifer. 19), "The whole world groaned, and wondered to find itself Arian." Liberius was not present at Ariminum, nor is there any reason to suppose that he assented to the now dominant confession. Jerome's language is rhetorical, and, on the other hand, Theodoret (H. E. ii. 22) gives a letter from a synod of Italian and Gallican bishops held at Rome under pope Damasus, stating that the Ariminian formula had the assent neither of the bp. of Rome, whose judgment was beyond all others to be expected, nor of Vincentius, nor of others besides.
The death of Constantius (a.d. 361) and the accession of Julian the Apostate having left the orthodox free from direct persecution, Athanasius returned once more in triumph to Alexandria (a.d. 362). In the council, famous for its reassertion of orthodoxy, then held at Alexandria, Liberius seems to have taken no prominent part. The glory of restoring orthodoxy and peace to the church is mainly due, not to the bp. of Rome, but to Athanasius, Eusebius of Vercelli, and Hilary of Poictiers.
Liberius comes next under notice in the last year of his episcopate, and during the reign of Valentinian and Valens, who became, at the beginning of 364, emperors of the West and East respectively, Valentinian being a Catholic, Valens an extreme and persecuting Arian. His persecutions extending to the semi-Arians as well as to the orthodox, caused the former to incline to union with the latter and to the position that the difference between them was one rather of words than of doctrine. They came about this time to be called Macedonians, and now turned to the Western emperor and the Roman bishop for support in their distress, sending three bishops as a deputation to Valentinian and Liberius, with instructions to communicate with the church of Rome and to accept the term "consubstantial." Valentinian was absent in Gaul, but Liberius received them (a.d. 366). At first he rejected their overtures because of their implication in heresy. They replied that they had now repented, and had already acknowledged the Son to be in all things like unto the Father, and that this expression meant the same as "consubstantial." He required a written confession of their faith. They gave him one, in which they referred to the letters brought by them from the Eastern bishops to him and the other Western bishops; anathematized Arius, the Sabellians, Patripassians, Marcionists, Photinians, Marcellianists, and the followers of Paul of Samosata; condemned the creed of Ariminum as entirely repugnant to the Nicene faith; and declared their entire assent to the Nicene creed. They concluded by saying that if any one had any charge against them, they were willing it should be heard before such orthodox bishops as Liberius might approve. Liberius now admitted them to communion, and dismissed them with letters, in the name of himself and the other Western bishops, to the bishops of the East who had sent the embassy.
Liberius died in the autumn of 366 (Marcell. and Faust.), having thus had a notable opportunity of atoning by his latest official act for his previous vacillation.
His extant writings are the letters referred
Licentius (1). [ROMANIANUS.]
Linus (1), accounted the first bp.
of Rome
after the apostles, and identified by Irenaeus
(iii. 2) with the Linus from whom St. Paul sent
greetings to Timothy
(
Under the name of Linus are extant two tracts purporting to contain the account of the martyrdom of SS. Peter and of Paul. These were first printed in 1517 by Faber Stapulensis as an appendix to his Comm. on Saint Paul's Epistles. These Acts of Linus have so many features common with the Leucian Acts [LEUCIUS] that the question arises whether we have not in Linus either a translation of a portion of the collection described by Photius or at least a work for which that collection supplied materials. Linus does not profess to give a complete account of the acts of the two apostles. He begins by briefly referring to (as if already known to his readers) the contest of St. Peter and Simon Magus, his imprisonments and other sufferings and labours, and then proceeds at once to the closing scenes. The stories of the martyrdom of the two apostles are quite distinct, there being no mention of Paul in the first nor of Peter in the second. The apostles' deaths are immediately brought about, not by Nero himself, but by his prefect Agrippa, a name, we may well believe, transferred by a chronological blunder from the reign of Augustus. This name, as well as some others mentioned by pseudo-Linus, occur also in the orthodox Acts of Peter and Paul published by Tischendorf and by Thilo. The alleged cause of Agrippa's animosity exhibits strongly the Encratite character common to Linus and the Leucian Acts. St. Peter, we are told, by his preaching of chastity had caused a number of matrons to leave the marriage bed of their husbands, who were thus infuriated against the apostle.
The intention to destroy Peter is revealed
by MARCELLUS
and other disciples, who pressingly entreat him to save himself by withdrawing from Rome.
Among those who thus urge him are his jailors, Martinianus and
Processus, who had already received baptism
from him, and who represent that the plan to
destroy Peter is entirely the prefect's own and
has no sanction from the emperor, who seems
to have forgotten all about the apostle.
Then follows the well-known story of Domino
quo vadis. St. Peter yields to his friends'
entreaties, and consents to leave Rome, but at
the gate he meets our Lord coming in, Who, on
being asked whither He is going, replies, "To
Rome, in order to be crucified again." The
apostle understands that in his person his Master
is to be crucified, and returns to suffer. Linus
tells of the arrest of Peter, and lays the scene of
the crucifixion at the Naumachia near Nero's
obelisk on the mountain. St. Peter requests to
be crucified head downwards, desiring out of
humility not to suffer in the same way as his
Master. A further reason is given,, that in this
way his disciples will be better able to hear his
words spoken on the cross, and a mystical
explanation is given of the inverted position which
bears a very Gnostic character. An alleged
saying of our Lord is quoted which strongly
resembles a passage from the Gospel according
to the Egyptians, cited by Julius Cassianus
(Clem. Al. Strom. iii. 13, p. 553 see also
Clem.
The second book, which treats of St. Paul,
relates the success of his preaching at Rome.
The emperor's teacher, his hearer and close
friend, when he cannot converse with him,
corresponds with him by letter. The emperor's
attention is called to the matter by a
miracle worked by Paul on his favourite
cupbearer, Patroclus, of whom a story is told
exactly reproducing that told of Eutychus in
Acts. Nero orders St. Paul's execution, Paul
turns his face to the east, offers a prayer in
Hebrew, blesses the brethren, binds his eyes
with a veil lent by a Christian matron, Plautilla,
and presents his neck to the executioner. From
his trunk there flows a stream of milk—a circumstance
referred to by Ambrose and by Macarius in a
work not later than c. 400. A
dazzling light makes the soldiers unable to find
the veil; returning to the gate they find that
Plautilla has already received it back from Paul,
who has visited her accompanied by a band of
white-robed angels. The same evening, the
doors being shut, Paul appears to the emperor,
foretells his impending doom, and terrifies him
Lipsius infers, from the coincidences of the tolerably numerous N.T. citations in Linus with the Vulg., that our present Latin Linus must be later than Jerome; but he does not seem to have appreciated the conservative character of Jerome's revision or to have consulted the older versions. We have found no coincidence with the Vulg. which is not equally a coincidence with an older version; and in one case, "relinque mortuos sepelire mortuos suos," the text agrees with the quotations of Ambrose, Jerome's translation being "dimitte." We conjecture the compiler to have been a Manichean, but he is quite orthodox in his views as to the work of creation, the point on which Gnostic speculation was most apt to go astray.
Lucanus (1), or Lucianus, Marcionite (Lucanus, Pseudo-Tert. 18; Philast. 46, and so probably their source, the Syntagma of Hippolytus; Tertull. de Resur. Carn. 2; Λουκᾶνος, Orig. cont. Cels. ii. 27; on the other hand, Λουκιανός Hippol. Ref. vii. 37; Epiph. Haer. 43). The former is the better attested form, and more likely to have been altered into the other. The Lucianites are reckoned as a sect distinct from the Marcionites, as well by Origen as by Hippolytus and his followers; but lack of authentic report of any important difference in doctrine leads us to believe that Lucanus did not separate from Marcion, but that after the latter's death Lucanus was a Marcionite teacher (probably at Rome), whose celebrity caused his followers to be known by his name rather than by that of the original founder of the sect. They may have been so called in contradistinction to the Marcionites of the school of Apelles, who approached more nearly to the orthodox. Origen's language (οἶμαι) implies that he had no very intimate knowledge of the teaching of Lucanus; he will not speak positively as to whether Lucanus tampered with the Gospels. Epiphanius owns that, the sect being extinct in his time, he had difficulty in obtaining accurate information about it. Tertullian alone (u.s.) seems to have direct knowledge of the teaching of Lucanus. He accuses him of going beyond other heretics who merely denied the resurrection of the body, and of maintaining that not even the soul would rise, but some other thing, neither soul nor body. Neander (Ch. Hist. ii. 189) interprets this to mean that Lucanus held that the ψυχή would perish and the πνεῦμα alone be immortal; and possibly this may be so, though Tertullian's language would lead us to attribute to Lucanus a theory more peculiar to himself than this would be. Some commentators, taking a jest of Tertullian's too literally, have, without good reason, ascribed to Lucanus a doctrine of transmigration of souls of men into bodies of brutes. They have, however, the authority of Epiphanius (Haer. 42, p. 330) for regarding this doctrine as one likely to be held by a Marcionite. Lucanus has been conjectured to be the author of the apocryphal Acts which bore the name of LEUCIUS, and Lardner treats the identification as certain. Even, however, if it were certain that the Acts of Leucius were Marcionite, not Manichean, and as early as the 2nd cent., there is no ground for this identification but the similarity of name.
Lucianus (8), a famous satirist, the wittiest, except Aristophanes, of all the extant writers of antiquity. Born (probably c. 120) at Samosata on the Euphrates, the son of poor parents, he gradually betook himself to the composing and reciting of rhetorical exercises, which he did with continually increasing success as he journeyed westwards, visiting Greece, Italy, and Gaul, where his success reached the highest pitch. As in course of time his rhetorical vein exhausted itself, he betook himself, when about 40 years old, to that style of writing-dialogue on which his permanent fame has rested. About the same time he returned eastwards through Athens, and was at Olympia in a.d. 165, when he saw the extraordinary self-immolation by fire of the sophist Peregrinus. A little later he visited Paphlagonia, where he vehemently attacked, and made a bitter enemy of, the impostor Alexander of Abonoteichos. Of the extraordinary success of this man in deluding the weak and credulous minds of the rude people of those parts, and even the cultivated senators of Rome, Lucian has left us an animated account in the False Prophet (ψευδόμαντις). Lucian once had an interview with him, and stooping down, instead of kissing his hand, as was the custom, bit it severely. Luckily he had a guard of two soldiers with him, sent by his friend the governor of Cappadocia (a proof of Lucian's importance at this time), or he would have fared badly at the hands of the attendants of Alexander. The latter pretended reconciliation, and subsequently lent Lucian a ship to return home in, but gave secret instructions to the crew to throw him overboard on the voyage. The master of the ship, however, repented, and Lucian was landed at Aegialos, and thence conveyed to Amastris in a ship belonging to the ambassadors of king Eupator. He endeavoured to get Alexander punished for this piece of treachery, but the latter's influence was too strong. Of his later years we know but little; he was, however, appointed by the emperor (probably Commodus) to a post of honour and emolument in Egypt.
We do not know the cause, manner, or time
of his death. His writings, with all their
brilliancy, do not convey the impression of a
warm-hearted man; the Peregrinus is
especially noticeable for the hard unconcern with
which he describes both the self-sacrificing
love of the Christians and the tragic self-sought
death of the sophist. For cool common sense and
determination to see everything in its naked reality,
apart from the disturbing influences of hope,
fear, enthusiasm,
or superstition, he has never in any age been
surpassed. His most essential characteristic
could not be better described than in his own
words, in the dialogue entitled
Ἁλιεύς,
or the Fisherman: "I am a hater of imposture,
jugglery, lies, and ostentation, and in short
of all that rascally sort of men; and there
are very many of them" (§ 20). Shortly
For a complete analysis of his works see D. of G. and R. Biogr., s.v. Here it must suffice to indicate his relations to the religious influence of his time, and, above all, to Christianity.
The progress of experience, the leisure of research, had in his time shattered all real belief in the gods of ancient Greece and Rome in the minds of cultured men. But the vast crowd of deities, which the conflux of so many nations under the protecting shadow of Rome had gathered together, received, collectively and separately, a certain respect from the most incredulous. To the statesman, the gods of Rome were the highest symbol of the power of the imperial city; as such, he required for them external homage, to refuse which might be construed as rebellion against the state. Philosophers feared lest, if the particular acts of special deities were too rudely criticized, the reverence due to the gods in their remote and abstract sanctity might decay. Hence both classes favoured the sway of religious beliefs to which they had themselves ceased to adhere. The multitude was tossed about from religion to religion, from ceremony to ceremony, from rite to rite, in the vain hope that among so many supernatural powers some might lead men rightly to safety and happiness. The urgent need felt for guidance and the actual deficiency of sound guidance formed a combination favourable to the designs of greedy impostors. The Stoic philosophers, it is true, had formed a moral system capable of impressing on intellectual minds a remarkable self-restraint and large elements of virtue. But in hopefulness, the living sap which gives virtue its vitality, the Stoic was grievously deficient; and hence his philosophy was powerless with the multitude, and apt to degenerate into a hypocritical semblance even with its learned professors. There probably was never a time when so great a variety of hypocrisies and false beliefs prevailed among men. Such a world Lucian, with a cold, penetrating intellect, described with an audacity seldom paralleled. The ordinary method of his satire on the mythology of Greece and Rome consists in simply exhibiting the current legends as he finds them, stripped of the halo of awe and splendour with which they had habitually been surrounded, to the amused and critical reader. Sometimes his attack is more direct—as in the Ζεὺς Τραγῳδός, Jupiter the Tragedian, where the plain insinuation is that the general profession of belief in the gods was simply occasioned by the odium and alarm which a contrary assertion would excite. Not so sweeping in extent, but still more unreserved in exposing the doings of the heathen deities, is the treatise περὶ θυσιῶν, on Sacrifices. The Ζεὺς Τραγῳδός shews Lucian's disbelief in any divine governance of the world; the treatise περὶ πένθους, on Mourning, his disbelief in immortality.
But what was Lucian's attitude towards Christianity, which in his age was beginning to be known as no inconsiderable power in all parts of the Roman world? Two dialogues have to be considered in answering this question—Ἀλέξανδρος ἢ Ψσευδόμαντις, Alexander, or the False Prophet; and περὶ τῆς Περεγρίνου τελευτῆς, Concerning the death of Peregrinus; for the Philopatris may be dismissed at once as pretty certainly no genuine work of its reputed author.
The most sympathetic allusion to the Christians by the genuine Lucian is in the "Alexander," where the Christians are joined with the Epicureans (whom Lucian much admired) as persistent and indomitable opponents of that fine specimen of rascality. A much fuller and more interesting account of the Christians is contained in the other work named. This (together with the Philopatris) was placed on the Index Expurgatorius, and hence does not appear in the first and second Aldine editions of Lucian (Venice, 1503 and 1522). Yet all that it says about the early Christians is very highly to their credit, except in attributing to them a too great εὐήθεια, a simplicity and guilelessness which rendered them liable to be deceived by worthless pretenders to sanctity. The passage contains one or two statements—that about the new Socrates, and the eating forbidden food—which it is difficult to think strictly accurate. Peregrinus Proteus was a cynic philosopher who flourished in the reign of the Antonines, and who, after a life of singularly perverted ambition, burnt himself publicly at the Olympian games, a.d. 165. We quote the passage from Francklin's translation:
"About this time it was that he learned
the wonderful wisdom of the Christians, being
intimately acquainted with many of their
priests and scribes. In a very short time he
convinced them that they were all boys to
him; became their prophet, their leader,
grand president, and, in short, all in all to
them. He explained and interpreted several
of their books, and wrote some himself,
insomuch that they looked upon him as their
legislator and high priest, nay, almost
worshipped him as a god. Their leader, whom
they yet adore, was crucified in Palestine for
introducing this new sect. Proteus was on
this account cast into prison, and this very
circumstance was the foundation of all the
consequence and reputation which he
afterwards gained, and of that glory for which he
had always been so ambitious; for when he
was in bonds the Christians, considering it as
a calamity affecting the common cause, did
everything in their power to release him, which
when they found impracticable, they paid him
all possible deference and respect; old women,
widows, and orphans were continually crowding
to him; some of the most principal of them
even slept with him in the prison, having
bribed the keepers for that purpose; there
were costly suppers brought in to them; they
read their sacred books together, and the
noble Peregrinus (for so he was then called)
was dignified by them with the title of the
New Socrates. Several of the Christian deputies
from the cities of Asia came to assist,
to plead for, and comfort him. It is incredible
with what alacrity these people support and
defend the public cause—they spare nothing,
in short, to promote it. Peregrinus being
made a prisoner on their account, they
collected
It would seem from the above that community of goods, in some degree or other, was practised among the early Christians to a later date than is generally supposed. Lucian confirms the general opinion as to the continual liability to persecution of the Christians of those ages. Moreover, though considering them weak and deluded people, he charges them with no imposture or falsehood, though he was very prone to bring such charges. In fact, did we know nothing of the early Christians but what he here records, his account would raise our interest in them in a very high degree; even their too great simplicity is not an unlovable trait.
There is an excellent trans. of Lucian by Wieland into German (Leipz. 1788–1789, 6 vols. 8vo), and one of great merit into Eng. by Dr. Francklin in 2 vols. 4to (Lond. 1780) and 4 vols. 8vo (Lond. 1781). For other edd. and trans. see D. of G. and R. Biogr.
Lucianus (12), priest of Antioch, martyr; born at Samosata c. 240, educated at Edessa under a certain Macarius, a learned expounder of Holy Scripture (Suidas, s.v.). Lucianus went to Antioch, which held a high rank among the schools of the East and was then, owing to the controversies raised by Paulus of Samosata, the great centre of theological interest. There he was probably instructed by Malchion, who seems to have been the true founder of the celebrated Antiochene school of divines, of whom Lucian, Chrysostom, Diodorus, Theodoret, and Theodore of Mopsuestia were afterwards some of the most distinguished. During the controversies after the deposition of Paulus, Lucian seems to have fallen under suspicion. Some have thought that he cherished sentiments akin to those of Paulus himself, which were of a Sabellian character, while others think that in opposing Paulus he used expressions akin to Arianism (cf. Newman's Asians, p. 7, and c. i. § 5). This latter view is supported by the creed presented at the council of Antioch, a.d. 341, and purporting to be drawn up by St. Lucian, which is extremely anti-Sabellian. He was separated from the communion of the three immediate successors of Paulus—Domnus, Timaeus, and Cyrillus. During the episcopate of Cyrillus he was restored, and became with Dorotheus the head of the theological school, giving to it the tone of literal, as opposed to allegorical, exposition of Scripture which it retained till the time of Chrysostom and Theodore of Mopsuestia. Lucian produced, possibly with the help of Dorotheus, a revised version of the LXX, which was used, as Jerome tells us, in the churches of Constantinople, Asia Minor, and Antioch, and met with such universal acceptance that it received the name of the Vulgate (Vulgata, Κοινή), while copies of the LXX in general passed under the title of Lucianea (Westcott, Hist. of Canon, p. 360). He also wrote some doctrinal treatises, and a commentary on Job. See Routh, Reliq. Sacr. v. 3–17.
In the school of Lucian the leaders and supporters of the Arian heresy were trained. Arius himself, Eusebius of Nicomedia, Maris of Chalcedon, Leontius of Antioch, Eudoxius, Theognis of Nicaea, and Asterius appealed to him as their authority (but see ARIUS) and adopted from him the party designation of Collucianists (De Broglie, L᾿Eglise et l᾿Empire, i. 375). Lucian became afterwards more conservative, and during Diocletian's persecution he encouraged the martyrs to suffer courageously, but escaped himself till Theotecnus was appointed governor of Antioch, when he was betrayed by the Sabellian party, seized and forwarded to Nicomedia to the emperor Maximinus, where, after delivering a speech in defence of the faith, he was starved for many days, tempted with meats offered to idols, and finally put to death in prison, Jan. 7, 311 or 312. His body was buried at Drepana in Bithynia, where his relics were visited by Constantine, who freed the city from taxes and changed its name to Helenopolis. A fragment of the apology delivered by the martyr has been preserved by Rufinus and will be found in Routh, l.c. Dr. Westcott, l.c., accepts it as genuine.
As to whether Lucian the martyr and
Biblical critic was the same person as Lucian the
excommunicated heretic, Ceillier, Fleury, and
De Broglie take one side, Dr. Newman the
other. The former contend that neither
Eusebius, Jerome, nor Chrysostom mentions
his lapse in early life. But their notices are
very brief, none of them are professed biographers,
and we cannot depend much upon
mere negative evidence. On the other hand
we have the positive statements of Alexander,
bp. of Alexandria (in Theod. H. E. i. 3,
and Philostorg. H. E. ii. 14 and 15; see also
The creed of Lucian is in Hefele, Hist. of Councils, ii. 77, Clark's ed.; cf. Soz. H. E iii. 5, vi. 12. Bp. Bull maintains its authenticity and orthodoxy (Def. of Nic. Creed, lib. iv. c. xiii. vi. § 5). Wright's Syriac. Mart. Eus viii. 13, ix. 6; Chrysost. Hom. in Lucian, in Migne, Patr. Gk. t. 1. p. 520; Gieseler, H. E. i. 248; Neander, H. E. ii. 498. Neander gives the numerous references to Lucian in St. Jerome's writings.
Luciferus I., bp. of Calaris (Cagliari) ] in Sardinia, mentioned first in a letter of pope Liberius to Eusebius of Vercelli. Moved by great anxiety about the efforts then being made (a.d. 354) to procure a condemnation of Athanasius by the Western bishops, Lucifer had come from Sardinia to Rome, and Liberius accepted his offer to go as an envoy to Constantius to ask him to summon a council The council met at Milan in 354. The Arian party, supported by the emperor, was strong in it, and a proposal to condemn Athanasius was immediately brought forward, but resisted by Lucifer with such vehemence that the first day's meeting broke up in, confusion and his opponents prevailed on the emperor to confine him in the palace. On the fourth day he was released. The subsequent discussions of the council were held in the palace and Constantius himself apparently took part in them. The proceedings were irregular and disorderly, and after some personal altercations the emperor sent Lucifer into exile His banishment lasted from 355 to 361, and was mostly spent at Eleutheropolis in Palestine, subject to the persecutions of the Arian bp. Eutychius. During his banishment, and probably at Eleutheropolis, his books or pamphlets on the controversy were written. Lucifer addresses Constantius in them with a remarkable vigour of denunciation. He evidently courted persecution, and even martyrdom. He compares the emperor to the worst kings that ever reigned, and regards him as more impious than Judas Iscariot. He sent his vehement invective by a special messenger to Constantius himself. Astonished at this audacity, the emperor ordered Florentius, an officer of his court, to send the book back to Lucifer to ask if it were really his. The intrepid bishop replied that it was and sent it back again. Constantius must be allowed to have shewn magnanimity in leaving these violent effusions unpunished. There may, however, have been some additional hardship in the removal of Lucifer from Palestine to the Thebaid, where he remained till the death of Constantius in 361. Hearing of his arrival in Egypt, Athanasius sent a letter from Alexandria, full of praise and congratulations, asking him to let him see a copy of his work After receiving it, Athanasius thanked him in a still more laudatory letter, and calls him the Elias of the age.
Very soon after his accession, a.d. 361, Julian permitted the exiled bishops to return to their sees. Lucifer and Eusebius of Vercelli were both in the Thebaid, and Eusebius pressed his friend to come with him to Alexandria, where a council was to be held under the presidency of Athanasius, to attempt to heal a schism at Antioch. Lucifer preferred to go straight to Antioch, sending two deacons to act for him at the council. Taking a hasty part in the affairs of the much-divided church at Antioch, where the Catholic party was divided into two sections, the followers of Meletius and the followers of Eustathius, Lucifer ordained Paulinus, the leader of the latter section, as bp. of the church. When Eusebius arrived at Antioch, bringing the synodal letter of the council and prepared to settle matters so as to give a triumph to neither party, he was distressed to find himself thus anticipated by the action of Lucifer. Unwilling to come into open collision with his friend, he retired immediately; Lucifer stayed, and declared that he would not hold communion with Eusebius or any who adopted the moderate policy of the Alexandrian council, which had determined that those bishops who had merely consented to Arianism under pressure should remain undisturbed.
After remaining some time at Antioch, Lucifer returned to Sardinia, and continued, it would seem, to occupy his see. Jerome (Chron.) states that he died in 371. To what extent he was an actual schismatic remains obscure. St. Ambrose remarks that "he had separated himself from our communion" (de Excessu Satyri, 1127, 47); and St. Augustine, "that he fell into the darkness of schism, having lost the light of charity" (Ep. 185, note 47). But there is no mention of any separation except Lucifer's own repulsion of so many ecclesiastics; and Jerome, in his dialogue against the Luciferians (§ 20), calls him beatus and bonus pastor. (See a quotation from the Mém. de Trevoux in Ceillier, vol. iv. p. 247.)
The substance of Lucifer's controversial pamphlets consists of appeals to Holy Scripture, and they contain a very large number of quotations from both Testaments. His writings are in Migne's Patr. Lat. t. xiii. His followers, if they ever formed a distinct organization, disappeared in a few years. Jerome's dialogue adv. Luciferianos purports to be the report of a discussion between an orthodox Christian and a Luciferian. The dialogue was written c. 378, seven years after the death of Lucifer. Five or six years later an appeal was made to the emperor by the Luciferian presbyters.
Lucius (1) I., bp. of Rome, after Cornelius,
probably from June 25, 253, to
The Decian persecution having been renewed
by Gallus, and Cornelius having died
in banishment at Centumcellae, Lucius,
elected in his place at Rome, was himself
almost immediately banished. His banishment
was of very short duration; for Cyprian,
in his one extant letter addressed to him, while
Lucius (11), the third Arian intruded into the see of Alexandria, an Alexandrian by birth, ordained presbyter by George. After the murder of that prelate Lucius seems to have been regarded as head of the Arians of Alexandria; but Socrates's statement (iii. 4), that he was at that time ordained bishop, is corrected by Sozomen (vi. 5) and earlier authorities. At the accession of Jovian, according to the Chronicon Acephalum, a Maffeian fragment, four leading Arian bishops put him forward to address the new emperor at Antioch, hoping to divert Jovian's favour from Athanasius. Records of these interviews are annexed to Athanasius's epistle to Jovian, and appear to have been read by Sozomen, who summarizes the complaints urged against the great hero of orthodoxy. The records are vivid and graphic. Lucius, Bernicianus, and other Arians presented themselves to Jovian at one of the city gates when he was riding into the country. He asked their business. They said they were "Christians from Alexandria," and wanted a bishop. He answered, "I have ordered your former bishop, Athanasius, to be put in possession." They rejoined that Athanasius had for years been under accusation and sentence of banishment. A soldier interrupted them by telling the emperor that they were the "refuse" of "that unhallowed George." Jovian spurred his horse and rode away. Lucius does not reappear until 367, when, having been consecrated, says Tillemont (vi. 582), "either at Antioch, or at some other place out of Egypt," he attempted to possess himself of the bishopric, and entered Alexandria by night on Sept. 23, and "remained in a small house," next the precinct of the cathedral. In the morning he went to the house where his mother still lived; his presence excited general indignation, and the people beset the house. The prefect Latianus and the dux Trajanus sent officers to expel him, who reported that to do so publicly would imperil his life, whereupon Tatianus and Trajanus, with a large force, went to the house, and brought him out at 1 p.m. on Sept. 24. On Sept. 25 he was conducted out of Egypt (Chron. Praevium and Acephalum). Athanasius died on May 2, 373, being succeeded by Peter; but the prefect Palladius attacked the church, and Peter was either imprisoned or went into hiding. Euzoius, the old Arian bp. of Antioch, easily obtained from Valens an order to install Lucius. Accordingly Lucius appeared in Alexandria, escorted, as Peter said in his encyclical letter (Theod. iv. 25), not by monks and clergy and laity, but by Euzoius, and the imperial treasurer Magnus, at the head of a large body of soldiers; while the pagan populace intimated their friendly feeling towards the Arian bishop by hailing him as one who did not worship the Son of God and who must have been sent to Alexandria by the favour of Serapis. Lucius surrounded himself with pagan guards, and caused some of the orthodox to be beaten, others to be imprisoned, exiled, or pillaged, for refusing his communion, these severities being actually carried out by Magnus and Palladius as representing the secular power. Gregory of Nazianzus calls him a second Arius, and lays to his charge the sacrileges and barbarities of the new Arian persecution (Orat. xxv. 12, 13). He took an active part in the attack on the monks of Egypt; finding them immovably attached to the Nicene faith, he advised that their chief "abbats," the two Macarii, should be banished to a little pagan island; but when the holy men converted its inhabitants, the Alexandrian people made a vehement demonstration against Lucius, and he sent the exiles back to their cells (Neale, Hist. Alex. i. 203). When the Arian supremacy came to an end at the death of Valens, in 378, Lucius was finally ejected, and repaired to Constantinople, but the Arians of Alexandria still regarded him as their bishop (Socr. v. 3). He lived for a time at Constantinople, and contributed to the Arian force which gave such trouble to Gregory of Nazianzus, during his residence in the capital as bishop of the few Catholics, from the beginning of 379. In Nov. 380 the Arian bp. Demophilus was expelled, and Lucius went with him. Theodoret (iv. 21) confounds Lucius with another Arian prelate of that name, also a persecutor, who usurped the see of Samosata (Tillem. vi. 593).
Lucius (16) (Lleirwg, Lles, Lleufer-Mawr, Lleurwg), a mythical character represented as the first Christian king in Britain. By William of Malmesbury (Ant. Glast. ii.), and more especially by Geoffrey of Monmouth (Brit. Hist. iv. v.), besides later writers, Lucius is assigned a most important place in the Christianizing of Britain.
I. As represented by Geoffrey of Monmouth,
whose narrative has made the deepest
impression on popular history, Lucius was
descended from Brutus, the founder and first
king of Britain, and succeeded his father
Coillus, son of Meirig or Marius. Like his
father, he sought and secured the friendship
of the Romans. The fame of the Christian
miracles inspired him with such love for the
true faith that he petitioned pope Eleutherus
II. Parallel to the preceding, but without such minute details, is the legend in the Welsh Triads and genealogies, which are of very uncertain date and authority. Lleirwg, Lleurwg, or Lles, also named or surnamed Lleufer-Mawr ("the great luminary," as all the names express the idea of brightness, corresponding to the Latin Lucius), son of Coel ap Cyllin ap Caradog or Caractacus ap Bran, was a Welsh chieftain of Gwent and Morganwg in the S. of Wales. Two of the Triads (Myv. Arch. ii. 63, 68) state that he founded the church of Llandaff, which was the first in Britain, and endowed it with lands and privileges, giving the same also to all those persons who first embraced the gospel. The Welsh Triads would place him about the middle of the 2nd cent. (Rees, Welsh Saints, c. 4; Williams, Emin. Welsh. 276; Lib. Landav. by Rees, 309 n.; Lady Ch. Guest, Mabinogion, ii. 130; Stephens, Lit. Cymr. 69.)
III. In tracing the rise and growth of the legend there is comparatively little difficulty. Gildas makes no allusion to it. The earliest English author to notice it is Bede (Chron. a.d. 180): "Lucius Britanniae rex, missâ ad Eleutherium Romae episcopum epistolâ, ut Christianus efficiatur, impetrat"; and again H. E. i. c. 4.
The source from which Bede received the name of Lucius, and his connexion with Eleutherus, is shewn by Haddan and Stubbs (Counc. etc. i. 25) to have been a later interpolated form of the Catalogus Pontificum Romanorum (ap. Boll. Acta SS. 1 Apr. i. p. xxiii. Catalogi Veteres Antiquorum Pontificum). The original Catalogue, written shortly after 353, gives only the name and length of pontificate by the Roman consulships, but the interpolated copy (made c. 530) adds to the Vita S. Eleutheri "Hic accepit epistolam a Lucio Britanniae Rege ut Christianus efficeretur per ejus mandatum." Haddan and Stubbs conclude: "It would seem, therefore, that the bare story of the conversion of a British prince (temp. Eleutheri) originated in Rome during the 5th or 6th cents., almost 300 or more years after the date assigned to the story itself; that Bede in the 8th cent. introduced it into England, and that by the 9th cent. it had grown into the conversion of the whole of Britain; while the full-fledged fiction, connecting it specially with Wales and with Glastonbury, and entering into details, grew up between cents. 9 and 12."
Of the dates assigned to king Lucius there is an extreme variety, Ussher enumerating 23 from 137 to 190, and placing it in his own Ind. Chron. in 176, Nennius in 164, and Bede (Chron.) in 180, and again (H. E.) in 156. But the chronology is in hopeless confusion (see Haddan and Stubbs, i. 1–26). Ussher (Brit. Eccl. Ant. cc. iii.–vi.) enters minutely into the legend of Lucius, accepting his existence as a fact, as most other authors have done. His festival is usually Dec. 3.
IV. A final explanation of the Lucius legend was given by Dr. Harnack in 1904. in the Sitzungsberichte der Königl. Preuss. Akademie der Wissensch. xxvi.–xxvii.. A recovered fragment of the Hypotyposes of Clement of Alexandria suggested to him that the entry in the Liber Pontificalis was due to a confusion between Britannio and Britio. Dr. Harnack shews that the latter word almost undoubtedly refers to the birtha or castle of Edessa. Bede probably misread Britio in the Liber Pontificalis as Britannio, and referred the entry in consequence to Britain, whereas it relates to the conversion of Edessa in the time of Lucius Abgar IX. Harnack further shews that the original quotation was probably transferred from Julius Africanus to the Lib. Pont. See the review of the question in Eng. Hist. Rev. xxii. (1907) 769. Thus the mythic king Lucius of Britain finally disappears from history.
Lupus (2). [GERMANUS (8).]
M
Macarius (1) 1., bp. of Jerusalem, the 39th from the Apostles, Hermon being his predecessor. His accession is placed by Tillemont in 311 or 312. In a list of defenders of the faith, Athanasius (Orat. I. adv. Arian, p. 291) refers to Macarius as exhibiting "the honest and simple style of apostolical men." A letter was addressed to him and other orthodox bishops by Alexander of Alexandria (Epiph. Haer. lxix. 4, p. 730). He attended the council of Nicaea in 325 (Soz. i. 17; Theod. H. E. i. 15). During his episcopate, a.d. 326 or 327, HELENA paid her celebrated visit to Jerusalem. Macarius was commissioned by the emperor Constantine, a.d. 326, to see to the erection of a basilica on the site of the Holy Sepulchre. The emperor's letter is given by Eusebius (de Vita Const. iii. 29–32), Socrates (H. E. i. 9) and Theodoret (H. E. i. 17). Constantine subsequently (c. 330) wrote to Macarius with the other bishops of Palestine about the profanation of the sacred terebinth of Mamre by idolatrous rites (Euseb. u.s. 52, 53). The emperor also presented Macarius with a vestment of gold tissue for the administration of the sacrament of baptism, as a token of honour to the church of Jerusalem (Theod. H. E. ii. 27). The death of Macarius is placed by Sozomen (H. E. ii. 20) between the deposition of Eustathius, a.d. 331, and the council of Tyre, a.d. 335. He was succeeded by Maximus.
Macarius (9) Magnus, a writer of the end of the 4th cent. Four centuries
after, his name had sunk into almost complete oblivion, when in the course of the
image controversy a
The earliest Christian apologists defended their religion against men who had a very vague knowledge of it. But towards the close of the 3rd cent, a systematic attack was made on our religion by its most formidable adversary, Porphyry, founded on a careful study of our sacred books. Three or four of the Macarian objections have been at least ultimately derived from Porphyry. They do not appear to be verbally copied from him; and the Macarian objector places himself 300 years after St. Paul's death, which, with every allowance for round numbers, is too late for Porphyry. Again, there is scarcely any resemblance between the objections in Macarius and what we know of those of the emperor Julian. Great part of these last is directed against the O.T., those of Macarius almost exclusively against the New; and the Macarian objections are not attacks of a general nature on the Christian scheme, but rather attempts to find error or self-contradiction in particular texts e.g. how could Jesus say, "Me ye have not always," and yet "I am with you always, even to the end of the world"? Intermediate in time between Porphyry and Julian was Hierocles, and Duchesne ably advocates the view that the discussion in Macarius is fictitious, and that his book contains a literal transcript of parts of the lost work of Hierocles. We are ourselves inclined to believe that while no doubt Macarius or the heathen philosophers whom he encountered drew the substance of their arguments, and even in some cases their language, from previous heathen writings, yet on the whole the wording is Macarius's own. We give a few specimens of the objections with Macarius's solutions, with a warning that the selection is scarcely fair to Macarius, since it is not worth while printing such of his answers as an apologist of to-day would give.
Ob. Jesus told His disciples "Fear not them who can kill the body," yet when danger was threatening Himself, He prayed in an agony that the suffering might pass away. His words then were not worthy of a Son of God, nor even of a wise man who despises death.
Sol. We must see what it was our Lord really feared, when He prayed. The
devil had seen so many proofs of His divinity that he dared not assault Him again,
and so there was danger that that Passion which was to be the salvation of the world
should never take place. Our Lord dissembles, therefore, and pretends to fear death,
and thus deceiving the devil, hastens the hour of his assault; for when He prayed
that His cup might pass, what He
Ob. How can Jesus say "Moses wrote of Me," when nothing at all of the writings of Moses has been preserved? All were burnt with the temple, and what we have under the name of Moses was written 1,180 years after his death by Ezra and his company.
Sol. When Ezra rewrote the books of Moses, he restored them with perfect accuracy as they had been before: for it was the same Spirit Who taught them both.
Ob. "If they drink any deadly thing it shall not hurt them." If so, candidates for bishoprics ought to be tested by offering them a cup of poison. If they dare not drink, they ought to own that they do not really believe the words of Jesus; and if they have not faith for the cures promised in the same context and the power to remove mountains, no ordinary Christian is now a believer, nor even any bishops or presbyters.
Sol.—Christ's words are not to be understood literally. Working cures
is no test of faith: for such are often performed by unbelievers or atheists. It
is not to be supposed Christ intended His disciples to do what He never did Himself,
and He never moved a literal mountain. What He meant by mountains was demons, and
we have in
It is important to note that St. Mark, as read by the objector and by Macarius, contained the disputed verses at the end, as is seen also from his mentioning that out of Mary Magdalen had been cast seven devils (see Orig. Adv. Cels. ii. 55). He speaks of the author of Hebrews as the Apostle, no doubt intending St. Paul. He appears to have used II. Peter (see p. 180). The phrase "the canon of the N.T." occurs p. 168.
With respect to idolatry the heathen apologist argues: None of us supposes wood or stone to be God, or thinks that if a piece be broken off an image, the power of the Deity represented is diminished. It was by way of reminder that the ancients set up temples and images, that those who come to them might think of God and make prayers according to their needs. You do not imagine a picture of your friend to be your friend; you keep it merely to remind you of him, and to do him honour. Our sacrifices are not intended to confer benefit on the Deity, but to shew the love and gratitude of the worshipper. We make our images of Deity in human form as being the most beautiful we know.
We have not space to give other answers of Macarius, though some are clever enough.
Sufficient has been quoted to show the allegorical style of interpretation which
Macarius used. Other examples could be easily added: e.g. the clouds by which
Paul expected to be caught up mean angels (p. 174); the three measures of meal (
Crusius pointed out, and the suggestion has been adopted by Möller (Schürer, Theol. Lit. Zeit. 1877, p. 521), that at the Synod of the Oak in 403, one of the accusers of Heracleidas of Ephesus was a Macarius, bp. of Magnesia. His identification with our Macarius seems highly probable. It is not a weighty objection that one of the charges brought against Heracleidas was Origenism, while Macarius, as we have seen, was largely indebted to Origen. Macarius had other grounds of hostility to Heracleidas, and we have no knowledge that his own admiration of Origen was such as to induce him to incur the charge of heresy for his sake, or to refrain from bringing the charge of Origenism against an opponent. The Magnesian Macarius sufficiently satisfies the conditions of time and place.
Duchesne conjectures that Macarius may probably have visited Rome. Of the heroes
of the Eastern church he names only Polycarp, telling of him a story found elsewhere.
Of Westerns he names Irenaeus of Lyons, Fabian of Rome, and Cyprian of Carthage.
He has the story told in the Latin Abdias (Fabric. Cod. Ap. N. T. p. 455)
of flowing milk instead of blood from St. Paul's headless body (p.
Macarius (12), presbyter of Athanasius. Early in his episcopate, perhaps in 329 or 330 (if his consecration was on June 8, 328, as Hefele reckons, Councils, ii. 4), Athanasius, on a visitation in Mareotis, was informed that a layman named Ischyras was exercising priestly functions. Macarius was sent to summon the offender before the archbishop, but Ischyras being ill, his father was requested to restrain him from the offence. Ischyras, recovering, fled to the Meletians, who invented the accusation that Macarius, by order of Athanasius, had forced the chapel of Ischyras, overthrown his altar, broken the chalice, and burnt the sacred books (Athan. Apol. c. Ar. c. 63; Socr. i. 27; Hilar. Pict. Fragm. ii. § 18). Macarius is next found at the imperial court at Nicomedia on a mission with another priest, Alypius, when three Meletian clergy, Ision, Eudaemon, Callinicus, brought their accusation against Athanasius in reference to the linen vestments. Macarius and Alypius were opportunely able to refute the calumny (Socr. i. 27; Soz. ii. 22). This may have been late in 330 or early in 331; Pagi's date 328 seems too early. Macarius and the three Meletians were still there when Athanasius arrived (331) on a summons from Constantine; the Meletians brought against the archbishop the fresh charge of supplying money to Philumenus and Macarius was charged with the breaking of the chalice (Hefele, ii. 13). The charge was easily disproved. Macarius again assisted Athanasius when charged with the murder of Arsenius. When Arsenius had been found alive and John Arcaph had confessed the fraud, Macarius was sent to Constantinople to inform Constantine of the collapse of the whole calumny (Athan. Apol. c. Ar. cc. 65, 66). Macarius was dragged in chains before the council at Tyre in 335, and when the commission was sent by that council to Mareotis to investigate the affair of the chalice, which was still charged against Athanasius, Macarius was not allowed to accompany it, but was left in custody at Tyre. Athan. Apol. c. Ar. cc. 71, 72, 73; Mansi, ii. 1126, 1128, B, C; Hefele, ii. 14–23; Tillem. viii. 19–23.
Macarius (17). Two hermits or monks of this name both lived in Egypt in the 4th cent.; their characters and deeds are almost indistinguishable. The elder is called the Egyptian, the younger the Alexandrine. One of them was a disciple of Anthony and the master of EVAGRIUS, and one of them dwelt in the Thebaid. Jerome speaks of Rufinus (Ep. iii. 2, ed. Vall. a.d. 374) as "being at Nitria, and having reached the abode of Macarius." Yet Rufinus, who lived 6 years in Alexandria and the adjoining monasteries, describes the residence of Macarius (Hist. Mon. 29)—which he names Scithium and says was a day and a half's journey from the monasteries of Nitria—from the accounts of others rather than as an eye-witness. Rufinus, however, seems to have seen both hermits (Apol. Ruf. ii. 12). The stories about them are of a legendary character. Rufinus, Hist. Mon. 28, 29, and Hist. Eccl. ii. 4, 8; Palladius, 19, 20; Soz. iii. 13; Socr. iv. 18; Gennad. d. V. Ill. 11; Martyrolog. Rom. Jan. 5 and 15.
Macarius (24), a Christian of Rome who (end of 4th cent.) wrote on the divine providence in opposition to heathen notions of fate and astrology. Finding some difficulties, he dreamed of a ship bringing relief to his doubts. Rufinus just at this time arriving from Palestine, Macarius saw in this the interpretation of his dream and sought from him light from the Greek fathers. Rufinus trans. for him Origen's eulogy on the martyr Pamphilus (said by Jerome to be really by Eusebius) and also Origen's περί Ἀπχῶν, the publication of which led to violent controversy. [HIERONYMUS; ORIGEN.] Jerome calls him Ὅλβιος, saying, "Tunc discipulus Ὄλβιος, vere nominis sui si in talem magistrum non impegisset" (Ep. cxxvii. ad Princ. ed. Vall.)
Macedonius (2), bp. of Constantinople.
At bp. Alexander's death in 336 party feeling ran high. His orthodox followers supported Paul, the Arians rallied round Macedonius. The former was ordained bishop, but did not hold his bishopric long. The emperor Constantius came to Constantinople, convened a synod of Arian bishops, banished Paul, and, to the disappointment of Macedonius, translated Eusebius of Nicomedia to the vacant see (a.d. 338). Eusebius's death in 341 restarted hostilities between the partisans of Paul and Macedonius. Paul returned, and was introduced into the Irene church of Constantinople; Arian bishops immediately ordained Macedonius in St. Paul's church. So violent did the tumult become that Constantius sent his general Hermogenes to eject Paul for a second time. His soldiers met with open resistance; the general was killed and his body dragged through the city. Constantius at once left Antioch, and punished Constantinople by depriving the people of half their daily allowance of corn. Paul was expelled; Macedonius was severely blamed for his part in these disturbances, and for allowing himself to be ordained without imperial sanction; but practically the Arians triumphed. Macedonius was permitted to officiate m the church in which he had been consecrated. Paul went to Rome, and he and Athanasius and other orthodox bishops expelled from their sees were sent back by Julius with letters rebuking those who had deposed them. Philip the prefect executed the fresh orders of the emperor in hurrying Paul into exile to Thessalonica, and in reinstating Macedonius, but not without bloodshed (Socr. ii. 16).
Macedonius held the see for about six years, while letters and delegates, the pope and the emperors, synods and counter-synods, were debating and disputing the treatment of Paul and Athanasius. In 349 the alternative of war offered by Constans, emperor of the West, induced Constantius to reinstate Paul; and Macedonius had to retire to a private church. The murder of Constans (a.d. 350) placed the East under the sole control of Constantius, and Paul was at once exiled. Imperial edicts followed, which permitted the Arians to claim to be the dominant faction in the church.
Macedonius is said to have signalled his return to power by acts which, if truly
reported, brand him as a cruel bigot. The Novatianists suffered perhaps even more
An act of presumption finally lost him the imperial favour (a.d. 358). The sepulchre containing the relics of Constantine the Great was in danger of falling to pieces, and Macedonius determined to remove them. The question was made a party one. The orthodox assailed as sacrilege "the disinterment of the supporter of the Nicene faith," the Macedonians pleaded the necessities of structural repair. When the remains were conveyed to the church of Acacius the Martyr, the excited populace met in the church and churchyard; so frightful a carnage ensued that the place was filled with blood and slaughtered bodies. Constantius's anger was great against Macedonius because of the slaughter, but even more because he had removed the body without consulting him.
When Macedonius presented himself at the council of Seleucia (a.d. 359), it was ruled that being under accusation it was not proper for him to remain (Socr. ii. 40). His opponents, Acacius, Eudoxius, and others, followed him to Constantinople, and, availing themselves of the emperor's indignation, deposed him (a.d. 360) on the ground of cruelty and canonical irregularities. Macedonius retired to a suburb of the city, and died there.
He is said to have elaborated the views with which his name is connected in his retirement. His doctrine was embraced by Eleusius and others; and Marathonius brought so much zeal to the cause that its upholders were sometimes better known as Marathonians. Their grave, ascetic manners and pleasing and persuasive eloquence secured many followers in Constantinople, and also in Thrace, Bithynia, and the Hellespontine provinces. Under the emperor Julian they were strong enough to declare in synod at Zele in Pontus their separation from both Arians and orthodox. In 374 pope Damasus and in 381 the council of Constantinople condemned their views, and they gradually ceased to exist as a distinctive sect. For authorities, consult the scattered notices in Socrates, Sozomen; Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, i.; the usual Church histories and HOLY GHOST in D. C. B. (4-vol. ed. 1882).
Macedonius (3) II., patriarch of Constantinople a.d. 495. For an account
of his election see EUPHEMIUS
(4). Within a year or two (the date is uncertain) he assembled a council, in
which he confirmed in writing that of Chalcedon, and openly professed, as he always
did, his adhesion to the orthodox faith. In 507 Elias, patriarch of Jerusalem, who
had been unwilling to sanction the deposition of Euphemius, united himself in communion
with Macedonius. The heterodox emperor Anastasius employed all means to oblige Macedonius
to declare against the council of Chalcedon, but flattery and threats were alike
unavailing. An assassin named Eucolus was even hired to take away his life. The
patriarch avoided the blow, and ordered a fixed amount of provisions to be given
monthly to the criminal. The people of Constantinople were equally zealous for the
council of Chalcedon, even, more than once, to the point of sedition. To prevent
unfavourable consequences, Anastasius ordered the prefect of the city to follow
in the processions and attend at the assemblies of the church. In 510 the emperor
made a new effort. Macedonius would do nothing without an oecumenical council at
which the bp. of great Rome should preside. Anastasius, annoyed at this answer,
and irritated because Macedonius would never release him from the engagement he
had made at his coronation to maintain the faith of the church and the authority
of the council of Chalcedon, sought means to drive him from his chair. He sent Eutychian
monks and clergy, and sometimes the magistrates of the city, to load him with public
outrage and insult. This caused such a tumult amongst the citizens that the emperor
was obliged to shut himself up in his palace and to have vessels moored near in
case flight should be necessary. He sent to beg Macedonius to come and speak with
him. Macedonius went and reproached him with the sufferings his persecutions caused
the church. Anastasius pretended to be willing to alter this, but at the same time
made a third attempt to tamper with the orthodoxy of the patriarch. One of his instruments
was Xenaïas, an Eutychian bishop. He demanded of Macedonius a declaration of his
faith in writing; Macedonius addressed a memorandum to the emperor insisting that
he knew no other faith than that of the Fathers of Nicaea and Constantinople, and
that he anathematized Nestorius and Eutyches and those who admitted two Sons or
two Christs, or who divided the two natures. Xenaïas, seeing the failure of his
first attempt, procured two infamous wretches, who accused Macedonius of an abominable
crime, avowing themselves his accomplices. They then charged him with Nestorianism,
and with having falsified a passage in an epistle of St. Paul, in support of that
sect. At last the emperor commanded him to send by the hands of the master of the
offices the authentic copy of the Acts of the council of Chalcedon signed with the
autographs of the bishops. Macedonius refused, sealed it up, and hid it under the
altar of the great church. Thereupon Anastasius had him carried off by night and
taken to Chalcedon, to be conducted thence to Eucaïta in Pontus, the place of the
exile of his predecessor. In 515 pope Hormisdas worked for the restitution of Macedonius,
whom he considered unjustly deposed; it had been a stipulation in the treaty of
peace between Vitalian and Anastasius that the patriarch and all the deposed bishops
should be restored to their sees. But Anastasius never kept his promises, and Macedonius
died in exile. His death occurred c. 517, at Gangra, where he had retired
for fear of the Huns, who ravaged all Cappadocia, Galatia, and Pontus. Theod. Lect.
ii. 573–578, in Patr. Gk. lxxxvi.; Evagr. III. xxxi. xxxii. in ib.
2661; Mansi, viii. 186, 198; Vict. Tun. Chron. in Patr Lat.
Macrina (1), the Elder, the paternal grandmother of Basil and Gregory Nyssen, resident at and probably a native of Neocaesarea in Pontus. Both Macrina and her husband, of whose name we are ignorant, were deeply pious Christians. Macrina had been trained on the precepts of the celebrated bp. of Neocaesarea, Gregory Thaumaturgus, by some of his hearers. In the persecution of Galerius and Maximin, Macrina and her husband, to save their lives, left home with a slender equipment and escaped to a hill forest of Pontus, where they are said to have lived in safe retirement for seven years. On the cessation of the persecution, a.d. 311, they returned to Neocaesarea. On the renewal of the persecution they appear to have again suffered. Their goods were confiscated and Macrina and her husband obtained the right to be reckoned among confessors of the faith (Greg. Nys. de Vit. S. Macr. t. ii. pp. 178, 191). In due time their son Basil married Emmelia, and became the father of ten children, the eldest bearing her grandmother's name Macrina, and the second that of his father Basil. This boy, afterwards the celebrated bp. of Caesarea Basil the Great, was brought up from infancy by his grandmother Macrina, at her country house at Annesi, to which she seems to have retired after her husband's death (Basil. Ep. 204 [75], § 6; 223 [79], § 3). Her death cannot be placed before 340.
Macrina (2), the Younger, the eldest child of her parents Basil
and Emmelia, by her position in the family and still more by her force of character,
high intellectual gifts, and earnest piety, proved the well-spring of good to the
whole household, and so contributed largely to form the characters of her brothers.
To her brother Basil in particular she was ever a wise and loving counsellor. Basil
was born c. 329, and Macrina probably c. 327. She received her name
from her paternal grandmother. She was very carefully educated by her mother, who
was more anxious that she should be familiar with the sacred writers than with heathen
poets. Macrina committed to memory the moral and ethical portion of the books of
Solomon and the whole of the Psalter. Before her twelfth year she was ready at each
hour of the day with the Psalm liturgically belonging to it (Greg. Nys. de Vita
S. Macr. ii. 179). Her personal beauty, which, according to her brother Gregory,
surpassed that of all of her age and country, and her large fortune, attracted many
suitors. Of these her father selected a young advocate, of good birth and position,
and when he was cut off by a premature death, Macrina resolutely refused any further
proposals of marriage (ib. 180). After her father's death (c. 349)
she devoted herself to the care of her widowed mother, the bringing up of her infant
brother Peter, and the supervision of the interests of her family. Emmelia was left
burdened with a large and extensive property, and the maintenance of and provision
for nine children. Of the greater part of this load Macrina relieved her. They resided
then, or soon afterwards, on the paternal estate near the village of Annesi, on
the banks of the Iris, near Neocaesarea, which Macrina never left. Basil returned
from Athens c. 355 elated with his university successes. Macrina taught him
the enthusiastic love for an ascetic life which she herself felt (ib. 181).
Brother and sister settled on their paternal estate on opposite banks of the Iris.
The premature death of her most dearly loved brother Naucratius, on a hunting expedition,
357, strengthened her resolution to separate from the world, and she persuaded her
mother also, who was nearly broken-hearted at their loss, to embrace the ascetic
life. The nucleus of the sisterhood was formed by their female servants and slaves.
Devout women, some of high rank, soon gathered round them, while the birth and high
connexions of Macrina and her mother attracted the daughters of the most aristocratic
families in Pontus and Cappadocia to the community (ib. 184, 186). Among
its members were a widow of high rank and wealth, named Vestiana, and a virgin named
Lampadia, who is described as the chief of the band (ib. 197). Macrina took
to her retreat her youngest brother Peter (ib. 186). The elevation of her
brother Basil to the see of Caesarea, 370, became a stimulus to a higher pitch of
asceticism. Peter was ordained presbyter by his brother (ib. 187), probably
in 371. In 373 Emmelia died, holding the hands of Macrina and Peter and offering
them to God with her dying breath, as the first-fruits and tenths of her womb, and
was buried by them in her husband's grave at the chapel of the "Forty Martyrs."
Macrina sustained her third great sorrow in the death (Jan. 1, 379) of Basil, whom
she had long regarded with reverential affection. Nine months after, her brother
Gregory Nyssen paid her a visit. Owing to his banishment under Valens and other
persecutions it was eight or nine years since they had met. He found the aged invalid,
parched with fever, stretched on planks on the ground, the wood barely covered with
a bit of sackcloth. The pallet was carefully arranged to face the east. On her brother's
approach she made a vain effort to rise to do him honour as a bishop; Gregory prevented
her, and had her placed on her bed (ib. 189). With great self-command Macrina,
ἡ μεγάλη, as he delights to call her, restrained
her groans, checked her asthmatic pantings, and putting on a cheerful countenance
endeavoured to divert him from the present sorrow. She ventured to speak of Basil's
death; Gregory completely broke down; and when her consolations proved unavailing,
she rebuked him for sorrowing like those who had no hope for one fallen asleep in
Christ. Gregory defending himself, she bid him argue out the point with her. After
a somewhat prolix controversy, Macrina, as though under divine inspiration—καθάπερ
θεοφορουμένη τῷ ἁγίῳ Πνεύματι—her words pouring out without stay, like water
from a fountain (ib. 189), delivered the long discourse on the resurrection
and immortality of the soul which Gregory has recorded—more probably in his own
than his dying sister's words—in the de Anima ac Resurrectione Dialogus,
entitled τὰ Μακρίνια (Opp. t. iii. pp.
181–260). On the conclusion of this remarkable discourse (in which the purificatory
nature of the fire of hell is
Magnentius, Flavius Popilius, emperor, 350–353. He rose under Constantius to the rank of count; and Constans gave him command of the Jovian and Herculian legions embodied by Diocletian and Maximian I. On Jan. 18, 350, he was proclaimed emperor instead of Constans, then absent on a hunting expedition. Constans fled, but was murdered at Helena or Elve at the foot of the W. Pyrenees. Gaul and all the Western Empire, including Italy, Sicily, Spain, and Africa, submitted to the new emperor. Socrates (H. E. ii. 26) says that the general confusion of affairs now encouraged the enemies of Athanasius to accuse him to Constantius; and Athanasius indignantly disclaims any correspondence or connexion with Magnentius, in the apology to Constantius; some false charge of the kind may have been made (Athan. vol. i. pp. 603 seq. Migne).
On Sept. 28, 351, the battle of Mursa on the Drave was fought, which deprived Magnentius of nearly all his provinces excepting Gaul. His last centre of operations was Lyons, and he fell upon his sword in Aug. 353. His coins, as Tillemont says (Hist. des Emp. iv. p. 354), prove his profession of Christianity; and he employed bishops in his negotiations with Constantius (Athan. op. cit. p. 606). But his usurpation began an unbroken career of crimes, and Athanasius's somewhat pithy summary of him (ib. 603) as τὸν διάβολου Μαγνέντιον is confirmed after their fashion by Zosimus and Julian.
Majorianus, Julius Valerius, declared emperor of the West Apr. 1, 457, at Columellae, six miles from Ravenna. Tillemont argues (Emp. vi. 634) that he did not become emperor till some months later. Majorian apparently remained at Ravenna till Nov. 458, the year of his consulship, which was marked by a series of remarkable laws, which may be found among the "Novels" at the end of the Theodosian Code. An outline of these laws is given by Gibbon; the seventh enacted that a curialis who had taken orders to avoid the duties of his position, if below the rank of a deacon, should be at once reduced to his original status, while, if he had been ordained deacon, priest, or bishop, he was declared incapable of alienating his property. The sixth law, intended to encourage marriage, forbade nuns to take the veil before the age of forty. A girl compelled by her parents to devote herself to perpetual virginity was to be at liberty to marry if at her parents' death she was under 40. The whole of this law, except the restrictions on the testamentary power of widows, was repealed by Majorian's successor, Severus. It is remarkable that the Catalogue of the Popes given by the Bollandists (AA. SS. Apr. i. 33) states that Leo the Great forbad a woman taking the veil before 60 years of age, or according to a various reading 40, and that the 19th canon of the council of Agde (Mansi, viii. 328), following the law of Majorian, fixes the age at 40.
On his arrival at Lyons, before the close of 458, Majorian was greeted by Sidonius
with a long panegyric (Carm. v.). At Arles,
On Majorian's return to Italy in 461 Ricimer excited a mutiny in the army against him at Tortona, forced him to abdicate on Aug. 2, and five days afterwards caused him to be assassinated on the banks of the Ira.
Majorinus, a reader in the church at Carthage, holding some domestic office in the household of Lucilla, who was, through her influence, chosen bp. in opposition to CAECILIAN. This Augustine and Optatus denounced as an act of rebellion, and it was undoubtedly one of the first steps towards definite schism, a.d. 311. His party afterwards became known by the greater name of DONATUS. One of his consecrators was Silvanus, Donatist bp. of Cirta, who was afterwards proved before Zenophilus to have been a "traditor." Majorinus died c. 315. Aug. Epp. 43; 3, 16; 89; c. Parm. iii. 11, 18; c. Cresc. ii. 3; iii. 30, 32; iv. 9; de Haer. 69; Opt. i. 14, 15, 19; Mon. Vet. Don. iv. ed. Oberthür; Tillemont, Mem. vi. 15, 19, 24, 699, 700; Sparrow Simpson's Aug. and Afr. Ch. Divisions (1910), p. 18.
Malchion, a presbyter of Antioch in the reigns of Claudius and Aurelian,
conspicuous for his prominent part in the deposition of the bp. of Antioch, Paul
of Samosata, in 272. He was famed as a rhetorician and was a learned man well acquainted
with heathen writers, from whom he was accustomed to make quotations (Hieron.
Ep. lxx. 4), and held, while a presbyter of the church, the office of president
of the faculty of rhetoric (Eus. vii. 29). The bishop having announced or implied
Malchus (1), one of the earliest hermits in Syria, was seen in extreme old age by Jerome in 374 and told him the story of his life, which was written down by Jerome 16 years after wards. He was born at Nisibis near Edessa, and was the only son of a proprietor of that district. He fled from his parents when they importuned him to marry, and joined one of the monastic establishments in the desert of Chalcis. As life advanced he desired to revisit his home. The caravan was surprised by Arabs; he was made a slave, and set to feed flocks. He worked faithfully, and every thing prospered in his hands. His master required him to marry a woman who was his companion in slavery. Malchus pretended to comply, but secretly told the woman that he would rather die by his own hand than break his vow of continency. He found her of the same mind, and indeed she had a husband living. The pair agreed, though living separately, to pass as man and wife. After a time they escaped to the Roman settlements in Mesopotamia. Finding the abbat of his monastery dead Malchus took up his abode in the hamlet of Maronia, near Antioch, his reputed wife living with the virgins near. Maronia came by inheritance to Evagrius, afterwards bp. of Antioch, in whose company Jerome came from Italy in 374; and the story of the aged hermit confirmed Jerome in his desire for the life in the desert, on which he entered in 375 (Hieron. Vita Malchi, Opp. vol. ii. 41, ed. Vall.).
Mamertus (1), St., 18th bp. of Vienne, the elder brother of Claudian the poet, whom he ordained priest, and who is said to have assisted him in his episcopal labours. Our first authentic information about him is in 463. The see of Die had been included by pope Leo in the province of Arles, but Mamertus had consecrated a bishop of it. Gundeuchus or Gundioc, king of the Burgundians, complained to pope Hilary, who took up the matter warmly, addressing a letter, Feb. 24, 464, to various prelates, solemnly warning Mamertus. Mamertus was still alive at the death of his brother in 473 or 474 (Sid. Apoll. Ep. iv. 11, in Patr. Lat. lviii. 515), but how long after is unknown.
Though not the inventor of Rogations or Litanies, Mamertus was undoubtedly the founder of the Rogation Days. Litanies of the kind were, on the evidence of Basil, in use in the East and, on that of Sidonius, in the West, but Mamertus first systematized them on the three days preceding Ascension Day. The story of their institution has been given by his contemporary Sidonius, by Avitus, Gregory of Tours, and others. Vienne, in some year before 474, had been terrified by portents and calamities. To atone for the sins of which these calamities were thought to be the penalties, Mamertus, with the joyful assent of the citizens, ordained a three days' fast, with processions and an ordered service of prayer and song, which, for greater labour, was to take place outside the city. Its successful issue ensured its permanence, and from Vienne it spread over France and the West. Already in 470 or 474 Sidonius had established these services at Clermont, and looked to them as his chief hope in the threatened invasion of the Goths. In 511 the first council of Orleans recognized them and directed their continuance (Mansi, viii. 355). For accounts of this institution see Ceillier, x. 346; Bingham, Antiquities, iv. 281 sqq. (1855); Smith, D. C. A. art. "Rogation Days"; Gall. Christ. xvi. 15.
Mamertus (2), Claudianus Ecdicius, a learned writer of the last half of the 5th cent., one of the literary school of which Sidonius Apollinaris is the best-known member. He was a native of Gaul, and brother of the more famous Mamertus, archbp. of Vienne. Trained from his earliest years for the monastic life, he was educated in all the stores of Greek, Roman, and Christian literature. During his brother's archbishopric he worked as a presbyter in Vienne, and served so effectually as his right hand that some writers have represented him as a "bishop" under his brother. This, however, seems the result of a misinterpretation (cf. Sirmondi, i. p. 539). As presbyter he was specially useful in training the clergy, organizing the services of the church, and arranging the order of Psalms and Lessons for the year, and perhaps we may attribute to his influence the regular use of litanies upon Rogation Days established by his brother. He was no less eminent for intellectual power. When, c. 470, Faustus, bp. of Riez, published anonymously a treatise asserting the corporeality of the soul, Sidonius and other friends applied to Mamertus as best qualified to answer it, and the de Statu Animae was the result. Sidonius also mentions with warm praise a hymn he had written, and represents him as a great centre of intellectual discussion, "hominum aevi, loci, populi sui ingeniosissimus," full of learning, eager for argument, patient with those who could not understand, and, in his work as a priest, thoughtful for all, open-handed, humble, not letting his benevolence be known, the adviser and helper of his brother in all diocesan matters. He died c. 474, and his epitaph, composed by Sidonius, is the chief source of information about his life. (Sid. Apoll. Ep. iv. 2, 3, 11, v. 2; Gennadius, de Scrip. Ill. cc. 67 (?) and 83; and the Preface to his own work, de Statu Animae.)
Besides two letters of his, we have (1) the
Fabricius has also attributed to him an hexameter poem of 165 lines, "contra vanos poetas ad collegam," found in a Paris MS. without any author's name.
Possibly there should be assigned to him also a few smaller poems found among the works of the heathen poet Claudian, viz. two short hexameter poems entitled "Laus Christi" and "Carmen Paschale," some short epigrammatic praises of the paradox of the Incarnation, an elegiac account of Christ's miracles, an elegiac appeal to a friend not to criticize his verses too severely, and two short Greek hexameter addresses to Christ, Εἰς τὸν σωτῆρα and Εἰς τὸν δεσπότην Χριστόν.
The works are in Migne, vol. liii.; Bibl. Vet. Patr. Lugd. 1677, vi. p. 1050; ed. Galland. x. p. 417, and in the Corpus Script. Eccl. Lat. vol. xi. (1885); the poems in Fabricius, Poet. Christ. p. 777. The de Statu Animae has been separately edited, notably by Peter Mosellanus (Basil, 1504), Barth (Cycneae, 1655), Schulze (Dresden, 1883).
Mammaea or Mamaea, Julia, the daughter of Julia Moesa, and niece of Julia Domna, the wife of the emperor Septimius Severus. She played for a short time a conspicuous part in Roman history, not without some interesting points of contact with the Christian church. By her marriage with the Syrian Gessius Marcianus she became the mother of Alexander Severus, and soon afterwards was a widow. With her mother and her sister Soaemias, the mother of ELAGABALUS, she went, at the command of Macrinus after the death of Caracalla, to reside at Emesa. On the election of her nephew Elagabalus as emperor, she went with him and her son Alexander, then 13 years old, to Rome, and it speaks well for her prudence and goodness that she continued to secure the life of her son from the jealous suspicions of the tyrant and to preserve him from the fathomless impurity which ran riot in the imperial court. There are sufficient reasons for assigning this watchfulness to at least the indirect influence of Christian life and teaching. Possibly, as in the time of Nero, there may have been disciples of the new faith among the slaves of Caesar's household, whom she learnt to respect and imitate. On the death of Elagabalus, a.d. 222, and the election of her son by the Praetorian Guard, she attained great influence. Her leanings to the Christian society were shewn more distinctly when she was with the emperor at Antioch, and hearing that Origen, already famous as a preacher, was at Caesarea, invited him to visit them with the honour of a military escort, welcomed him with all honour, and listened attentively as he unfolded the excellence of the faith of Christ (Eus. H. E. vi. 21). It does not appear that she ever made a definite profession of belief, and her religion, though it won from Eusebius (l.c.) the epithets of θεοσεβεστάτη and εὐλαβής, and from Jerome (de Script. Eccles. c. 54) that of religiosa, was probably of the syncretistic type then prevalent, which shewed itself, in its better form, in Alexander's adoption of Christian rules of action, and in his placing busts of Christ, Abraham, Orpheus, and Apollonius of Tyana in his private oratory (Lamprid Vit. Sev. c. 29, 43), and in its worst when Elagabalus wished to build a temple on the Capitol in which Jews, Samaritans, Christians, and Romans were to unite in worshipping the Deity whose name he had adopted. Both mother and son, in consequence of these tendencies, came under the lash of Julian, who sneers at the childish unwisdom of the latter in submitting his own will to Mammaea's and gratifying her greed of gain (de Caesarr. p. 315), and represents him as weakly bemoaning his disaster. Mammaea shared her son's fate when the troops rose and murdered him in Gaul, and her last moments were embittered by her son's reproaches for the pride and avarice which had wrought their common ruin (Gibbon, cc. vi. and vii. and authorities cited above).
Manes (called also Mani among Oriental writers, Μανιχαῖος and Manichaeus among Greeks and Latins). The lives of all ancient heretics have suffered much from the misrepresentations of their opponents. In the case of Manes there is the additional difficulty that we have two contradictory accounts in the Western and Eastern traditions. The Western story is derived from the Acts of Archelaus, bp. of Caschar; the Eastern from Persian and Arabian historians. Our earliest authentic notice of him is in Eusebius (H. E. vii. 31), where he is described "as a barbarian in life, both in speech and conduct, who attempted to form himself into a Christ, and then also proclaimed himself to be the very Paraclete and the Holy Spirit. Then, as if he were Christ, he selected twelve disciples. the partners of his new religion, and after patching together false and ungodly doctrines, collected from a thousand heresies long since extinct, he swept them off like a deadly poison, from Persia, upon this part of the world." The Acta Archelai were forged by some romancing Greek between a.d. 330 and 340, as we first find them quoted by Cyrill. Hieros. (Catech. vi., written a.d. 348–350), and Eusebius in his history, pub. 326–330, knows nothing of them. If genuine, it is scarcely possible that Eusebius, living but a few miles from Jerusalem and with all the imperial resources at his back, could have been ignorant of a dispute which must have made such a noise all over Syria and Mesopotamia. [ARCHELAUS.]
Upon the story told by the Syrian, Persian, and Arab historians and chroniclers
known to Beausobre he places much more reliance than upon the Western tradition
(pt. i. liv. ii. cc. i.–iv.). It runs thus: Manes was born c. 240, and descended
from a Magian family. He was well educated in Greek, music, mathematics, geography,
astronomy, painting, medicine, and the Scriptures. Being very zealous for the faith,
he was ordained priest while yet young, but becoming a heretic he went to the court
of Sapor, whom he proselytized to his views, c. 267, but as soon as he
Since Beausobre's time the sources of Oriental knowledge have been much enlarged,
and modern research inclines more and more to trust the concordant testimony of
Persian, Arabic, and Armenian historians, as opposed to the Byzantines, about the
affairs of W. Asia. According to these Eastern authorities, the father of Manes
came originally from Persia to Babylon, where Manes was born. One day his father
heard in a temple a voice saying, "Eat no flesh, drink no wine, and abstain from
women," whereupon he founded the sect of the Mugtasila or the Washers, identical
with the Sabians of the Marshes between the Tigris and Euphrates, still found near
Bassora. In this sect Manes was brought up, being instructed in all the knowledge
of his time. At 12 years old an angel announced to him that when older he should
abandon that sect. At 24 the same angel summoned him to found Manicheism in these
words: "Hail, Manes, from me and from the Lord which has sent me to thee and chosen
thee for his work. Now he commands thee to proclaim the glad tidings of the truth
which comes from him, and bestow thereon thy whole zeal." Manes, according to one
tradition, entered on his office the day that Sapor, son of Artaxerxes, succeeded
to the throne, Sun. Apr. 1, 238, as Flügel determines by a lengthened calculation
(pp. 146–149). According to another (p. 85) Manes appeared in the 2nd year of the
emperor Gallus, a.d. 252 (pp. 150–162). He claimed to be the Paraclete promised
by Christ, and derived his dogmas from Persian and Christian sources. Before Manes
met Sapor he travelled for 40 years through various countries. Upon his return he
invited Fîruz, the brother of Sapor and son of Artaxerxes, to accept his doctrines.
Through him he was introduced to Sapor, who shewed him great respect, though he
had previously intended to slay him. He promised reformation of his own life and
freedom to Manes's adherents to preach their views. Already the sect had spread
into India, China, and Turkestan. Manes was put to death by Varanes I. (272–276),
and his body, cut in two, was suspended over the two gates of the city Dschundîsâbûr,
pp. 99, 329–334. A version of his history which later research has brought to light
is in Albîrûnî's Chronology of Ancient Nations, trans. by E. Sachau and pub.
by the Oriental Trans. Fund in 1879. It is a most important document, and well deserves
the praise the learned editor lavishes upon it in his introduction. In many particulars
it strikingly confirms the narrative of an-Nadîm given by Flügel, both being probably
derived from Manichean sources. Albîrûnî was a native of Khiva, a.d. 973–1048, and
lived and wrote near there. This work proves him to have possessed vast literary
resources no longer available, but some of which may yet be found in Central Asia.
(Cf. art. by Thomas on Recent Pehlvi Decipherments in Jour. Asiat. Soc.
1871, p. 417.) The writings of Manes were very numerous. From Albîrûnî's work we
learn that some were still in existence in the 11th cent. They were written in Persian
and Syriac, and, according to Muhammad ben Ishak, in a character peculiar to the
Manicheans. Of this alphabet Flügel in his commentary, p. 167, gives a copy. It
contained more letters than the Syriac, and was chiefly used by the Manicheans of
Samarkhand and Transoxania, where the Marcionites who still existed there in the
10th cent. used a similar character. The names of his books, according to Beausobre,
are his Gospel; his Treasure of Life; Book of Chapters; Treatise about the Faith,
which Beausobre (t. i. p. 427) believes identical with his Mysteries (μυστήρια,
Epiph. Haer. lxvi. 14), of which too he gives an analysis, with which cf.
the very different one by Muhammad ben Ishak in Flügel, p. 102; Book about the Giants,
known in Syriac at the court of Baghdad so late as the 9th cent. (Jour. Asiat.
Manicheans (Μανιχαῖοι, Epiph.
Haer. lxvi., where they are also called Ἀκουανῖται,
from Ἀκούας, one of their leaders, who carried
the heresy from Mesopotamia to Eleutheropolis). For the personal history of Manes
see last art. We now treat of the origin, principles, cultus, literature, and history
of the sect called after him; which was, indeed, not so much a definite sect as
a vast indefinite spiritual and intellectual movement, which from its very
(1) Origin and Principles of Manicheism.—For the fountain of the Manichean
heresy we must turn to India (see Baur, Das Manichäische Religionssystem,
Tübingen, 1831, pp. 433–451, where there is satisfactory evidence that elements
derived both from Buddhism and from Zoroastrism are found in the Manichean system).
Darmester recognized the influence of the Zend-Avesta and Zoroastrism upon
Manicheism: cf. Zend-Avesta in Sacred Books of the East, t. iv. intro.
p. xxxvii. For a thorough exposition of this system see the two large works of Beausobre,
Baur's vol. of 500 pp., and Neander's Church Hist. (Bohn's ed.), t. ii. pp.
157–195. We must content ourselves with sketching the leading principles of the
sect. Manes probably at first merely desired to blend Christianity and Zoroastrism
together. From Zoroastrism he took his Dualism, which consisted of two independent
principles absolutely opposed to each other, with their opposite creations: on the
one side God (Ahura-Mazda), the original good from whom nothing but good can proceed;
on the other side original evil (Angro-Mainyus), whose essence is wild, self-conflicting
tumult, matter, darkness, a world full of smoke and vapour. The powers of darkness,
contending in wild rage, approached so near in their blind struggle to the realm
of light that a gleam from that hitherto unknown kingdom reached them, whereupon
they strove to force their way into it. The good God, in order to guard His boundaries,
produced the Aeon Mother of Life, by whom the first or spiritual man was produced,
together with the five elements, wind, light, water, fire, and matter, to carry
on the struggle; which, however, are not identical with the actual elements, but
are the elements of the higher world, of which the mundane and actual elements are
a copy framed by the Prince of Darkness, a view we find worked out by the Cathari
of the 12th cent. (Gieseler, H. E. iii. 452). Primitive man is worsted by
the spirits of darkness, who take from him some of his armour, which is his soul
(ψυχή). He prays to the Light-King, who sends
the Spirit of Life, who rescues him and raises him once more to the Light-Kingdom.
Meanwhile the Powers of Darkness had succeeded in swallowing part of the luminous
essence of the primeval heavenly man, which they proceeded to shut up in material
bodies, as in a prison. But this very violence is the means of their destruction.
The Divine Spirit is only enclosed in the material prisons for a time and with a
view to final deliverance. To illustrate this Manes used a parable. A shepherd sees
a wild beast about to rush into the midst of his flock. He digs a pit and casts
into it a kid; the beast springs into the pit to devour his prey, but cannot extricate
himself. The shepherd, however, delivers the kid and leaves the lion to perish (Disp.
c. Archel. c. 25; Epiph. Haer. lxvi. c. 44). The Spirit of Life at once
began his preparations for purifying the souls which had been mixed up with the
kingdom of darkness. That part of the soul which had not been affected by matter
he placed in the sun and moon, whence it might send forth its influence to release
and draw back towards itself, through the refining processes of vegetable and animal
life, kindred souls diffused through all nature; for the sun and moon play as important
a part in the Manichean as they do in the Persian, Indian, and Mithraic systems
(C. B. Stark, Zwei Mithraeen, Heidelberg, 1864, p. 43). To prevent this gradual
despiritualization the powers of darkness resolve to produce a being in whom the
soul of nature, which was ever striving after liberty, might be securely imprisoned.
This is man as he is now, shaped after the image of the primitive man with whom
they originally waged war. He was formed by the prince of darkness, and embraces
in himself the elements of both worlds, the soul springing from the Light-Kingdom,
the body from that of darkness. The powers of darkness now perceive that the light-nature,
by concentrating itself in man, has become powerful. They therefore seek to attach
him by every possible enticement to the lower world. Here comes in the Manichean
story of the Fall, which resembles that of the Ophites. The Powers of Darkness invited
man to partake of all the trees of Paradise, forbidding only the tree of Knowledge.
But an angel of light, or Christ Himself, the Spirit of the Sun, counteracted their
artifices in the shape of the serpent, the parts of the Biblical narrative being
thus reversed, God's share being ascribed to the devil and vice versa. The Manichean
standpoint with respect to the Fall determined their attitude towards the whole
O.T., which they rejected as the work of the evil principle. Likewise their theory
about the creation of the material part of man determined their view of the Incarnation,
which they regarded as wholly Docetic; if a material body was a prison and a burden
to the spirit of man, Christ could scarcely voluntarily imprison His divine Spirit
in the same. "Moreover, the Son, when He came for man's salvation, assumed a human
appearance, so that He appeared to men as if He were a man, and men thought He had
been born" (Epiph. Haer. lxvi. 49). This Docetic view of the Incarnation
destroyed the reality of His life, His death, resurrection, and ascension, and struck
at the root of all historical Christianity, so that we find at last some later Manicheans
maintaining a distinction between the mundane or historical Christ, who was a bad
man, and the spiritual Christ, Who was a divine deliverer (Gieseler, H. E.
iii. 407, note 28). They attached a mystical signification to orthodox language
about our Lord, whereby they could use it to deceive the unwary. Thus they could
speak of a suffering son of man hanging on every tree—of a Christ crucified in every
soul and suffering in matter. They gave their own interpretation to the symbols
of the suffering Son of Man in the Lord's Supper (cf. Petrus Sic. Hist. Man.
in Bigne's Bib. PP. xvi. 760). For a thorough exposition of the relations
between Manicheism and Buddhism see Baur, l.c. pp. 433–451, where he points
out Buddhist influence on Manichean doctrines as to the opposition between matter
and spirit, upon the creation and end of the world, and upon moral questions. The
most striking points of contact are metempsychosis (Baur, l.c. p. 440), and
the stress laid upon
(2) Organization.—Perhaps, however, it is on the practical organization of the system that Buddhist influence is most clearly seen. Manicheism differed from Gnosticism, for the latter did not wish to alter anything in the constitution of the existing church, but only desired to add to the Confession of Faith for the ψυχικοί a secret doctrine for the πνευματικοί; while Manes, as the Paraclete, set up a new church instead of the old, which, even in the persons of the apostles, had been corrupted by Jewish traditions. In the Manichean church the gradations were similar to those among the Buddhists (cf. H. H. Wilson's Opp. t. ii. p. 360, Essay on Buddha and Buddhism). There was first the great body consisting of the auditores, from whom a less strict course of life was demanded, and one of whose leading duties was to supply the other and higher class, the Elect or Perfect, with food and other necessaries. From these last an ascetic life was demanded. They should possess no property, were bound to a celibate and contemplative life, abstaining from all strong drinks and animal food. They should hurt no living thing, from a religious reverence for the divine life diffused through all nature. Not only should they take no life, but not even pull up a herb or pluck fruits or flowers (Aug. cont. Faust. v. 6, vi. 4). Thus Epiphanius (Haer. lxvi. c. 28) tells us that when their followers presented one of the Elect with food, he first addressed it thus: "I have neither reaped nor ground, nor pressed nor cast thee into the oven. All these things another has done, and brought thee to me. I am free from all fault." Upon which he said to his disciple, "I have prayed for thee," and let him go (cf. Von Wegnern, de Manich. Indulgent. pp. 69 seq.). Here is an essential Pantheism, a tendency which Manicheism manifestly draws from Buddhism (Hodgson, Jour. Roy. As. Soc. 1835, p. 295; Matter, Hist. du Gnostic. t. ii. 357) and which develops further in the course of its history. St. Augustine noted this point in his reply to Faustus, ii. 5, xii. 13; cf. Aug. Epp. 165, 166, c. iii. § 7; Ep. 74 ad Deuterium Episcop.; Toll. Insig. p. 137; Muratorii, Anecd. Ambros. Biblioth. ii. 112. Manes derived from Christianity another element of his system. As the Paraclete promised by Christ, he, after Christ's example, chose twelve apostles, in whom the government of the sect was placed. At their head there was a thirteenth, representing Manes and presiding over all (Flügel's Mani, pp. 97, 298, 316; Baur, l.c. p. 305); subordinate to them there were 72 bishops, under whom were presbyters, deacons, and travelling missionaries, a constitution which lasted to the 13th cent. and possibly may not be yet quite extinct.
(3) Cultus.—The Manicheans had their own peculiar rites, though their mystical interpretation of language enabled them to hold the highest position in the Christian ministry, as in an-Nadim's time, a.d. 987, it enabled them to conform externally to the Mohammedan system (Flügel's Mani, pp. 107, 404–408). Thus Eutychius, Pat. Alex. Annal. t. i. p. 515 (cf. Renaudot, Hist. Patr. Alexand. p. 101), tells how Timotheus, Pat. Alex., discovered Manicheans among the Egyptian bishops at the council of Constantinople by permitting the bishops and monks to eat flesh on Sundays, which the Manicheans would not do. Their worship consisted in prayers and hymns. They had neither temples, altars, incense, nor images. They fasted on Sunday. They regarded Easter lightly, as a festival which in their system had no meaning. They observed Pentecost, but not Christmas or Epiphany. Their great festival was that of Bema, held in March in memory of their founder's death. An empty chair or pulpit, richly upholstered, was then placed in their assembly, as a symbol of his presence, while one of his works, probably his Fundamental Epistle, was read, together with the records of his martyrdom (cf. Aug. Reply to Fund. Epist. c. viii.; cont. Faust. xviii. 5). As to their sacraments, the authorities vary much. Beausobre (t. ii. liv. ix. c. vi.) maintained strongly that they baptized even infants, and that in the name of the Trinity. On the other hand Augustine, de Haer. c. xlvi.; cont. Ep. Pelag. lib. ii. and other places cited by Beausobre, l.c. p. 714 n.; Cedren. Hist. Comp., Opp. t. i. col. 831, Migne's Patr. Gk. t. cxxi., expressly assert that they rejected baptism with water; and Timotheus C. P. in his Form. Recep. Haer. classes them among those heretics who must receive baptism on joining the church, a rule which seems to have prevailed from the 4th cent. (Beveridge, Cod. Canon. Eccles. Primit. lib. ii. c. 12; Basil. Ep. clxxxviii.). Certainly their practice in the 12th cent. would support this latter view, as they then substituted their Consolamentum or laying on of hands—which they called the baptism of the Holy Ghost—for water baptism, which they scorned (cf. Gieseler, H. E. iii. 397, 410 n.). For the Manicheans to admit baptism with water would seem inconsistent with their fundamental principle of the essentially evil nature of matter (cf. Tertull. cont. Marcion. i. 23). But we cannot expect perfect consistency, as in another respect they seem to have retained from the Zoroastrian system an exaggerated reverence for water. As to their Eucharist there is the same diversity of testimony and a similar accusation of filthy practices. They celebrated the communion, substituting water for wine, the use of which they abhorred. About the disgusting ceremonial of Ischas, which Cyril. Hier. (Cat. vi.), Augustine (Haer. xlvi.), and Pope Leo I. (ser. v. De Jejun. x. Mens.) accuse them of adding to their communion in a foul manner, see Beausobre, liv. ix. cc. 719 in t. ii. pp. 720–762.
Manicheism has been the prolific parent of false gospels. [LEUCIUS (1); MANES.] But the work of forgery was due not so much to Manes as to his followers, and it is almost certain that Manicheism merely adopted many apocryphal writings.
(4) History after Death of Manes.—(i) In the East, where they originated, the Manicheans made rapid progress, spreading, as an-Nadîm (Flügel's Mani, p. 105, cf. p 394) tells us, into various lands. During their persecution upon the death of Manes, they fled into Transoxania, whence they maintained a constant communication with Babylon, their original seat, as the head of the sect always remained there till the Mohammedan invasion. They spread into S. Armenia and Cappadocia, where they found material ready to their hand in the HYPSISTARII of that region (Matter, Gnosticism, ii. 392), whence they came into immediate contact with Europe. A proof of their activity in Armenia is found in the work of Eznig, one of the leading writers of Armenia in the 5th cent., pub. by the Mekhitarite monks at Venice in 1826 under the title Refutatio Errorum Persarum et Manichaeorum. Their progress seems to have been intensified by the Mazdakite movement in the 5th cent., which was only a revival of Manicheism. It displayed the same missionary activity which manifested itself in an aggression upon the orthodox of Armenia, a.d. 590, noted by the Armenian historian Samuel of Ani. He gives us a list of Manichean works which they introduced into Armenia, including the Penitence or Apocalypse of Adam (pub. by Renan in the Jour. Asiat. 1853, t. ii. p. 431), the Explanation of the Gospel of Manes, the Gospel of the Infancy, the Vision of St. Paul, and the Testament of Adam.
(ii) In the West the first notice of an advance is found in an edict (given
in Gieseler, H. E. i. 228) of Diocletian, directed to Julian, proconsul of
Africa, dated prid. kal. Apr. 287, wherein Manichean leaders are condemned to the
stake, and their adherents punished with decapitation and confiscation of all their
goods, as following "a new and unheard-of monster, which has come to us from the
Persians, a hostile people, and has perpetrated many misdeeds." The genuineness
of this edict has been challenged, but is defended by Neander, H. E. ii.
195, n. The chief ground for disputing it is the silence of the Fathers, specially
of Eusebius. But the argument e silentio is never a safe one, and Ambrosiaster
mentions it when commenting upon
(5) Remains of the Sect and of its Literature.—In the Yezedees, or Devil-worshippers of Mosul, and the Ansairees of Syria, we have their direct representatives; while mingled with the doctrines of the Sabians or Hemerobaptistae, who still linger in the neighbourhood of Harran, we have a large Manichean element. See Badger's Nestorians, t. i. cc. ix. x.; Lyde's Asian Mystery, and Layard's Nineveh, c. ix., as confirming this view by several interesting facts, cf. also Notes sur les sectes de Kurdistan, par T. Gilbert, in Jour. Asiat. 1873, t. ii. p. 393. Cahier maintained, in Mel. archéol. i. 148, that the Bogomili and the Massalians, branches of the same sect, still existed (1888) in Russia. We still possess some specimens of their literature, and a critical examination of Mohammedan MSS. and a complete investigation of the interior state of Western and Central Asia would probably reveal them in still larger abundance (Beausob. Hist. Man. t. i. p. 366, and n. 4). Renan published in 1883, in the Jour. Asiat. a Syriac document called the Apocalypse of Adam, which he shewed to be one of those brought by the Manicheans into Armenia in 590 a.d. and condemned in the celebrated Gelasian decree. See Harnack, Dogmengesch. vol. ii. (4th ed. 1922), pp. 513–527. [GELASIUS.]
Mar Aba or Mar-Abas. [NESTORIAN CHURCH; THOMAS (8).]
Marana and Cyra, two ladies of birth and education of Beroea in Syria,
who in their youth devoted themselves to a solitary life of the extremest austerity,
which they had persevered in for 42 years when Theodoret wrote his Religiosa
Historia. According to Theodoret they left home with some female servants whom
they had inspired with the same ascetic fervour and built a small stone enclosure,
Marcella, the friend of Jerome, from whose writings and memoir of her (Ep. cxxvii. ed. Vall.) she is chiefly known. She was descended from the illustrious Roman family of the Marcelli, and had great wealth. Her mother Albina was a widow when Athanasius came as an exile to Rome in 340. From Athanasius and his companions she heard of Anthony and the monasteries of the Thebaid, and received her first impulse towards the ascetic life. She married, but her husband died after seven months, and she refused a second marriage offered her by the wealthy Cerealis, a man of consular rank but advanced in years. Her ascetic tendency was confirmed by the coming to Rome of the Egyptian monk Peter in 374. She was the first in the city to make the monastic profession. She continued to live with her mother in their palatial residence on the Aventine, but with the utmost simplicity. She was not immoderate in her asceticism, and followed the counsels of her mother, from whose society she never departed.
When Jerome came to Rome in 382, she sought him out because of his repute for Biblical learning, and made him, at first against his will, her constant companion. A circle of ladies gathered round her, and her house became a kind of convent dedicated to the study of the Scriptures, and to psalmody and prayer. Marcella was eager for information, and would not accept any doubtful explanation, so that Jerome found himself in the presence of a judge rather than a disciple. At times she took her teacher to task for his severity and quarrelsomeness (Ep. xxvii. 2, ed. Vall.). He wrote for her some 15 different treatises—on difficult passages of Scripture and church history; and on his departure in 385 hoped that she might have accompanied her intimate friends Paula and Eustochium to Palestine. A letter written by those two ladies on their settlement at Bethlehem (in Jerome, Ep. xliv. ed. Vall.) invites her in glowing terms to come and enjoy with them the Holy Land; but she remained at Rome. After her mother's death in 387 she retired to a little house outside the city with her young friend Principia and devoted her whole time to good works. She still had a keen interest in Jerome's theological pursuits, and when Rufinus came to Rome and disputes arose as to his translation of Origen's περὶ Ἀρχῶν, she threw herself eagerly into the controversy. Having, in conjunction with Pammachius and Oceanus, ascertained Jerome's view of the matter, she urged the pope Anastasius (400–403) to condemn Origen and his defenders; and, when he hesitated, went to him and pointed out the passages which, she contended, though veiled in Rufinus's translation, demanded the pope's condemnation. Anastasius completely yielded, and like Theophilus of Alexandria condemned Origen and his upholders. "of this glorious victory," says Jerome, "Marcella was the origin."
She lived till the sack of Rome by Alaric. The Goths, supposing her to be affecting poverty to conceal her wealth, used personal violence, but at her entreaty spared Principia, and at last allowed them to take sanctuary in St. Paul's church. Her faith made her seem hardly sensible of her sufferings, but she only survived a few days and died in the arms of Principia, leaving all she had to the poor. Jerome, ed. Vall. Epp. 23–29, 32, 34, 37–44, 46, 97, 127.
Marcellina (2), a sister of St. Ambrose, older than himself. His three books de Virginibus, addressed to her, were written by her request. From iii. 1 we learn that she was admitted as a consecrated virgin at Rome on Christmas Day, by pope Liberius, in the presence of a large concourse of virgins and others. The address then given by Liberius is recorded by Ambrose from what Marcellina had often repeated to him. Ambrose praises her devotion and advises her to relax the severity of her fasting. She is mentioned by him (Ep. v.) as a witness to the virginal purity of Indicia. A constant correspondence was kept up with her brother. She is his "domina soror vitae atque oculis praeferenda." He wrote three of his most important letters to her: Ep. xx. describes his conflict with Justina and her son the younger Valentinian; xxii. announces the discovery of the bodies of the martyrs Gervasius and Protasius; xli. reports a sermon in which he had reproved Theodosius. In his discourse on the death of his brother Satyrus, Ambrose speaks of the warm family affection which bound the three together, and of the sister's grief (de Excessu Satyri, §§ 33, 76.
Marcellinus (1), bp. of Rome after Caius from June 30, 296, to Oct. 25
(?), 304, elected after a vacancy of about two months; called Marcellianus by Jerome,
Nicephorus, and in the Chronogr. Syntomon (853). The above dates are those
of the Liberian Catalogue (354) and appear correct. In other records his chronology
is very uncertain, partly, it would
Marcellinus (7), Flavius, a tribune and afterwards a notary (Böcking,
Not. Dig. Occ. p. 408), brother to Apringius, afterwards proconsul of Africa,
where Marcellinus appears to have usually resided. He was a Christian of high character,
taking much interest in theological matters. In 410 he was appointed by Honorius
to preside over a commission of inquiry into the disputes between the Catholics
and Donatists, an office for which he was singularly well qualified, and which on
the whole he discharged (in 411) with great moderation, good temper, and impartiality,
though not without giving offence to the Donatists, who accused him of bribery (Aug.
Ep. 141; Cod. Theod. xvi. 11, 5). With Augustine an intimate friendship
subsisted which the behaviour of Marcellinus at the conference no doubt tended to
strengthen; several letters were exchanged between them, and Augustine addressed
to him his three books de Peccatorum Meritis et Remissione, his book de
Spiritu et Littera, and the first two books of his great work de Civitate
Dei, which he says that he undertook at his suggestion (Aug. Retract.
ii. 37; de Civ. Dei. i. praef. ii. 1). Excepting letters about the conference
(Epp. 128, 129), the correspondence appears to have been carried on chiefly
during 412. It arose mainly
Marcellus (3), bp. of Rome probably from May 24, 307, to Jan. 15, 309, the see having been vacant after the death of Marcellinus, 2 years, 6 months, and 27 days (Lipsius, Chronologie der röm. Bischöf.).
This pope appears as a martyr in the Roman Martyrology, and in the later recensions of the Liber Pontificalis, a story being told that he was beaten, and afterwards condemned to tend the imperial horses as a slave. No trace of this legend, or indeed of his being a martyr at all, appears in the earlier recensions of the Pontifical, including the Felician. But a light is thrown on the circumstances which probably led to his title of "Confessor" by the monumental inscriptions to him and his successor Eusebius, placed on their tombs by pope Damasus. That to Marcellus (Pagi, Critic. in Baron. ad ann. 309; in Actis S. Januar.; De Rossi, Rom. Sotter. vi. p. 204) reads:
It would appear from these lines, together with those on Eusebius [EUSEBIUS (1)], that when persecution ceased at Rome conflicts arose in the Christian community as to the terms of readmission of the lapsi to communion; that Marcellus after his election had required a period of penance before absolution; that this stern discipline evoked violent opposition, the subjects of it being doubtless numerous anal influential; that the church had been split into parties in consequence, and riots, anarchy, and even bloodshed, had ensued; that "the tyrant" Maxentius had interposed in the interests of peace and banished the pope as the author of the discord. He was not really so, the inscription implies, but "another," for whose "crime" he suffered, i.e. the leader and instigator of the opposition, who had "denied Christ in time of peace" by condoning apostasy and subverting discipline after persecution had ceased. But Marcellus was made the victim, and thus was a "confessor" (or, in the wider sense of the word, a "martyr"), if not strictly for the faith, at any rate for canonical discipline and the honour of Christ. The "other" referred to was probably the Heraclius spoken of in the inscription on Eusebius as having "forbidden the lapsi to mourn for their sins," and who was banished in the next episcopate by "the tyrant" as well as the pope—"Extemplo pariter pulsi feritate tyranni." As Marcellus, unlike Eusebius, is not said in the Damasine inscription to have died in exile, and as he was certainly buried at Rome, like his predecessor in the cemetery of Priscilla on the Salarian Way (Catal. Felic.), he may have been allowed to return to his see.
Marcellus (4), bp. of Ancyra, believed to have been present at the synod held there in 315; but nothing can be proved from subscriptions doubtful in themselves. St. Athanasius, writing in 358 (Hist. ad Mon. 76), calls him an old man then; so that his age could have been no bar to his being bishop a.d. 315. He was certainly present, 325, at the Nicene council, where he obtained a good report, as pope Julius tells the Eusebians (Mansi, ii. 1215), for having contended earnestly for the Catholic faith against the Arians. Later, in refuting the heterodox writings of Asterius, he was accused of falling into doctrines combining the errors of Sabellius and Paul of Samosata, but his attachment to St. Athanasius and the orthodox cause may have subjected his book to unfair criticism. Anyhow the Eusebians, piqued at his absence from the synod of Tyre and afterwards the festivities at Jerusalem, A.D. 335, in honour of the dedication of the church of the Holy Sepulchre, called upon him to render account of the opinions advanced in it, and to recant them, and, according to Socrates, extorted a promise that he would burn the offending book. For not having at once done this, he was deposed in the synod held, by command of the emperor, at Constantinople by the chiefs of that party, in Feb. 336, when Eusebius of Nicomedia presided, and Eusebius of Caesarea was charged by the assembled bishops with the task of refuting the work of Marcellus. Basil the semi-Arian was appointed to the see vacated by him (Socr. i. 36). Condemned at Constantinople, Marcellus betook himself to Rome, apparently without loss of time. It must have been almost the first act of Julius, after his election (Feb. 6, 337), to receive Marcellus into communion. Marcellus could have scarcely left Rome when the Eusebian deputies, Macarius and two deacons, arrived (a.d. 339), hoping to persuade Julius to join them in unseating St. Athanasius who had returned from exile without being synodically restored. This led to Athanasius coming to Rome about Easter 340, and to a synod of more than 50 bishops assembled at Rome by pope Julius in Nov. 341.
Marcellus was at Rome then, having been admitted by Julius to
communion on a previous visit; and Julius followed the precedent
suggested by Marcellus at his previous visit, and adopted in his case,
viz. that of sending presbyters to the Eusebians with the object of
bringing them to Rome to confront an opponent already there. Neither
Julius nor his bishops ventured to restore Marcellus or St. Athanasius
to their respective sees. They
"Marcellus," Athanasius says, in his history to the monks (§ 6), "went to Rome, made his apology, and then at their request gave them his faith in writing, of which also the Sardican council approved." The Sardicans grounded their verdict in his favour on the book which Eusebius had maligned, but which they pronounced consistent with orthodoxy. "For he had not, as they affirmed, attributed to the Word of God a beginning from Mary, nor any end to His kingdom; but had stated His kingdom to be without beginning or end" (Apol. c. Arian. § 47). Hence they declared him faultless and free from taint. St. Hilary, who also says nothing of his profession, bears them out in their decision on the book; adding that Marcellus was never again tried or condemned in any subsequent synod (Frag. ii. 21–23). Against such testimony—living, competent, and explicit—as this, it is plainly not for moderns to contend, the book being no longer extant to speak for itself; and therefore we must—in spite of all Cave may urge to the contrary (Hist. Lit. i. 202), and after him Cardinal Newman (Library of the Fathers, xix. 503) and the learned writer of art. EUSEBIUS in this work—conclude with Montfaucon (Diatr. c. iii.), that, strongly as the extracts from it may read in Eusebius, whose party bias betrays itself in every line, yet "read by the light of what precedes and follows," as say the Sardican fathers, they may all be interpreted in a sense not conflicting with orthodoxy. St. Hilary, moreover, speaks with unwonted weight, as he proclaims the fact loudly that Marcellus subsequently by some rash utterances and his evident sympathy with his former disciple, Photinus, the ejected from Sirmium, came at last to be suspected of heretical leanings by all; and notably that he was, though privately, put out of communion by St. Athanasius, on which Marcellus abstained from church himself (Frag. ii. 23). Possibly such a rash utterance was in the mind of St. Hilary when he said to Constantius: "Hinc Marcellus Verbum Dei cum legit, nescit," and then adds: "Hinc Photinus hominem Jesum Christum cum loquitur, ignorat," classing them both in the same category. In the work of St. Epiphanius against heresies the Photinians rank first (71), and the Marcellians follow (72); yet even there the inference is, that the latter had been led astray by the former. St. Epiphanius does not mention the work of Eusebius against Marcellus, but gives extracts from one against him by Acacius, the successor of Eusebius at Caesarea, but not, as he says, because he thinks it any more conclusive than the Sardican fathers thought the work of Eusebius. But he criticizes the profession made by Marcellus in writing to pope Julius on the principle "Qui s’excuse s’accuse." This profession, what both Marcellus himself and St. Athanasius call his "ἔγγραφον πίστιν," which, he says expressly, he gave to pope Julius before leaving Rome, and which St. Epiphanius gives at full length. St. Athanasius says it was exhibited to the Roman and Sardican councils as well; but we have no other proof of this. It is but one of three different professions exhibited at different times on behalf of Marcellus—all characterized by the same suspicious surroundings, as will be shewn in due course. The two first are given by St. Epiphanius (Haer. lxxii.); the third was exhumed by Montfaucon. Dr. Heurtley (de Fide et Symbolo, p. 24) took this creed of Epiphanius as the earliest specimen of a Western creed. It was as certainly the baptismal creed of the West as it was not that of the local church of Rome (ib. pp. 89–133). For had it been the creed of the church of Rome, would not St. Athanasius have characterized it as such; would not Julius have recognized and applauded the adoption of his own formula? No doubt Marcellus picked it up in the Danubian provinces, or at Aquileia, in his way to Rome. It is identical with the creed commented upon by St. Augustine, which follows it in Heurtley (op. cit.), saving in the expression τὸν γεννηθέντα ἐκ Πνεύματος ἁγίου, etc., which is suspiciously peculiar, and may well have excited the misgivings of St. Epiphanius. Now this creed Marcellus never ventures to call the creed of his own church, yet must have meant that Julius should think it so, as he designates it "what he had been taught by his spiritual fathers, had learnt from holy Scripture, and preached in church," and he begs Julius to enclose copies of it to those bishops with whom he was corresponding, that any to whom he was unknown might be disabused of wrong notions formed of him from hostile statements. By way of preface, he recites, to condemn them, the principal errors held by his enemies; and affirms several points on which his own faith had been questioned. Whether by his own contrivance or otherwise, this profession was never made public, nor appealed to by him again. It satisfied Julius, and Julius may have communicated it to his correspondents among the Western bishops and to St. Athanasius on his arrival in Rome: but it cannot be proved to have been formally brought before the 50 bishops afterwards assembled there, and there is no proof that it was so much as named at Sardica. In dealing with Easterns, anyhow, the creed in which he professes his faith was that of Nicaea. This profession is extant as well as the other, and was being employed by his disciples in their own justification when it was placed in the hands of St. Epiphanius. It is headed "Inscription of the faith of Marcellus." Yet it can hardly be thought accidental that his own assent is not explicitly given by subscription either to this or the third formula, produced on his behalf. Montfaucon, preoccupied with his own discovery, seeks to connect it with this second profession, with which it has nothing whatever to do. Evidently Marcellus aimed at being an Eastern to the Easterns, and a Western to the Westerns.
Finally, neither of these professions would seem to have sufficed for
him in extreme old age, but he must construct a third, intended this
time for St. Athanasius himself. The date fixed for it by Montfaucon
is 372, not
Marcia. In 183 a conspiracy against the emperor Commodus was detected and put down, in which the emperor's sister Lucilla and his cousin Quadratus had been prime movers. On the execution of Quadratus and the confiscation of his property, his concubine Marcia became the concubine of Commodus and obtained the highest favour with him. She was granted all the honours due to an acknowledged empress, save that of having the sacred fire borne before her. The emperor's coins displayed her figure in the garb of an Amazon, and he himself took the title Amazonius, and gave it to a month of the year. She was all-powerful with him, and used her influence on behalf of the Christians, obtaining for them many benefits. This fact, stated by Dion Cassius (or possibly by his epitomizer Xiphilinus), has led to the suspicion that she was a Christian herself, a suspicion not disproved by her position as concubine; for the Christian code then dealt tenderly with the case of a female slave unable to refuse her person to her master, and, provided she shewed the fidelity of a wife, did not condemn her (Const. Apost. viii. 32). We now know from Hippolytus that the eunuch who brought Marcia up, and who retained a high place in her confidence, was a Christian presbyter. This sufficiently accounts for her Christian sympathies; and the epithet φιλόθεος, which Hippolytus applies to her, would have been different if, besides being friendly to the Christians, she had been a Christian herself.
Marcia, whose intimacy with her fellow servant Eclectus had given occasion for remark, ultimately became his wife. She appears to have had resolution and spirit corresponding to her favourite Amazonian dress. She was put to death in 193 by Didius Julianus, to avenge the death of Commodus, which she had planned and carried out to save her own life. For the original authorities, see ECLECTUS.
Marciani. [EUCHITES.]
Marcianus (3), Nov. 2
(Menol. Graec. Sirlet. and Mart. Rom.), a celebrated
solitary in the desert of Chalcis in Syria (Theod. Rel. Hist.
c. 3); a native of Cyrrhus and of good family. In the desert he built
himself within a narrow enclosure a cell in which he could neither
stand upright nor lie at full length. In course of time he admitted to
his society, but in separate dwellings, two disciples—Eusebius,
his successor in the cell, and Agapetus. At some distance he established
an abode, under the care of Eusebius, for those who desired to pursue
a monastic life under regulations framed by him. Agapetus retired and
became bp. of Apamea. Towards the end of his life Marcian allowed
himself to be visited by all who pleased, women excepted, but only
after the festival of Easter. About 382 he was visited by Flavian,
the new bp. of Antioch, in company with four of the most eminent
bishops of Syria—Acacius of Berrhoea, Eusebius of Chalcis, Isidore
of Cyrrhus, and Theodotus
Marcianus (4), Jan. 10, presbyter and oeconomus of the great church of Constantinople. The authorities for his Life are Theodorus Lector (H. E. i. 13, 23, in Patr. Gk. lxxxvi.), the Basilian Menology, Jan. 10, a Vita from Simeon Metaphrastes (Boll. Acta SS. 10 Jan. i. 609); and notices in the Bollandist Lives of St. Auxentius (14 Feb. ii. 770), St. Isidore the martyr of Chios (15 Mai. iii. 445), and St. Gregory Nazianzen (9 Mai. ii. 401 c, note n). Tillemont (xvi. 161) devotes an article to him. He was originally a layman of the Cathari or Novatianists (Theod. L. i. 13), and was then intimate with Auxentius, who was a Catholic (Vit. Auxent. u.s.). He was appointed oeconomus by the patriarch Gennadius, therefore after 458; and made it a rule that the clergy of Constantinople should retain for their own churches the offerings made in them and no longer pay them over to the great church (Theod. L. i. 13). His erection of the remarkable (θαυμαστόν) church of the Anastasia or Holy Resurrection and of the church of St. Irene is mentioned in the Basilian Menology and by Codinus (Aedif. Cp. p. 88, ed. Bekker), the latter adding that he also built a hospital for the sick. The church of Irene (transformed from an idol temple) was on the shore (Vit. § 14) at "the passage" (Codin.). The Anastasia was (Codin.) a refoundation of the humble oratory in which St. Gregory ministered, and Marcian bought the site (then occupied by dealers in materials for mosaic work) because there had been found St. Gregory's commentaries (ὑπομνήματα), wherein he had, 50 years before, predicted the restoration of the building in greater size and beauty. The adornment of Marcian's church was subsequently completed by Basil the Macedonian, who added the golden ceiling. How Marcian saved his new church in the conflagration of Sept. 2 by his prayers and tears, while mounted on the roof with the Holy Gospels in his hands, is related by Theodore Lector (i. 23), the Vita, the Basilian Menology, Theophanes (A. C. 454), and Cedrenus (p. 348, ed. Bekker, p. 610). The year as fixed by Clinton (F. R. i. 666) was 465. Codinus's mention of 50 years makes the rebuilding of the Anastasia c. 425, as the Bollandist Lives of St. Gregory (u.s.) and St. Isidore (u.s.) say, long therefore before Marcian became oeconomus. He is stated to have placed the relics of St. Isidore in the church of St. Irene (ib.). An account of the two churches, very full as to the Anastasia, is given in Du Cange (Cpolis. Chr. lib. iv. pp. 98, 102, ed. 1729). Tillemont dates Marcian's death 471, and has minor notices of him at ii. 231, iii. 354, v. 98, ix. 416, xvi. 59, 70.
Marcianus (8), Flavius, emperor of the East 450–457. For his civil history see D. of G. and R. Biogr.
On his accession he found the world distracted by the Eutychian controversy. Theodosius had taken the part of Eutyches and upheld the decision of the "Latrocinium" of Ephesus. His death caused a complete revolution in the church in the East. Pulcheria had always been on the side of pope Leo and orthodoxy and naturally chose for her husband one who shared her views. Marcian, in his first letter to Leo (S. Leonis, Ep. lxxiii. in Migne, Patr. Lat. liv. 900), speaks of the assembling of a council under Leo's influence. For the correspondence between Marcian, Pulcheria, and Leo relating to the proposed council see LEO I. The disturbed state of the ecclesiastical atmosphere was probably the motive of Marcian's law of July 12, 451, against brawling in churches and holding meetings in private houses or in the streets (Codex, lib. i. tit. xii. 5). The same year Eutyches was banished, though not so far from Constantinople as Leo (Ep. lxxxiv.) wished, and orders were issued by the emperor convening a council. Originally intended to meet at Nicaea on Sept. 1, pressure of public business prevented the emperor, then in Thrace, from going so far from Constantinople, so the bishops assembled at Nicaea were directed to repair to Chalcedon (Mansi, vi. 552, 558). For a detailed account of the proceedings of the council see DIOSCORUS and EUTYCHES. Marcian and Pulcheria were present only at the sixth session on Oct. 25, when the emperor made short speeches in Greek and Latin to the assembled bishops, who received him and the empress enthusiastically as a new Constantine and a new Helena. [EUTYCHES.]
After the
council separated Marcian proceeded to enforce its decrees by a series
of edicts. The first two, dated Feb. 7 and
Palestine was likewise in a disturbed state. Some of the monks of the defeated side, who had attended the council, on their return, headed by Theodosius, a violent monk who had been their leader in the council, stirred up an insurrection of the whole body of desert monks (ib. 293). Juvenalis, bp. of Jerusalem, had, after his return, to fly for his life. Severianus, bp. of Scythopolis, was killed by an assassin sent in pursuit of Juvenalis; Jerusalem was seized by the infuriated monks; houses were burnt, murders were perpetrated, the prisons broken open and criminals released, and finally Theodosius was elected bishop. Marcian, hearing of the outrages, wrote to the archimandrites, monks, and inhabitants of Jerusalem, rebuked them sharply, ordered the punishment of the guilty, and placed a garrison in Jerusalem (Mansi, vii. 487–495).
Marcian also took measures to suppress the last remnants of paganism. By a law of Nov. 12, 451 (Codex, lib. i. tit. xi. 7), he forbade, under pain of death, the reopening of the closed temples, and the offering sacrifices, libations, or incense in them, or even adorning them with flowers, and at the end of his law of Aug. 1, 455, directed the strict enforcement of the laws against paganism.
In Apr. 454 he passed a law granting to nuns, deaconesses, and widows the power of making testamentary dispositions in favour of the church or clergy and repealing all previous contrary enactments. In Apr. 456 he passed another (ib. tit. iii. 25, and tit. iv. 13), by which proceedings against the oeconomus or other clerics of the churches in Constantinople were to be taken at the plaintiff's desire either before the archbishop or the prefect of the city, and no oaths tendered to clerics, who were forbidden to swear by the laws of the church and an ancient canon.
Dying Jan. 457 (Theod. Lect. 565), aged 65, after a reign of 6½ years, he was buried in the church of the Apostles at Constantinople (Cedrenus, 607, in Patr. Gk. cxxi. 659).
Marcion, a noted and permanently influential heretic of the 2nd cent.
Life.—Justin Martyr (Apol.
cc. 26, 58) mentions Simon and Menander as having been instigated
by demons to introduce heresy into the church, and goes on to
speak of Marcion as still living, evidently regarding him as the most
formidable heretic of the day.
The story proceeds to say that he asked the Roman presbyters to explain the texts, "A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit," and "No man putteth a piece of new cloth unto an old garment," texts from which he himself deduced that works in which evil is to be found could not proceed from the good God, and that the Christian dispensation could have nothing in common with the Jewish. Rejecting the explanation offered him by the presbyters, he broke off the interview with a threat to make a schism in their church. The beginning of Marcionism was so early that the church writers of the end of the 2nd cent., who are our best authorities, do not themselves seem able to tell with certainty the story of its commencement. But we know that the heresy of Marcion spread itself widely over many countries. Epiphanius names as infected by it in his time, Rome and Italy, Egypt, Palestine, Arabia, Syria, Cyprus, and even Persia. Its diffusion in the latter half of the 2nd cent. is proved by its antagonists in numerous countries: Dionysius in Corinth writing to Nicomedia, Philip in Crete, Theophilus in Antioch, besides Modestus (Eus. iv. 25), Justin, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Clement of Alexandria, Rhodo, and Tertullian. Bardesanes wrote in Syriac against the heresy (ib. iv. 30), as did Ephrem Syrus later.
Now, Marcion would seem to have travelled much and probably used his journeys to propagate his doctrines. Ephrem Syrus speaks of him as wandering like Cain, but possibly only refers to his leaving his country for Rome (Hymn 56, Assemani, Bibl. Or. i. 119). Tertullian constantly describes him as "nauclerus"; Rhodo (ap. Eus. v. 13) calls him ναύτης, according to a reading which we believe to be right, though the word is wanting in some MSS. His travels seem more likely to have preceded than to have followed his settling in Rome under Anicetus. Unless, therefore, the story of the interview with the Roman presbyters is to be rejected altogether, we think it must be taken date and all. The interview must be placed immediately after the death of Hyginus and we must suppose Marcion then to have left Rome on his travels and only to have settled there permanently some years later, first as a member of Cerdo's school and afterwards as his successor.
The authorities as to the chronology of his life are very conflicting. The statement on which we can most rely is that he taught in Rome during the episcopate of Anicetus. We have no good warrant to extend his activity later, for we can give no credit to Tertullian when he names Eleutherus (de Praesc. 30) in connexion with the excommunication of Marcion. If Marcion did not survive Anicetus he may have been born c. 100. The Chronicle of Edessa names 138 for the beginning of Marcionism, and with this agrees the first year of Antoninus given by the Fihrist (Flügel's Mani, p. 85). This date is not improbable, if we suppose an Oriental preaching of the heresy to have preceded its establishment at Rome; a.d. 150 is a not unlikely date for Justin Martyr's Apology, and 12 years' growth is not too much for Marcionism to attain the formidable dimensions that work indicates. If Justin Martyr's work is dated earlier, the date of Marcionism will be similarly affected.
The time of Marcion's death is unknown, but he probably did
not survive Anicetus. The only works he is known to have left are his
recensions of the Gospel and Pauline Epistles; his Antitheses,
in which by comparing different passages he tried to shew that the
O.T. contradicted the New, and also itself; and Tertullian refers
to a letter of his, then extant, as proving that he had originally
belonged to the Catholic church (adv. Marc. i. 1; iv. 4;
de Carn. Christ. ii.). We learn from Rhodo (Eus. v. 13) that
after his death his followers broke up into sects, among the leaders
of which he names Apelles, who only acknowledged one first principle;
Potitus and Basilicus, who counted two; and Syneros, who counted three
(Ref. vii. 31). Other Marcionite teachers mentioned are Prepo,
an Assyrian, by Hippolytus, Lucanus by Tertullian; Pitho and Blastus
(the latter probably erroneously) by Theodoret (Haer. Fab.
i. 25). Epiphanius says (de Mens. et Pond. 17) that Theodotion,
the translator of O.T., had been a Marcionite before his apostasy to
Judaism, and Jerome (de Vir. Illust. 56) states that Ambrosius
was one before his conversion by Origen. These sectaries were formidable
to the church, both from their numbers and the strictness of their
life. They were very severe ascetics, refusing flesh meat, wine, and
the married life. Unlike some Gnostics who taught that it was no sin
to escape persecution by disguising their faith, the Marcionites vied
with the orthodox
At the end of the Diocletian persecution the Marcionites had a short interval of freedom of worship. An inscription has been found over the doorway of a house in a Syrian village (Le Bas and Waddington, Inscriptions, No. 2558, vol. iii. p. 583) bearing a Syrian date corresponding to the year commencing Oct. 1, 318. This is more ancient than any dated inscription belonging to a Catholic church. With the complete triumph of Christianity, Marcionite freedom of worship was lost. Constantine (Eus. de Vit. Const. iii. 64) absolutely forbade their meeting for worship in public or private buildings. Their churches were to be given to the Catholics; any private houses used for schismatical worship to be confiscated. But the dying out of Marcionism was probably less the result of imperial legislation than of the absorption of the older heresy by the new wave of Oriental dualism which in Manicheism passed over the church. The Theodosian Code (xvi. tit. v. 65) contains a solitary mention of Marcionites. They were not extinct in the fifth cent., for Theodoret, writing to pope Leo (Ep. 113, p. 1190), boasts that he had himself converted more than a thousand Marcionites. In Ep. 145 the number of converts rises to ten thousand; in Ep. 81 they are said to be the inhabitants of eight villages. In his Church History (v.) Theodoret tells of an unsuccessful effort made by Chrysostom for their conversion. Probably this survival of Marcionism was but a local peculiarity. But as late as 692 the council in Trullo thought it worth while to make provision for the reconciliation of Marcionites, and there is other evidence of lingering remains so late as the 10th cent. (Flügel's Mani, pp. 160, 167).
Doctrine.—There is a striking difference of character between the teaching of Marcion and of others commonly classed with him as Gnostics. The systems of the latter often contain so many elements derived from heathenism, or drawn from the fancy of the speculators, that we feel as if we had scarcely any common ground with them; but with Marcion Christianity is plainly the starting-point, and the character of his system harmonizes with his being the son of a Christian bishop and brought up as a Christian. But he has been perplexed by the question of the origin of evil, and is disposed to accept the solution, much prevalent in the East then, that evil is inextricably mixed up with matter, which therefore could not be the creation of the Supreme. He tries to fit in this solution with his Christian creed and with the Scriptures; but naturally only by a mutilation of both can he force an agreement. Indeed, he sometimes has even to alter the text, e.g. "I am not come to destroy the law, but to fulfil," into "I am not come to fulfil the law, but to destroy." Still, the arbitrary criticism of Marcion has more points of contact with modern thought than the baseless assumptions of other Gnostics. A modern divine would turn away from the dreams of Valentinianism in silent contempt; but he could not refuse to discuss the question raised by Marcion, whether there is such opposition between different parts of what he regards as the word of God, that all cannot come from the same author.
The fundamental point of difference between Marcion and
the church was concerning the unity of the first principle. Marcion
plainly asserted the existence of two Gods, a good one and a just
one. What he meant to convey by these words Beausobre well illustrates
by a passage of Bardesanes, preserved by Eusebius (Praep. Evan.
vi. 10). He says that animals are of three kinds: some, like serpents
and scorpions, will hurt those who have given them no provocation;
some, like sheep, will not attempt to return evil for evil; others
will hurt those only that hurt them. These three may be called evil,
good, and just respectively. Marcion then thought the infliction of
punishment inconsistent with perfect goodness, and would only concede
the title of just to the God of O.T., who had distinctly threatened
to punish the wicked. The God, he said, whose law was "An eye for
an eye, and a tooth for a tooth," was a just God, but not the same
as that good God whose command was, "If any smite thee on the one
cheek, turn to him the other also." The command, "Thou shalt love
him that loveth thee and hate thine enemy" was that of a just God;
"Love thine enemy" was the law of the good God. Further, the
God of O.T. had said of Himself, "I create evil"; but since
from a good tree evil fruit cannot spring, it follows that He who
created evil cannot Himself be good. He could not be the Supreme, for
He was of limited intelligence, not being able to find Adam when he
hid himself, and obliged to ask, "Where are thou?", and also
obliged to come down to see before He could know whether Sodom had done
according to its cry. Marcion's theory was that the visible creation
was the work of the just God; the good God, whose abode he places in
the third or highest heaven and whom apparently he acknowledged as the
creator of a high immaterial universe, neither concerned Himself with
Marcion's rejection of O.T. prophecy did not
involve a denial that the prophets had foretold the coming of a Christ;
but the Christ of the prophets could not be our Christ. The former was
to come for the deliverance of the Jewish people; the latter for that
of the whole human race. The former was to be a warrior—Christ was
a man of peace; Christ suffered on the cross—the law pronounced
accursed him that hangeth on a tree; the Christ of the prophets is
to rule the nations with a rod of iron, kings are to set themselves
against Him, He is to have the heathen for His inheritance and to
set up a kingdom that shall not be destroyed. Jesus did none of these
things, therefore the Christ of the prophets is still to come. Tertullian
successfully shews that if Jesus was not the Christ of the prophets,
He must have wished to personate Him, coming as He did at the time and
in the place which the prophets had foretold, and fulfilling so many of
the indications they had given. What Marcion supposed his own Christ to
be has been disputed. Some have supposed that he did not distinguish him
from his good God, for Marcion's Gospel was said to have commenced:
"In the 15th year of Tiberius God came down to Capernaum, a city
of Galilee, and taught on the Sabbath days" (Tert. adv. Marc.
iv. 7); but we believe the true reading here is "eum," not
"deum," and that Marcion held his Christ to be a saving Spirit
(i. 19), but did not confound him with the Supreme. Marcion's Gospel
told nothing of the birth of Christ, and Marcion's "came down"
has a very different meaning from what it has in the original passage
(
The Marcionite system as described by Esnig has more of
a mythic than of a rationalistic character, and if we accept this
as the original form of Marcionism, Marcion owed more to the older
Gnostics than we should otherwise have supposed. Marcion is said
by Esnig to have taught that there were three heavens: in the highest
dwelt the good God,
Though this mythical story differs much in complexion from other ancient accounts of Marcionite doctrine, we cannot absolutely reject it; for there is nothing in it inconsistent with Marcion's known doctrines or such as a Gnostic of his age might have taught. It is, indeed, such a system as he might have learned from the Syriac Gnostic Cerdo. But Marcion must have given the mythic element little prominence, or it would not have so disappeared from the other accounts.
Discipline and Worship.—In rites Marcion
followed the church model. Thus (Tert. adv. Marc. i. 14) he had
baptism with water, anointing with oil, a mixture of milk and honey
was given to the newly baptized, and sacramental bread represented the
Saviour's Body. Wine was absent from his Eucharist, for his principles
entirely forbade wine or flesh meat. [ENCRATITES.] Fish, however,
he permitted. He commanded his disciples to fast on Saturday, to
mark his hostility to the God of the Jews, who had made that His
day of rest. Marriage he condemned. A married man was received as
a catechumen, but not admitted to baptism until he had agreed to
separate from his wife (ib. i. 29 and iv. 10). This probably
explains the statement of Epiphanius that the Marcionites celebrated
the mysteries in the presence of unbaptized persons. The sect could
not have flourished if it discouraged married persons from joining it;
and if it admitted them only as catechumens, that class would naturally
be granted larger privileges than in the Catholic church.
Canon of Scripture.—Marcion's rejection of the O.T. involved the rejection of great part of the New, which bears witness to the Old. He only retained the Gospel of St. Luke (and that in a mutilated form), and ten Epp. of St. Paul, omitting the pastoral epistles. In defence of his rejection of other apostolic writings, he appealed to the statements of St. Paul in Galatians, that some of the older apostles had not walked uprightly after the truth of the gospel, and that certain false apostles had perverted the gospel of Christ. Marcion's Gospel, though substantially identical, as far as it went, with our St. Luke's, did not bear that Evangelist's name. That it was, however, an abridgment of St. Luke was asserted by all the Fathers from Irenaeus and not doubted until modern times. Then it was noticed that in some cases where Marcion is accused by Epiphanius or Tertullian of having corrupted the text, his readings are witnessed by other ancient authorities. We have the means of restoring Marcion's Gospel with sufficient exactness. Tertullian goes through it in minute detail; Epiphanius also has made a series of minute notes on Marcion's corruptions of the text; some notices are also found in the Dialogue of Adamantius. Combining these independent sources, we obtain results on which we can place great confidence. It clearly appears that Marcion's Gospel and our St. Luke's in the main followed the same order and were even in verbal agreement, except that the latter contains much not found in the former. So that the affinity of the two forms is certain, and the only choice is whether we shall regard the one as a mutilation or the other as an interpolated form. The theory that the shorter form was the original was for some time defended by Ritschl and Baur, who, however, were obliged to yield to the arguments of Hilgenfeld and Volkmar. In Volkmar's Das Evangelium Marcions the differences between the two forms of the Gospel are examined in minute detail, especially with reference to their doctrinal bearings; and it is found that the only theory which will explain the facts is that Marcion's is a mutilated form. His form exhibits a hostility to Judaism, the Mosaic law, and the work of the Creator, of which there is not a trace in genuine Pauline Christianity. Dr. Sanday (Gospel in the Second Cent., p. 204) has made a careful linguistic, comparison of the portion of our St. Luke which Marcion acknowledges with that which he omits, the result being a decisive proof of common authorship; the part omitted by Marcion abounding in all the peculiarities which distinguish the style of the third evangelist. The theory, therefore, that Marcion's form is the original may be said to be now completely exploded. Dr. Sanday notes further that the text of St. Luke used by Marcion has some readings recognized by some other ancient authorities, but which no critic now accepts. The inference is that when Marcion used St. Luke's Gospel it had been so long in existence, and had been copied so often, that different types of text had had time to establish themselves. It has been argued that Marcion could not have known our Fourth Gospel, else he would have preferred this, as being more strongly anti-Jewish. But the Fourth Gospel is not anti-Jewish in Marcion's sense, and he would have had even more trouble in mutilating it to make it serve his purpose. At the very outset Christ's relation to the Jewish people is described in the words, "He came unto His own"; the Jewish temple is called His Father's house; salvation is said to be of the Jews; contrary to Marcion's teaching, Christ is perpetually identified with the Christ predicted in O.T.; the Scriptures are "they which testify of Me," "Moses wrote of Me," "Had ye believed Moses ye would have believed Me." Great importance is attached to the testimony of John the Baptist, who, according to Marcion, like the older prophets, did not know the true Christ; and the miracle of turning water into wine would alone have condemned the Gospel in Marcion's eyes. In short, the Fourth Gospel is strongly anti-Marcionite. See esp. Zahn's Gesch. des N.T. Kanons, i. 587–718 and ii. 409–529.
Marcion's Apostolicon consisted of ten epistles, in the order: Gal., I. and II. Cor., Rom. (wanting the last two chapters), I. and II. Thess., Eph. (called by Marcion the Ep. to the Laodiceans), Col., Philippians, Philemon. Concerning the order of the last two, Tertullian and Epiphanius differ. The Acts and the pastoral epistles are rejected. The Apostolicon was known to Jerome, who notes two or three of its readings. The most careful attempt to restore it is by Hilgenfeld (Zeitschrift f. histor. Theol. 1855). It becomes apparent that Marcion struck out from the Epistles which he acknowledged some passages which conflicted with his theory and also made some few additions. The arbitrary character of such criticism would destroy all claim to originality for Marcion's text of the Gospel, even if that claim had not otherwise been sufficiently refuted.
Marcus
(6), bp. of Rome, probably from Jan. 18 to Oct. 7, 336, having been
ordained 18 days after the death of his predecessor Sylvester. The above
dates, from the Liberian Catalogue and Depositio Episcoporum,
are confirmed by St. Jerome (Chron.), who gives him a reign
of 8 months, and are consistent with historical events. He is said
(Catal. Felic. and Anastasius) to have ordained that the
bishops of Ostia should consecrate the bishops of Rome and bear the
pallium, and to have been buried in the cemetery of Balbina on the
Via Ardeatina, "in basilica quam coemiterium constituit."
Baronius notices this as the earliest mention of the pallium. The
cemetery of Balbina, called also that of St. Mark from this pope's
interment there and variously spoken of in old itineraries as on the
Ardeatine and Appian Ways, has been identified as lying between the
two by De Rossi, who supposes the "basilica" to have been a
chapel, or cella memoriae, built by Marcus at the entrance
of an existing cemetery
Marcus (14), surnamed Eremita, mentioned by Nicephorus Callistus as ὁ πολυθρύλλητος ἀσκητής, said to have lived in the reign of Theodosius II. and to have been a disciple of St. Chrysostom (Niceph. H. E. xiv. 30). Nicephorus speaks later of the works of a Μάρκος ἀσκητής, apparently the same man. Of these he had seen a collection of 8 and another of 32, dealing with the ascetic life (H. E. xiv. 54). Photius (Bibl. Cod. 200) gives an account of 8 works of Marcus the monk, all of which are extant with one doubtful exception. His works, pub. in Patr. Gk. lxv. 905, preceded by two disquisitions on the author by Gallandius and Fessler, are:
(1) περὶ νόμου πνευματικοῦ, a collection of short aphorisms, inculcating especially the duties of humility and constant prayer.
(2) περὶ τῶν οἰομένων ἐξ ἔργων δικαιοῦσθαι shews that as slaves of God we have no wages to expect. All is of grace, which is given τελεία in baptism, and afterwards in measure proportioned to our obedience.
(3) περί μετανοίας shews repentance to be necessary for all.
(4) ἀπόκρισις πρὸς τοὺς ἀποροῦντας περὶ τοῦ θείου βαπτίσματος, an important treatise on the doctrine of baptism, states distinctly that by the grace of baptism original sin is put away and the baptized are in exactly the condition Adam was before the fall.
(5) and (9) πρὸς Νικόλαον and περὶ νηστείας are ascetic treatises.
(7) ἀντιβολὴ πρὸς σχολαστικόν defends monastic life against a man of the world.
(8) συμβουλία νοὸς πρὸς τὴν ἑαυτοῦ ψυχήν shews that the root of evil is in ourselves.
(10) εἰς τὸν Μελχισεδέκ, against heretics who argued from the language of Hebrews that Melchizedek was the Son of God.
(6) κεφάλαια νηπτικά, generally included among the works of Marcus, but not mentioned by Photius, From external and internal evidence it would seem to be wrongly ascribed to Marcus.
Marcus
(17), a Gnostic of the school of Valentinus, who taught in the
middle of the 2nd cent. His doctrines are almost exclusively known
to us through a long section (i. 13–21, pp. 55–98) in
which Irenaeus gives an account of his teaching and his school. Both
Hippolytus (Ref. vi. 39–55, pp. 200–220 and Epiphanius
(Haer. 34) have copied the account from Irenaeus; and there
seems no good reason to think that either had any direct knowledge of
the writings of Marcus. But Clement of Alexandria clearly knew and used
them. Although Jerome describes Marcus as a Basilidian (Ep. 75
ad Theod. i. 449), what Irenaeus reports clearly shews him as a
follower of Valentinus. Thus his system tells of 30 Aeons, divided into
an Ogdoad, a Decad, and a Dodecad; of the fall and recovery of Sophia;
of the future union of the spirits of the chosen seed with angels as
their heavenly bridegrooms. What Marcus added to the teaching of his
predecessors is perhaps the most worthless of all that passed under
the name of "knowledge" in the 2nd cent. It merely contains
magical formulae, which the disciples were to get by heart and put
trust in, and puerile speculations, such as were in vogue among the later
Pythagoreans, about mysteries in numbers and names. Marcus found in
Scripture and in Nature repeated examples of the occurrence of his
mystical numbers, four, six, eight, ten, twelve, thirty. If so great
mysteries were contained in names, it naturally followed that to know
the right name of each celestial power was a matter of vital importance;
and such knowledge the heretical teachers promised to bestow. They had
formulae and sacraments of redemption. They taught that the baptism of
the visible Jesus was but for the forgiveness of sins, but that the
redemption of Him Who in that baptism descended was for perfection;
the one was merely psychical, the other spiritual. Of the latter are
interpreted the words in which our Lord spoke of another baptism
(
Marcus appears to have been an elder contemporary of Irenaeus, who speaks of him as though still living and teaching. Irenaeus more than once tells of the resistance to Marcus of a venerated elder, from whom he quotes some iambic verses, written in reprobation of that heretic. Though we learn from Irenaeus that the Rhone district was much infested by followers of Marcus, it does not appear that Marcus was there himself, and the impression left is that Irenaeus knew the followers of Marcus by personal intercourse, Marcus only by his writings. We are told also of Marcus having seduced the wife of one of the deacons in Asia (διάκονον τινα τῶν ἐν τῇ Ἀσίᾳ) and the most natural conclusion is that Asia Minor was the scene where Marcus made himself notorious as a teacher, probably before Irenaeus had left that district; that it was a leading bishop there who resisted Marcus; and that the heretic's doctrines passed into Gaul by means of the extensive intercourse well known to have then prevailed between the two countries. The use of Hebrew or Syriac names in the Marcosian school may lead us to ascribe to Marcus an Oriental origin.
Mari. [NESTORIAN CHURCH.]
Marinus (4), a military martyr in the reign of Gallienus, at Caesarea in Palestine, under a judge named Achaeus, A.D. 262. He was distinguished by his birth, riches, and services. When Marinus was about to be made a centurion, another aspirant declared him to be a Christian and unable therefore to sacrifice to the emperors. The judge granted him three hours to choose between death and compliance. As Marinus came out of the praetorium, Theotecnus the bishop led him into the church. Placing him by the altar, be raised his cloak, and pointing to the sword by his side, and presenting him with the book of the gospels, told him to choose which he wished. Without hesitation he extended his hand and took the book. "Hold fast then—hold fast to God," said Theotecnus, "and strengthened by Him mayest thou obtain what thou hast chosen: go in peace." He was immediately executed, and buried by a Christian senator named Astyrius. The narrative of Eusebius was probably that of an eye-witness, perhaps the bishop. It is a moot question whether this martyrdom resulted from persecution or from military law. Dr. F. Görres, in an art. in Jahrb. Prot. Theologie, 1877, p. 620, on "Die Toleranzedicte des Kaisers Gallienus," suggests that Marinus could not legally have suffered under Gallienus, who had already issued his edict of toleration, but that it must have taken place by command of Macrianus, who had revolted from Gallienus and taken possession of Egypt, Palestine, and the East, and was, as we learn from Eus. vii. 10, 13, 23 (cf. Trebell. Pollio, ed. H. Peter. Script. Hist. Aug. t. ii. Gallieni duo. cc. i.–iii. xxx. Tyranni, cc. xiii. xiv.) the moral author of the Valerian persecution. When possessed of imperial authority, Macrianus vented his hate on the Christians whom Gallienus favoured. Eus. vii. 15, 16; Neander, H. E. ed. Bohn, i. 194 ; Ceill, ii. 394; Tillem. iv. 21; Pagi, Crit. i. 276, nr. x. xi.).
Maris (2),
(Mares, Magnus, Marius), bp. of Chalcedon, a prominent Arian
(Le Quien, Or. Chr. i. 599), said to have been a disciple of the
martyr Lucian of Antioch (Philost. H. E. ii. 14; Tillem. v. 770,
vi. 253, 646). He wrote in support of Arian opinions before the council
of Nicaea (Athan. de Syn. § 17; Tillem. vi. 646). At
the council he joined with Eusebius of Nicomedia, Theognis, Ursacius,
and Valens against Athanasius (Socr. i. 8, 27), and was one of five
who were unwilling to subscribe on account of the term ὁμοούσιον
(i. 8). Maris at length yielded (Soz. i. 211;
Nicet. Chron. Thesaur. v. 8; cf. Vales. note 71, ad Soz.
i. 21). He was one of 17 who held out against the council and
supported Arius, according to Gelasius (Mansi, ii. 818; cf. 878
B). His name occurs
among the subscribers (ib. ii. 696). Philostorgius states (in
Nicet. Chon. Thes. v. 8) that Maris, Eusebius, Theognis, expressed
to the emperor their repentance for having signed, stating that they
had complied only through fear of him, and that the emperor indignantly
banished them to Gaul. Maris assisted at the council of Tyre in 335,
and was one of the commission to Mareotis (Athan.
Marius (1) Mercator, a writer, of whom, until the last quarter of the 17th cent., nothing was known except indirectly through the writings of St. Augustine, who in his work de Octo Quaestionibus Dulcitii, mentions him as his son, i.e. his friend or pupil, and who addressed to him a letter, containing a long passage identical with one in that work (Ep. 193, de Oct. Quaest. Dulc. qu. 3).
Probably a native of Africa, in Rome in 417 or 418, and thought by Baluze to have outlived the council of Chalcedon, a.d. 451. When Julian of Eclana was lecturing at Rome in 418 in favour of Pelagianism, Mercator replied to him, and sent his reply to St. Augustine, to whom not long afterwards Mercator forwarded a second treatise. Whether these two works exist or not is doubtful, but a treatise called Hypognosticon, or Hypermesticon, in six books, included in vol. x. of St. Augustine's works (ed. Migne, p. 1611), has been thought to be the one in question. Five of the books treat of Pelagianism, and the sixth of Predestination. The letter of Augustine, forwarded by Albinus, a.d. 418, expresses admiration of the learning of Marius and discusses points submitted for consideration.
The works of Marius Mercator, being chiefly translations, some of them from his own writings in Greek, appear in Migne in the following order, together with much matter more or less relevant to the principal subject. Part I. 1. Commonitorium super nomine Coelestii.—A memorial against the doctrines of Coelestius and Julian, disciples of Pelagius, written in Greek, and presented by Mercator to the emperor Theodosius II. and to the church of Constantinople, a.d. 429, translated by himself into Latin. It contains a history of Pelagianism and an account of its doctrines, and an appeal to Julian to abandon them. 2. A treatise, to which the Commonitorium is a preface, against Julian, entitled Subnotationes in verba Juliani, written after the death of Augustine, a.d. 430. 3. Translations of various works relating to Pelagianism, including the creed of Theodore of Mopsuestia, with a preface and a refutation of the creed by Mercator. Part II. Concerning the Nestorian heresy, including extracts from Theodore of Mopsuestia, with preface and refutations by Mercator. Extracts from Theodoret bp. of Cyrus, against Cyril, and from his letters, with remarks by Mercator.
Marius Mercator appears to have been a layman, but an able theologian. His learning, zeal, and ability entitle him to a respectable place among ecclesiastical writers. Migne, Patr. Lat. xlviii.; Ceillier, viii. 36.
Marius (2), St., 3rd bp. of Lausanne, whither he is said to have transferred the see from Avenches, between Chilmegisilus and Magnerius (Gams, p. 283), or Arricus (Gall. Christ. xv. 329). He is better known as Marius Aventicensis, the chronicler. He was born at Autun, of parents of high rank. At about the age of 43 he was made bishop (a.d. 575). He constructed a church at Paterniacum (Payerne) on his own property, and made various donations to it. In 585 he was present at the 2nd council of Mâcon (Mansi, ix. 958), and after an episcopate lasting 20 years and 8 months died on the last day of 596, in his 64th year. At the council of Mâcon, in 585, he signed himself "episcopus ecclesiae Aventicae." The authors of the Gallia Christiana publish a metrical epitaph of unknown date, which represents him as fabricating with his own hands the sacred vessels for his church and ploughing his own glebe. His Chronicon is a work of some historical importance. Though extremely brief it furnishes information with reference to Burgundy and Switzerland during the period embraced by it which is found nowhere else, and serves to correct the bias of Gregory of Tours against the Arians of Burgundy. It takes up the chronicle of Prosper of Aquitaine in 455 and carries it to 581, continuing his method of marking the years by consulates, and commencing the indictions with 523. An anonymous author has carried it to 623. For an account and criticism of it see Hist. Litt. iii. 401; Cave, i. 538; Ceillier, xi. 399, 400; Wattenbach, Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen, i. 47; Richter, Annalen, p. 37 and refs. there given. It is in Bouquet, Recueil, ii. 12–19, and Migne, Patr. Lat. lxxii. 791–802.
Martinianus (1), legendary martyr with
PROCESSUS
at Rome. According to the Acts of LINUS, these were the two
soldiers into whose charge Peter had been given. They were converted
by him in prison, and for their baptism, Peter, by making the sign of
the cross, caused a fountain, still shewn in the Mamertine prison,
miraculously to spring from the rock. After their baptism the two
soldiers give Peter as much liberty as he desires, and when news comes
that the prefect Agrippa is about to put him to death, earnestly urge
him to withdraw. Peter at first complies, but returns to custody in
consequence of the well-known vision Domine quo vadis. According to
a notice in Praedestinatus (Haer. 86), which has the air of being
more historical than most of the stories of that author, their cult
was already in vogue in the reign of the pretender Maximus, i.e.
before the end of the 4th cent. According to this story, Montanists got
temporary possession of their relics and claimed them as belonging to
their sect. Lipsius conjectures that their cult began in the episcopate
of Damasus, when great exertions were made to revive the memory of the
saints of the Roman church. To this period may be referred the Acts of
Processus and Martinianus (Bolland. AA. SS. July i. 303). They
are clearly later than Constantine, containing mention of offices which
did not exist till his time. They are evidently based on the
Martinus (1), St., bp. of Tours in the latter portion of 4th cent. Of all the prelates of that age he made the deepest impression upon the imagination of France and of a considerable part of Western Christendom.
Authorities.—The authorities practically resolve themselves into one, Sulpicius Severus, who mentions Martin in his Sacra Historia (lib. ii. cc. xlv. seq.), in connexion with the important case of Priscillian. [PRISCILLIANUS.] Of three dialogues composed by Sulpicius, two treat de Virtutibus B. Martini. An epistle, addressed to a presbyter named Eusebius (some say addressed to Desiderius), is composed contra Aemulos Virtutum B. Martini; and two more, written respectively to a deacon named Aurelius and to the author's mother-in-law Bassula, narrate the circumstances of Martin's death. Finally, we have a biography, de Beati Martini Vitâ Liber. In Horn's ed. of Sulpicius (Amsterdam, 1665), an 8vo of some 570 pages, including notes, at least a sixth part is occupied with St. Martin. St. Gregory of Tours devotes 3 books out of his 7 on miracles to those wrought by the relics of St. Martin, and references to Martin in his Church History again shew the large space in the mind of France occupied by our saint. We possess two versified biographies of St. Martin. Neither the later, in 4 books, by Venantius Fortunatus, merely adapted from the writings of Sulpicius, nor the earlier, more elegant poem, in 6 books, by Paulinus, has any claim to be considered an independent authority. Sozomen (H. E. iii. 16) has a brief account of Martin.
Life.—He was born at Sabaria in that part of Pannonia
which is now Lower Hungary. He apparently lived at least 80 years
(316–396).
A.D. 316–336.—His father,
a soldier in the Roman army, rose to be a military tribune. Martin's
infancy was passed at Pavia in Italy, where his father was for some time
stationed, and there he received his education, apparently a pagan one.
But even in boyhood his real bent was made manifest, and at the age of
ten he fled to a church and got himself enrolled as a catechumen against
the wish of his parents. His father succeeded in checking for a season
the boy's desire for a monastic career. An imperial edict ordered
the enrolment of the sons of veterans, and Martin, who had become a
wanderer among churches and monasteries, was, through his father's
action, compelled to serve. Though living with much austerity, he won the
affection of his fellows during his three years' service. During
this period, between Martin's 15th and 18th year, we must place
a well-known incident, which is thoroughly characteristic. At Amiens,
in a winter of unusual severity, he met at the city gate a poor man naked
and shivering. His comrades did not heed the sufferer's petitions,
and Martin's purse was empty. But Martin with his sword divided
his cloak and gave one half to the beggar. That night Martin, in a
dream, saw Christ Himself clad in that half cloak. He regarded his
dream as a call to baptism, which he straightway received. At the
request of his military tribune, he stayed in the army two years after
baptism.
a.d. 336–360.—The next important event in his career was his first visit to St. Hilary of Poictiers. Martin was his guest for a considerable time, and Hilary was anxious to ordain him deacon. Martin refused on the plea of unworthiness, but accepted the more lowly office of exorcist. Soon after he conceived it his duty to visit his parents and convert them from paganism. In crossing the Alps Martin fell in with a band of robbers, and was brought with hands bound before the chief, who asked who he was. He answered, "A Christian." To the further query whether he feared, he promptly replied that he never felt more secure, but that he grieved for the condition of his captors. The robber is said to have been converted. Martin's mother, with many more in Illyricum, became a convert to Christianity; his father remained a heathen. Arianism was particularly prevalent there, and Martin stood forth as an almost solitary confessor for the faith. He was publicly scourged and compelled to depart. Gaul being in a state of confusion in consequence of the exile of Hilary, Martin went to Italy, and for a short time found a safe retreat at Milan. But the bp. Auxentius, a leader among the Arians, severely persecuted him, and at length drove him away. He retired to the island of Gallinaria (now Galinara) off the coast of the Riviera.
a.d.
360–371.—Hilary being permitted to return home, Martin kept
his promise and returned to Gaul, an attempt to meet Hilary at Rome
having failed. Having settled near Poictiers, Martin founded, some
five miles off at Locociagum (Lugugé), what is considered the
earliest monastic institution in Gaul. Hilary gave him the site. If,
as seems to be implied by Sulpicius, Martin returned to Gaul
immediately after Hilary, his monastic life commenced A.D. 360. After 11 years in his
monastery, his reputation led to his election to the see of Tours. It
required what is called a pious fraud to entice him from his monastery;
a leading citizen of Tours, having pretended that his wife was ill,
begged Martin to come and visit her. A crowd of the people of Tours
and from neighbouring cities had been gathered together, and the all
but unanimous desire was for the election of Martin. The few opponents
objected that his personal appearance was mean, his garments sordid,
his hair unkempt. One of the objectors was a bishop named Defensor. At
service that day the reader, whose turn it was to officiate, failed,
through pressure of the crowd, to arrive in time. A bystander took up a
psalter and read the verse which in A.V. stands thus: "out of the
mouths of babes and sucklings hast Thou ordained strength
A.D. 371–396.—To a great extent the new bp. of Tours continued to be the monk. He built a monastery two miles from the city, where 80 scholars, some of them noble, pursued a severe discipline. The art of transcribing was cultivated by the younger brethren. In time several cities obtained bishops from this institution. Unlike Hilary, whose controversies with Arians and semi-Arians formed his chief polemical work, bp. Martin was especially called upon to fight paganism. The country people in Gaul were still largely heathen. Martin, as portrayed by Sulpicius, simply lives in an atmosphere of marvels. During the first years of his episcopate the record is especially abundant, though his biographer declares he is restricting himself to a few specimens.
Martin must be regarded as the great evangelizer of the rural districts of Gaul, especially in the considerable and not very defined diocese of Tours. His work and influence are facts which no historian of France can omit. Twice he came across the path of emperors—namely, Valentinian I. and Maximus. Valentinian, the ruler of the West (364–375) for a time (in 368) fixed his seat of empire at Trèves. Martin repaired thither, for some unspecified reason. Moved by his Arian wife Justina, the great opponent of St. Ambrose, the emperor refused an audience. Martin within a week made his way into the palace. The emperor, indignant at the intrusion, declined to rise, until his chair caught fire and compelled him to move forward. Convinced of the divine aid, Valentinian granted all Martin's requests and took him into favour. Martin accepted the royal hospitality but declined all personal presents.
Somewhat different were the relations of Martin with the emperor Maximus, who, after the flight of Valentinian II., fixed his capital also at Trèves. Martin declined from Maximus such invitations as he had accepted from Valentinian, declaring it impossible to banquet with one "who had dethroned one emperor and slain another." The excuses of Maximus, however, induced Martin to appear at the imperial board. The seat assigned to him was among the very highest. In the middle of the feast the proper functionary offered, according to custom, a goblet to the sovereign. Maximus ordered that it should first be given to Martin, expecting to himself receive it from the bishop. But Martin handed the goblet to his chaplain, holding it wrong to allow the emperor higher honour than a presbyter. The bishop's conduct was admired, though no other prelate had acted thus even at the repast of secular dignitaries of inferior rank.
The intercourse of Martin with Maximus involved the bishop in the difficulties which troubled the church in connexion with the Priscillianist error. The leading opponent of Priscillian was the Spanish bp. Ithacius.
Priscillian, though condemned by a local council, was supported by some bishops, who consecrated him to the vacant see of Avila. The members of the council thereupon had recourse to the civil power; while the friends of Priscillian sought the aid of Damasus, bp. of Rome. Failing to obtain it, they betook themselves to Milan, where the great Ambrose was bishop. But St. Ambrose shewed them no more favour than Damasus. In 384 Ithacius went to Trèves to seek an interview with Maximus, and obtained the summoning of a council at Bordeaux. This all recognized as within the fair limits of imperial authority. But Priscillian, on his arrival at Bordeaux, instead of defending his cause by argument, appealed to the emperor. The Ithacians had already committed themselves to the permission of a considerable amount of state interference. Priscillian now came to Trèves and Ithacius followed. Martin objected to a case of heresy being left to a secular tribunal, begged Ithacius not to press the charges against Priscillian before such a court, and besought Maximus not to allow any other punishment of the accused beyond excommunication. Finding that he must leave Trèves and return home, Martin obtained a promise from the emperor that there should be no bloodshed. The trial of Priscillian, which had been delayed until Martin's departure, was now eagerly pressed on, at the instance of two bishops, Magnus and Rufus. The emperor seems to have been sincerely convinced that the heretical teaching of the Priscillianists involved gross immoralities; and, accordingly, in 385 Priscillian was executed with several of his adherents, while others were exiled.
This was the first instance of the capital punishment of a heretic. St. Martin and St. Ambrose protested, and refused communion with the bishops responsible for this sentence.
Martin paid a visit to Trèves later to plead that some of
Gratian's officers might be spared. He found there a number of
bishops gathered for the consecration of a new bishop, Felix, to the
vacant see of Trèves. These prelates had, with one exception,
communicated with the adherents of Ithacius, and had endeavoured
unsuccessfully to prevent Martin's entrance into the city. The
information that those for whose lives he came to plead were doomed,
and that a sort of raid against Priscillianism was contemplated,
induced Martin to change his mind, especially as he feared that the
charge of sympathy with heresy might plausibly be imputed to himself
and to others of ascetic life who had taken the same line. Martin
evidently considered himself in a situation which involved a cruel and
perplexing question of casuistry. Felix was himself a good man and well
fitted for the vacant see. Still, Martin would not have communicated,
but for the impending danger to the lives of innocent men and to the
cause of religion. On his journey homeward, which he commenced on the
day after his communion, he sat down in the vast solitude of a forest,
near the village of Andethanna, and again debated with himself whether
he had acted aright or not. It seemed to him that an angel appeared
and told him that his compunction was right, but
A cheap popular Life of St. Martin of Tours by J. C. Cazenove is pub. by S.P.C.K. in their Fathers for Eng. Readers.
Martinus (2), bp. of Dumium in Gallicia, and afterwards metropolitan bp. of Braga, died c. 580; a person of importance, about whom our information is scanty.
Our chief sources are: (1) Isidore, (a) his Life in de Vir. Ill. c. 35, (b) a reference in Hist. Suevorum, Esp. Sagr. vi. 505; (2) Gregory of Tours—(a) de Mirac. Scti. Martini Tur. i. 11; (b) Hist. Franc. v. 38; (3) some Acts of councils of Braga; (4) a letter and poem addressed to him by Venantius Fortunatus (Migne, Patr. Lat. lxxxviii.).
Life.—According to Gregory of Tours and Venantius Fortunatus, Martin was a native of Pannonia ("Pannonia Quiritis," Venantius). He had travelled to the Holy Land, and had in the East acquired such a knowledge of letters that he was held second to no scholar of his day. Thence (ex Orientis partibus) he came to Galicia, arriving "ad portum Galliciae" (? Portucale) on the same day as the relics of St. Martin of Tours, for which Arianus or Theodoric I., king of the Suevi, had shortly before petitioned the guardians of the saint's shrine. In 561, about eleven years after his arrival in the country, he attended the first council of Braga, presided over by Lucretius, metropolitan bp. of Braga. The Acts of the council, which are in an unusual and highly artificial shape, were probably compiled by Martin, the person of the greatest literary pretensions then in Gallicia.
This council evidently marks an era of revival and reformation in Galicia, probably under the auspices of the orthodox and energetic Martin. The only mention of Arianism in it throughout occurs in a letter of pope Vigilius which was read. Probably this indirect handling, and the penalties decreed generally against intercourse with heretics, were all that the bishops felt themselves strong enough to venture against a creed which had been shortly before the religious confession of the Suevian nation, and had no doubt still many friends in high places. Eleven years later another council was held at Braga, and Martin now occupied the metropolitan see as successor to Lucretius, the bishops addressing him in unusually submissive terms. Eleven bishops were present from the two synods of Lugo and Braga, which here appear as two distinct metropolitan dioceses for the first and only time in authentic history.
We may probably
place the correspondence of Martin with Venantius Fortunatus between 572
and 580. In 580 Martin died, greatly mourned by the people of Gallicia.
His memory is celebrated on
Works.—(1) Formula Vitae Honestae, as he himself calls it in the preface, otherwise de Differentiis Quatuor Virtutum (so Isid. l.c.), or de Quatuor Virtutibus Cardinalibus — a little tract extremely popular in the middle ages, and frequently printed during the 15th and 16th cents. The best ed. is by Hasse in Sen. Op. iii. 468, where he describes the Formula as more frequently read and quoted in the middle ages than any of the genuine works of Seneca, to whom it was ascribed in early editions. There is an ed. by A. Weidner (Magdeburg, 1871). Cf. Fabricius, Bibl. Med. Ae. Inf. Lat. iii., Bibl. Latina, ed. 1773, ii. 119.
(2) De Moribus, a tract consisting of maxims from various sources. (Haase, xx.)
(3) De Correctione Rusticorum.—In this interesting tract Martin discusses the origin of idolatry and denounces the heathen customs still remaining in Galicia. His theory is that the fallen angels or demons assumed the names and shapes of notoriously wicked men and women who had already existed, such as Jove, Venus, Mars; that the nymphs, Lamias, and Neptune are demons with power to harm all who are not fortified with the sign of the cross, and who shew their faithlessness by calling the days of the week after the heathen gods. The observance of calends, the propitiation of mice and moths by presents of bread and cloth, auguries, the observance of the New Year on Jan. 1 instead of on the March equinox, when in the beginning God "divided the light from the darkness" by an equal division, the burning of wax tapers at stones, trees, streams, and crossways, the adornment of tables, the pouring of corn over the log on the hearth, the placing of wine and bread in the wells, the invocation of Minerva by the women at their spinning, the worship of Venus, the incantation of medicinal herbs, divination by birds and by sneezing, are all denounced as pagan superstitions, offensive to God and dangerous to him who practises them. The sign of the cross is to be the remedy against auguries and all other diabolical signs. The holy incantation, viz. the Creed, is the Christian's defence against diabolical incantations and songs.
(4) De Trina Mersione, a letter to a bp. Boniface on threefold immersion in baptism.
(5–9) Pro Repellenda jactantia, de Superbia, Exhortatio Humilitatis, de Ira, de Pascha, 5 small tracts, first pub. by Tamayo de Salazar in vol. ii. of his Martyrol. Hisp. and rightly considered genuine (Gams, ii. (1) 473).
(10) De Paupertate, a short tract,
consisting of excerpts from Seneca, sometimes attributed to Martin,
but not mentioned by
Martin's Translations.—Besides his adaptations of Latin Stoical literature, Martin produced or superintended many translations from the Greek. The chief are (a) the Capitula Martini, a collection of 84 canons, which had great vogue and influence in the middle ages. These "capitula sive canones orientalium antiquorum patrum synodis a venerabili Martino episcopo, vel ab omni Bracarensi synodo excerpti," were incorporated in the earliest form of the Spanish Codex Canonum. With it they passed into the pseudo-Isidorian collection, and so obtained widespread influence. The sources of the collection cannot be all ascertained, they are not exclusively from Greek sources. They are, with some corrections, in Brun's Canones Apostolorum, (Berlin, 1839), ii. 43. (b) Interrogationes et Reponsiones Plurimae, sct. Aegyptiorum Patr., trans. from an unknown Greek source by a deacon Paschasius in the monastery of Dumium, with a preface by Martin, at whose command the work had been undertaken (Rosweyd, Vitae Patrum, lib. vii. p. 505, and Prolegomenon, xiv.; Florez, Esp. Sagr. xv. 433).
Was Martin a Benedictine?—The great Benedictine writers unhesitatingly answer in the affirmative. (So Mabillon, Annales O. S. B. and Bibliothèque générale de l’Ordre de Saint Benoit, ii. 203.) But it is on the whole most probable that Martin adopted one of the various older rules still current in the contemporary monasteries of S. Gaul, with some of which we know him to have had relations. About 100 years later his illustrious successor in the sees of Dumium and Braga, St. Fructuosus, drew up a monastic rule for his monastery of Compludo, which was mainly an abbreviation of the Benedictine rule, but contained also provisions not found in that rule. This is the only piece of historical evidence connecting the Benedictine rule with Visigothic Catholicism. (Migne, Pat. Lat. lxxxvii. 1096; Yepés, Chron. del Ord. de S. Benito, i. for the ultra-Benedictine view. On the general subject of monasticism in Gothic Spain cf. Dahn, Könige der Germanen, vi.)
Martin's Personality.—That Martin played an important and commanding part in his generation all that remains of him suggests. His life appears to have been greatly influenced by the parallel so often drawn by his contemporaries between him and the greater Martin of Tours. We may also regard him to some extent as a piece in a political game. If Martin the missionary, ex Orientis partibus, effected the Suevian conversion, his career is one element in a scheme of European politics which can be traced through the greater part of 6th cent., and in which the destruction of the Suevian kingdom by Leovigild 5 years after Martin's death, and the West Gothic conversion to Catholicism under Reccared, are important incidents. (Gams, Kirchengesch. von Spanien ii. (1) 471.)
Martyrius (3), bp. of Jerusalem, 478–486, a Cappadocian by birth, who had embraced a solitary life in the Nitrian desert. The violent proceedings of Timothy Aelurus drove him and other orthodox monks from Egypt, and he took refuge, a.d. 457, together with his fellow-solitary Elias, also subsequently bp. of Jerusalem, in the house of St. Euthymius, who received them with great favour (Cyrill. Scythop. Vit. S. Euthym. cc. 94, 95). After a time Martyrius retired to a cave 2 miles W. of the laura, which became the site of a considerable monastery (ib.). Martyrius and Elias were present at the death and burial of St. Euthymius, A.D. 473, after which Anastasius bp. of Jerusalem ordained them presbyters, attaching them to the church of the Resurrection (ib. cc. 105, 110, 112). Anastasius dying a.d. 478, Martyrius succeeded him as bp. of Jerusalem (ib. 113). His church was then rent asunder by the Eutychian Aposchistae, of whom Gerontius was the head. He succeeded in bringing back these schismatic monks to the unity of the church (ib. 123, 124.). Cyrillus Scythopolitanus tells us that he died in the 8th year of his patriarchate, A.D. 486 (Vit. S. Sab. c. 19; Eutych. t. ii. p. 103). Le Quien, Or. Christ. iii. 171; Tillem. Mém. eccl. xvi. 332 seq.
Masona (Massona, Mausona, Mansi, ix. 1000; x. 478), bp. of Merida from c. 571 to c. 606. Except for the de Vita et Miraculis Patrum Emeritensium, a series of Lives attributed to Paulus Diaconus, a supposed writer of the 7th cent. (printed by Florez, Esp. Sagr. xiii., by Aguirre, Coll. Max. Conc. Hisp. ii. 639, and elsewhere), our information concerning Masona is extremely scanty.
Joannes Biclarensis says under A.D. 573, the 5th year of Leovigild,
"Masona Emeritensis Ecclesiae Episcopus in nostro dogmate
clarus habetur"; and at the third council of Toledo, the
famous conversion council of 589, Masona presided, his signature
"Ecclesiae Catholicae Emeritensis Metropolitanus Episcopus
Provinciae Lusitaniae" being at the head of all the episcopal
signatures, and immediately following that of Reccared. Between these
two dates 16 years of great importance to the Gothic state had elapsed,
comprising the rebellion of Hermenigild and the submission of Reccared
to Catholicism. From the notice by Joannes Biclarensis 9 years earlier,
it is evident that at the outbreak of the rebellion Masona was one of
the most prominent Catholic bishops in S. Spain, and therefore would
have considerable influence upon the position assumed by Merida in the
contest. In 589 the great aim of the Catholic party was achieved, and
the Visigothic state became, at least officially, Catholic. Eight years
later a gathering of bishops at Toledo, under the presidency of Masona,
passed two canons, one insisting upon the celibacy of bishops, priests,
and deacons, the other reserving the endowments of a church for the
benefit of its priests and other clerks, as against possible exactions
from the bishop. This assembly was perhaps a chance gathering of a
number of bishops in the capital, who took the opportunity to formulate
rules on two important disciplinary points. If it was a duly summoned
national council, the Acts were purposely or accidentally omitted from
the original redaction of the Spanish Codex Canonum made within
the first 40 years of 7th cent. Our last notice of Masona occurs in
a letter, dated Feb. 28, 606, to him from Isidore in answer to an
inquiry on a matter of discipline. In 610 his successor,
The above Vita remains to be considered. If it be a genuine piece of 7th-cent. biography, it gives full and valuable information on his life and also on the general condition of the Spanish church in the 6th and 7th cents. But the Latin of the first three chaps. seems to make it impossible to refer them to 7th cent. The legendary and marvellous character of the remainder, and the desire apparent throughout to exalt the ecclesiastical importance of Merida, is, on the other hand, no argument against genuineness, as contemporary parallels might easily be quoted. The facts it gives regarding Masona are briefly: his Gothic extraction, his education in the church of St. Eulalia, his persecution at the hands of Leovigild, who sent two Arian bishops, Sunna and Nepopis, at different times, to undermine Masona's influence and oust him from his church, his intercourse with Leovigild at Toledo, where his resistance to the king's demand led to his exile, and his final restoration to his see after Leovigild's various supernatural warnings. After Reccared had succeeded and publicly embraced Catholicism, a struggle took place in Merida between Masona and Sunna. Sunna joined with two Gothic Comes, Segga and Witteric, in a plot for murdering Masona which was miraculously frustrated, and Witteric, afterwards the Gothic king of that name, confessed all to Masona, who was not only protected by miracles, but by the strong arm of the Catholic Claudius Dux of Lusitania (known to us from other sources as are Sunna and Segga, cf. Isid. Hist. Goth. ap. Esp. Sagr. v. 492; Joann. Bicl. op. cit. 385, 386; and ep. Greg. Magn.; Aguirre Catalani, Coll. Max. Conc. Hist. ii.). Reccared decided that Sunna should either recant his Arianism or go into exile. He chose the latter, retired into Mauritania and there came to a miserable end. Masona lived to an honoured old age, procuring in his last hours the miraculous punishment of his archdeacon Eleutherius, who had abused the powers entrusted to him by the failing bishop.
It is not improbable that the Vita represents the 7th-cent. tradition. Isidore expressly mentions the exile of bishops among Leovigild's measures of persecution (Hist. Goth. l.c. p. 491), and it is most likely that Masona was exiled c. 583, after the fall of Merida, and restored, not during the lifetime of Leovigild, as his enthusiastic biographer declares, but upon the accession of Reccared, who sought to reverse his father's policy. Dahn, Könige der Germanen, v. 141; R. de Castro, Biblioteca Españoles, ii. p. 348; Nicolas Antonio, Bibl. Vet. Bayer's ed. i. p. 373; note by Morales to the Memoriale Sanctorum of St. Eulogius apud Hist. Illust. iv. 282.
Maternus (3), Julius Firmicus, an acute critic of pagan rites and doctrines and a vigorous apologist for the Christian faith, known from his treatise de Errore Profanarum Religionum, composed between 343 and 350, very valuable for its details of the secret rites of paganism. It describes every leading form of idolatry then current and gives us information not found elsewhere. It discusses the idolatry of the Persians, Egyptians, Assyrians, the Greek mysteries, the ceremonies and formulae used in the Mithraic worship. Some of the details on this last are very curious, some liturgical fragments being inserted. In opposition to the heathen orgies he presents the pure mysteries of Christianity in his preface, now almost completely lost, and from c. xxiv. to the end. He concludes with earnestly exhorting the emperors to suppress paganism by force; thus giving one of the earliest specimens of Christian intolerance. The work illustrates the small amount of philological and etymological science possessed by the ancients. Maternus, arguing against the Egyptians that Sarapis was originally the patriarch Joseph, derives the name Sarapis from Σαρᾶς ἀπό, because Joseph was the descendant of Sarah. The work is valuable for Biblical criticism, as in it are found quotations from the versions used in N. Africa in St. Cyprian's time. There are probably embodied in it some fragments of the ancient Greek writer Evemerus, whose work upon paganism, now lost, was largely used by all the Christian apologists. In Migne's Patr. Lat. t, xii. is reprinted an ed. of Maternus, pub. by Munter at Copenhagen in 1826, with an introductory dissertation discussing the whole subject. A contemporary pagan Julius Firmicus Maternus, usually styled junior, wrote a work (between 330 and 360) on judicial astrology, mentioned by Sidon. Apoll. in Ep. ad Pont. Leont. Upon this see the above dissertation. There is some reason to suppose that he was converted to Christianity and was identical with the subject of our art. See C. H. Moore, Jul. Firm. Mat. der Heide und der Christ. (Munich, 1897).
Maurus (2), St., founder and abbat of the Benedictine monastery of Glanfeuil or St. Maur-sur-Loire. He is better known, as Herzog says, to tradition than to history, but the primary authority is Gregorius Mag. (Dial. ii. cc. 3 seq.). His Life, written by Faustus Cassinensis, and re-written with alterations by Odo or Eudes, at one time abbat of Glanfeuil, is given by Mabillon (Acts SS. O. S. B. saec. i. 274 seq.) and the Bolland. (Acta SS. Jan. i. 1039 seq.). [FAUSTUS (31)]. St. Maurus, better known in France as St. Maur, was when 12 years old entrusted by his father Equitius, an Italian nobleman, to the charge of St. Benedict at Subiaco (or at Monte Cassino) and trained in monastic rule. By St. Benedict he was sent into Gaul c. 543, and established his monastery on the Loire by favour of King Theodebert. He introduced the Benedictine rule, and was the chief means of its acceptance in France, but the details of his work are not given. He died A. D. 584. His monastery, secularized in 16th cent., was in the middle ages one of great influence, and the "Congregation of St. Maur" has done much from the 17th cent. to elevate the tone of the monastic orders. The genuineness of his life in all its stages has been disputed. Ceillier, Sacr. Aut. xi. 157, 170, 610; Herzog, Real-Encycl. ix. 201; Cave, Lit. Hist. i. 574; Mosheim, Hist. Ch. Ch. cent. xvii. § 2, pt. i. c. 1.
Maxentius (4), Joannes, presbyter and archimandrite. His
monastery (Sugg. Diosc. in Labbe, iv. 1520) appears to
have been situated within the jurisdiction of Paternus, bp. of
Tomi (Köstendje), the capital of Scythia
Hormisdas delaying to hear the four envoys, others were sent to join them, Maxentius apparently being one. Meanwhile Justinian changed his opinion of the monks and became their advocate (Justinian. ad Hormisd.; Hormisd. Ep. 66, ad Justinian. Sept. 2, 519, u.s. 1518). The controversy seems to have involved a considerable number of the clergy of the East, especially those of Jerusalem, Antioch, and Syria Secunda (Justin. ad Hormisd. u.s. 1520, Jan. 19, 520; Deprec. et Supplic. ab Hieros. et al, u.s. 1542). An active correspondence followed between Constantinople and Rome, during which Possessor, an African bp. exiled by the Arians, wrote to Hormisdas, requesting his opinion as to the orthodoxy of the writings of Faustus and urging that Vitalian and Justinian were equally anxious to hear from Hormisdas on the subject (Possess. Ep. Afr. Relat. Labbe, iv. 1530, received at Rome July 18, 520). Shortly after the dispatch of this letter Vitalian was put to death (Procop. Hist. Arc. 6, Op. ed. Bonn, iii. 46; Vict. Tunun. s.a. 523).
The
deputation at Rome, finding the Roman legates at Constantinople too
strong for them, and therefore having little hope of success with
Hormisdas, resolved to appeal to the African bishops then in exile
in Sardinia, some of whom, as Fulgentius of Ruspe, enjoyed a high
reputation for ability as well as orthodoxy. In drawing up the appeal
they again appear to have employed Maxentius. It was divided into eight
chapters. In the fourth they elaborately defend the position they had
maintained at Constantinople. At the close of the fifth they solemnly
protest their acceptance of the councils of Nicaea, Constantinople,
Ephesus, and Chalcedon, the letters of Leo anathematizing the writings
of Theodore of Mopsuestia and Nestorius his disciple, and all writings
opposed to the Twelve Chapters of the blessed Cyril against Nestorius;
anathematizing in addition, Eutyches and Dioscorus (Petr. Diac. de
Incarnat. et Gratis, Migne, Patrol. lxv. 442–451). This
appeal was responded to by Fulgentius, bp. of Ruspe, in his well-known
de Incarnatione et Gratis Domini nostri Jesu Christi, in which
the exiled bishops express their hearty approval of the confession
of faith which the appeal contained (Fulgent.
Maxentius and his friends, having
returned to Constantinople, sent a copy of the writings of Faustus
of Riez to Fulgentius and the other exiles in Sardinia, requesting
him and his
We hear nothing more of Maxentius and the Scythian monks until after Hormisdas died in Aug. 523. The encyclic of Hormisdas had now reached the exiled bishops in Sardinia, though there is no reason to believe that they had also seen the Responsio of Maxentius, and they had had ample leisure for consideration of the second appeal addressed to them from Constantinople. They accordingly met in council and sent the monks a reply in the form of a synodical letter. They acknowledge the receipt of the letter of Maxentius and his brethren, and say they rejoice that they "hold a right opinion on the grace of God, by whose light the free will of the human mind is illuminated, and by whose aid it is controlled," and express sorrow that any should question the Catholic faith on the point (c. 2). The position for which John Maxentius and his brethren contended was afterwards formally approved by a council at Rome in 532 (Labbe, iv. 1761) and elaborately defended in 534 by John II. bp. of Rome, who argued that it had always been held by Catholics in the very form used by the Scythian monks, quoting Proclus patriarch of Constantinople and others (Ep. 3 in Labbe, iv. 1751; Jaffé, Reg. Pont. 73; Pagi, Crit. s.a. 533). The council of Constantinople of 553 anathematized all who questioned it (collat. viii. anath. 10, Labbe, v. 575). Yet Baronius (s.a. 519 cii.) is unsparing in his condemnation of the monks as impugners of the Catholic faith. They have found an able defender in Cardinal Noris (Hist. Pelagiana, ii. 18, in Op. i. 474–596; esp. c. 20, pp. 498–504; Hist. Controv. de Univ. ex Trinit. passe, cc. 4–8; Op. iii. 800–854), and Pagi (Crit. s.a. 519, vi.) accepts his vindication as conclusive.
Maximianus (1) I., M. Aurelius Valerius (Herculius), emperor of Rome a.d. 286–305 with Diocletian, 306–308 with Maxentius or Constantine; compelled to strangle himself Feb. 310, being probably 60 years old (Tillem. "Diocletian," vol. iv. p. 7, Hist. des Emp.). A Pannonian soldier of humble birth but great military ability and unresting activity, he was created Caesar in 285 by Diocletian, and Augustus in 286. (For the chief events in his history see DIOCLETIAN, CONSTANTINE, and MAXENTIUS in D. of G. and R. Biogr.) The Diocletian persecution began in A.D. 303, and Maximian joined in it: He is said in the de Mortibus Persecutorum to have been the worthy brother of Diocletian, and Eusebius speaks of his death in the same retributive tone as of the other emperors except Constantius and Constantine (H. E. viii. 13).
The military talents and activity of Maximianus were of the greatest value to the Western empire and in Africa, and while under Diocletian's influence or direction he seconded him honestly and well. He was a barbarian soldier without honour, principle, or education; crime was familiar to him, though he seems not to have practised cruelty for its own sake. He is accused of the usual sensual excesses, though not to the same extent as Maxentius.
Maximianus
(2), the man from whom a special sect among the Donatists derived
its name; that schism within a schism, which rent it asunder and helped
to bring about its ultimate overthrow. He is said to have been related
to Donatus the Great, and was a deacon at Carthage when, at the death
of Parmenian, Primian was appointed bp. of the Donatists there A.D. 391. Primian found fault with four
of his deacons, especially Maximian, whom he appears to have disliked
most. He tried to persuade the "Seniors" of Carthage to condemn
them all, but they refused, and Primian then proceeded to excommunicate
Maximian, who was ill and unable to appear. The Seniors summoned Primian
to meet them to explain this arbitrariness, but he refused. They
then wrote to the bishops of the district, entreating them to meet
and inquire into the case. Forty-three met at Carthage; and their
proceedings, notwithstanding the violence of the supporters of
Maximianus (5), archbp. of Constantinople, A.D. 431. The action of the council of Ephesus had thrown the churches of Constantinople into direst confusion. A large proportion of the citizens held strongly to Nestorius; the clergy, with one voice, agreed in the anathema; and when the deposition became a fact no longer to be disputed, the excitement was continued about the election of a successor. After four months, agreement was arrived at in the election of Maximian. He had led a monastic life and had entered presbyteral orders; his action in building, at his own expense, tombs for the remains of holy men had obtained for him a reputation of sanctity. In principles he followed the former archbishops, Chrysostom, Atticus, and Sisinnius. Pope Celestine wrote to him in highly complimentary terms on his elevation. The appointment was made by the unanimous vote of clergy, emperor, and people. The letter of Maximian announcing to the pope his succession is lost, but that to S. Cyril remains, with its high eulogium on Cyril's constancy in defending the cause of Jesus Christ. It was the custom for occupants of the principal sees on election to send a synodical letter to the most considerable bishops of the Christian world, asking for the assurance of their communion. Maximian sent his synodical to the Easterns as to the others. Communion was refused by Helladius of Tarsus; and, we may conclude, by Eutherius of Tyana, Himerius of Nicomedia, and Dorotheus of Martianopolis, as Maximian deposed them. John of Antioch approved the refusal of the bp. of Tarsus, and praised him for having declined to insert the name of Maximian in the diptychs of his church. Maximian's earnest appeal for reunion continued. Pope Sixtus wrote to him several times, urging him to extend his charity to all whom he could possibly regain. Maximian spared no effort, and although he was in closest harmony with St. Cyril, he pressed him strongly to give up his anathemas, which seemed an insurmountable obstacle to reunion. He even wrote to the emperor's secretary Aristolaus the tribune, who was greatly interested in the question of peace, almost complaining that he did not press Cyril enough on the point, and to his archdeacon Epiphanius. Harmony being restored, John of Antioch and the other Eastern bishops wrote Maximian a letter of communion indicating their consent to his election and to the deposition of Nestorius. Cyril wrote to him, attributing the blessed result to the force of his prayers. A letter to Maximian from Aristolaus, which Maximian caused to be read in his church to his people, was pronounced spurious by Dorotheus of Martianopolis, evidently because it took the side of Maximian so decidedly. Maximian held the see of Constantinople from Oct. 25, 431, to Apr. 12, 434. Of all his letters, only that to St. Cyril is extant. Mansi, v. 257, 259, 266, 269, 271, 273, 286, 351; Baluz. Nov. Coll. Conc. 581 seq. ed. 1681; Socr. vii. 35. 40; Liberat. Diac. Brev. 19; Ceill. viii. 394.
Maximinus (2) I., Roman emperor, a.d. 235—238. C. Julius Verus Maximinus is conspicuous as the first barbarian who wore the imperial purple, and as one of the emperors whose names are connected with the ten persecutions recorded by ecclesiastical historians. Born in Thrace of a Gothic father and an Alan mother, eight feet high and of gigantic strength, he attracted the notice of Septimius Severus, and rose into favour with Alexander Severus. When that emperor fell into disfavour with his troops, Maximinus seized his opportunity and organized a conspiracy which ended in the murder of Alexander and his mother at Mayence in 235. The praetorian guards elected him emperor, and their choice was confirmed by the senate.
The hostility of Maximinus to his Christian subjects was probably because of the favour they had enjoyed from the eclectic or syncretic sympathies of Alexander Severus. They would appear to him, as to other emperors, a secret, and therefore a dangerous, society, the natural focus of conspiracies and plots. The persecution was limited in its range, and probably was effectual chiefly in removing the restraints which the leanings of Alexander had imposed on the antagonism of the populations and governors of the provinces.
Pontianus,
bp. of Rome, was banished with the presbyter Hippolytus to Sardinia,
and died there in 235, and, according to Baronius (Ann. 137,
138), his successor Anteros met a like fate in 238. Origen thought
it expedient to seek safety with his friend Firmilianus, bp. of
the Cappadocian Caesarea. That province was under the government of
Serenianus, whom Firmilianus describes (ap. Cyprian, Ep.
75) as "acerbus et dirus persecutor." Frequent earthquakes had
roused the panic-stricken population to rage against the Christians
as the cause of all disasters (Orig. in Matt. xxiv. 9). This
was all the more keenly felt after the comparatively long tranquillity
which they had enjoyed under Alexander Severus and his predecessors.
>From his retirement Origen
The tyranny of Maximin brought about the revolt in Mauritania, which for three months raised the two GORDIANS to the throne of the Caesars. At Aquileia his troops, suffering from famine and disease, became disaffected. A party of praetorian guards rose, and he, with his son and the chief ministers of his tyranny, were slain in his tent. Their heads were cut off and exhibited on the battlements to the gaze of the citizens.
Maximinus (3) II. (Jovius), emperor, a.d. 305. Galerius Valerius Maximinus, originally called Daza, played a somewhat prominent part in the complications following on the abdication of DIOCLETIAN and MAXIMIANUS I. Those emperors were succeeded as Augusti by GALERIUS and CONSTANTIUS, who appointed as Caesars Daza, under the name of Maximinus, and Severus. On the death of Constantius (a.d. 306) Galerius assigned the provinces beyond the Alps to Constantine, but conferred the vacant title of Augustus on Severus, leaving that of Caesar to Constantine and Maximin. Severus was put to death a.d. 307, and Galerius made Constantine and Licinius Augusti, assigning Illyricum to the latter. Maximin, who was in charge of Syria and Egypt, jealous of this promotion of others to a higher position than his own, assumed, under the convenient plea that his troops compelled him, the title of Augustus, and added to it the epithet Jovius, which had been borne before by Diocletian (Eus. H. E. viii. 13; ix. 9). On the death of Galerius in 311, Maximin received the provinces of Asia Minor in addition to Syria and Egypt, and Licinius those of Eastern Europe. The decisive victory of Constantine at Milvian Bridge in 312, and the betrothal of Constantine's sister to Licinius, alarmed Maximin, who determined on immediate hostilities. At Heraclea he was encountered by the army of Licinius, and utterly routed. In 24 hours he reached Nicomedia, 160 miles from the scene of his defeat, and made his way to Tarsus, where after a few days' despair he poisoned himself. As a final insult to his memory all inscriptions to his honour were destroyed, his statues disfigured and thrown from their pedestals (ix. 11). His character is pre-eminent for brutal licentiousness and ferocious cruelty. The provinces of Asia, Syria, and Egypt groaned for six years under him, and of all the persecutors in that last great struggle between the old and new religions none were so infamous for their cruelties. Though he joined for a time, on the advice of the dying Galerius, with Constantine and Licinius in a decree of toleration in 311, he renewed the persecution with greater vigour within a few months (viii. 17). The sufferings of the Christians in Alexandria drew the hermit Anthony from his desert seclusion to exhort them to steadfastness. Of the martyrs of Palestine, to whom Eusebius dedicates a whole book of his history, most suffered by his orders and many in his presence. Heralds were sent through Caesarea ordering all men to sacrifice to the gods, and on his refusal, Appian, a youth of twenty, was tortured and slain. Ulpian and his brother Aedesius were slain at Tyre, Agapius was thrown into the amphitheatre at Caesarea to fight with a bear and so lacerated that he died the next day. Theodosia, a virgin of Tyre, was drowned, Silvanus tortured, and the confessors of Phaeno in Palestine sent to the mines (Eus. de Mart. Palest. c. 4). Silvanus, the aged bp. of Emesa, was thrown into a den of wild beasts. Peter, bp. of Alexandria, with many other bishops, was beheaded (ib. H. E. ix. 6). The church of Antioch supplied yet more illustrious martyrs. On the application of an embassy from that city, headed by Theotecnos, which he himself had prompted, he forbade the Christians to hold their wonted meetings in its catacombs (ix. 2). Hesychius and Lucian, the latter a presbyter, famous for learning and saintliness, were summoned to the emperor's presence at Nicomedia, half starved to death, and then tempted with a luxurious banquet as the price of their apostasy, and on their refusal to deny their faith were thrown into prison and put to death (ix. 6). Decrees, which Eusebius (ix. 7) copied from a pillar in Tyre, were issued, ascribing the famines, earthquakes, and pestilences to the wrath of the gods at the spread of the creed which was denounced as atheistic, and decreeing, at the alleged request of the Syrians themselves, perpetual banishment against all who adhered to their denial of the state religion. Even the Armenians, though outside the emperor's dominions, and old allies of Rome, were threatened with war, because they were Christians (ix. 8), and this at a time when thousands were dying of starvation from a prolonged famine followed by pestilence. From Nicomedia and the neighbouring cities the Christians were banished by an imperial edict, issued here as elsewhere, as at the request of the citizens themselves (ix. 9). Not till after his defeat by Licinius did the tyrant, in the rage of his despair, turn against the priests, prophets, and soothsayers who had urged him on, and, as a last resource, within less than a year after his edicts of extermination, issue a decree of toleration and order the restitution of property taken from the Christians and brought into the imperial treasury (ix. 10).
Maximinus (4),
St., 5th archbp. of Trèves (c. 332—349) known to
us from the part he played in the history of Athanasius. In Feb. 336
the latter was banished by the emperor Constantine to Trèves,
then the seat of government of his eldest son Constantine II. Maximin
received him with honour, became his zealous partisan and friend, and
was thenceforth numbered among the champions of orthodoxy in the West
(Hieron. Chron. an. 346, Migne, Patr. Lat. xxvii. 682;
Athan. Ep. ad Epasc. Aegypt. § 8; Apologia ad
Imp. Const. § 3, ed. Benedict. i. 278, 297; Hilarius,
Hist. Frag. ii. ed. Maff. ii. 634, in Patr. Lat.
x. 644). For the probable influence of Athanasius's sojourn
on the struggle between Arianism and orthodoxy and the growth of
monasticism in the West, see Rettberg, Kirchengeschichte, i. 187,
188. Athanasius left Trèves in June 338, and in 340 Maximin was
called upon to entertain and assist Paul, the
Maximin's cult was established from very early times. The legends that collected round his name are embodied in two biographies, one by an anonymous monk of St. Maximin in 8th cent. (Boll. Acta SS. Mai. vii. 21–25), the other by a Lupus, who, in the opinion of Ceillier (xii. 511) and others, was Lupus, bp. of Châlons. It is in Migne, Patr. Lat. cxix. 665–680. According to their story, Maximin was a native of Poitou, brother of Maxentius, bp. of Poictiers. Drawn to Treves by the favour of St. Agricius, he was ordained by him and succeeded him in the see. Against the Arian heresy, then in the ascendant, he boldly contended and suffered much persecution. He summoned a council at Cologne, which condemned Euphratas, the bp. of that city, who denied the divinity of Christ. (This council is now admitted to be fictitious; see Baron. Ann. 346, vii. sqq.; Rettberg, Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands, i. 131). He died in Aquitaine after an episcopate of 17 years, and was buried there. For the early history of his famous monastery see Gall. Christ. xiii. 523 sqq.; Rettberg, u.s. i. 474.
Maximinus (6), Arian bp. of Hippo Regius, who came with the Gothic soldiers into Africa a.d. 427, 428, and held a discussion with St. Augustine on the Trinity. Augustine, later, replied in 2 books, which, with that which contains the discussion, exhibit the arguments for and against the Arian doctrine. The line of argument taken by Augustine resembles so strongly that expressed in our Athanasian creed that if this were lost it might almost be supplied from this treatise. August. Coll. cum Max. and Contra Max. i. ii. Opp. vol. viii. pp. 719–819, ed. Migne; Vit. Poss. 17; Ceillier, vol. ix. 359–361.
Maximus (2) Magnus, Christian emperor in the West, a.d. 383–388.
Authorities.—Besides the regular historians, of whom Zosimus (iv. 35–46) gives most original matter, St. Ambrose has special notices, Epp. 24 (narrative of his embassies), 20, § 23, and 40, § 23; Symmachus, Ep. ii. 31; Sulpicius Severus, almost contemporary, Chron. ii. 49–51, Vita S. Martini, 20, Dialogus, ii. 6, iii. 11. The best modern books are De Broglie, L’Eglise et l’Empire au IVme siècle (Paris, 1866), vol. vi. and H. Richter, Weströmische Reich (Berlin, 1865), pp. 568 ff., cf. T. Hodgkin, Italy and her Invaders (Oxf. 1880), vol. i. pp. 147–155.
History.—Magnus Maximus was a Spaniard by birth (Zos. iv. 35) and a dependant of the family of Theodosius, with whom he served in Britain. In 383 he was proclaimed emperor by the soldiers in Britain, where he held some command, apparently not a very high one. He landed in Gaul at the mouth of the Rhine, and was met by the army of Gratian somewhere near Paris. The troops came over to him, and Maximus suddenly found himself in possession of the western provinces. Gratian was killed at Lyons, Aug. 25, and, as was generally reported, by the orders of Maximus himself: The Western empire was thus in great danger, since Valentinian II. was a mere weak boy, and Theodosius was occupied in the East. It shews the position of St. Ambrose that he was chosen by the empress-mother, Justina, to treat for peace at this crisis (S. Ambr. Ep. 24, §§ 3, 5, 7). Peace was made, Maximus being acknowledged as Augustus and sovereign of the Gauls, side by side with Valentinian and Theodosius.
This state of things lasted for some years, during which Maximus,
who had been baptized just before his usurpation, busied himself much
with church affairs, being desirous to obtain a reputation for the
strictest orthodoxy. Western writers, Sulpicius Severus and Orosius,
though treating Maximus as a usurper, give him, on the whole, a good
character, Sulpicius making exception on the score of his persecution
of the Priscillianists and his love of money (Sulp. Dial.
ii. 6; Oros. vii. 34). Thus Maximus was in general an able and popular
ruler, at least in his own dominions, giving his subjects what they
most wanted, some feeling of security and peace. But we must join in
the censure passed upon his treatment of the Priscillianists by pope
Siricius (synod of Turin, a.d.
401, can. 6, Hefele, Councils, § 113), St. Ambrose,
and St. Martin of Tours. Ambrose, indeed, was a political opponent,
but Maximus courted Siricius, and was very obsequious to Martin. The
Priscillianist heretics, who held a mixture of Gnostic, Manichean,
and Sabellian opinions, had been condemned by a synod at Saragossa in
380. Their opponents, Ithacius bp. of Ossonuba, and Idacius bp. of
Emerita, found in Maximus a ready instrument of persecution. The
Priscillianists were ordered to appear before a synod at Bordeaux in 384,
where one of their chiefs, bp. Instantius, was condemned as unworthy of
the episcopal office. Priscillian denied the competency of the synod,
and appealed to the emperor. St. Martin besought him to abstain from
bloodshed, and to remit the case to ecclesiastical judges. Ithacius,
their most vehement accuser, did not hesitate to charge Martin himself
with Priscillianism, but, for a time, better influences prevailed, and
Maximus promised that no lives should be taken. After Martin's
departure, however, other bishops persuaded Maximus to remit the
case to a secular judge, Evodius, and finally the emperor condemned
Priscillian and his companions, including a rich widow Euchrocia, to
be beheaded. Instantius and same others were exiled. A second synod,
held at Trèves in 385, approved
Legend.—The connexion of Maximus with Britain is obscure, but it has given rise to a considerable aftergrowth of legend. He is called "Rutupinus latro" by Ausonius, perhaps merely because he started from Richborough to invade Gaul. Welsh tradition has incorporated him into its genealogies of saints and royal heroes, under the name of Macsen Wledig, or Guledig, a title considered to be equivalent to imperator. (See H. Rowland's Mona Antiqua Restaurata, pp. 166 ff., ed. 2, Lond, 1766, and cf. Skene's Four Ancient Books of Wales, vol. i. pp. 45, 48, vol. ii. 405. He is usually called Macsen, which rather suggests a confusion with Maxentius, but Skene quotes his Welsh name also as Maxim, i. p. 48.) The "dream of Maxen Wledig" in the Mabinogion (ed. Guest, vol. iii. pp. 263–294, Lond. 1849) represents him as already emperor of Rome, and brought to Britain by a dream of a royal maiden Helen Luyddawc or Luyddog, daughter of Eudav ( = Octavius?) of Caer Segont, or Carnarvon, and then returning after seven years with his brother-in-law Kynan to reconquer his old dominions. Another mythical account describes Kynan as raising an army of sixty thousand men, who afterwards settled in Armorica. The desolation of Britain thus left the country exposed to the attacks of the Picts and Saxons (cf. Mabinogion, l.c. pp. 29 ff.; R. Rees, Essay on Welsh Saints, pp. 104, 105, Lond. 1836; Nennius, Hist. Brit. § 23). A further development of the legend represents St. Ursula and her company of virgins as sent out as wives for these emigrated hosts. The term Sarn Helen applied to Roman roads in N. Wales is explained as referring to the wife of Maximus.
It is difficult to say what historical facts may be at the bottom of this. That the withdrawal of Roman troops by Maximus exposed Britain to invasion is an obvious fact, and is already asserted by Gildas (Historia, cc. 10, 11). The colonization of Armorica by some of his auxiliaries is also possible enough. On the other hand, the name of Helen may merely be borrowed from the mother of Constantine, and Sarn Helen may be explained as Sarn-y-lleng, "the legion's causeway," just as the story of the cutting out the tongues of the women of Armorica by Kynan's soldiers appears to be only an etymological myth to explain the name Llydaw applied to that country. For further refs., see R. Williams, Biogr. Dict. of Eminent Welshmen (Llandovery, 1852), art. "Maxen Wledig."
Maximus (3), Petronius, emperor of the West, A.D. 455; a descendant of the
Maximus who usurped the empire in the time of Gratian (Procopius,
Bell. Vand. i. 4). He was of one of the noblest and wealthiest
families of Rome, was three times prefect of Rome and twice consul. To
avenge the insult his wife had received from Valentinian III. (see
Procopius, u.s.), he caused him to be assassinated on
Maximus (9), bp. of Alexandria, 14th "successor of St. Mark," had been a presbyter under bp. Dionysius. During the Decian persecution, after Dionysius had been carried away by some Christians of Mareotis into Libya, Maximus with three other presbyters "kept themselves concealed in Alexandria, secretly carrying on the oversight of the brethren" (Dionys. to Domitius and Didymus, ap. Euseb. vii. 11). It is surprising that their ministrations were undetected by the inquisitorial severity of the local government, which found victims among the virgins of the church (see Eus. vi. 41). Seven years later, when Valerian's persecution began, we find Maximus attending his bishop (who calls him his "fellow-presbyter") to the tribunal of the prefect Aemilianus, as involved with him, and three deacons and a Roman lay Christian, in the charge of contumacious rejection of the gods who had "preserved the emperor's sovereignty," and whose worship was in accordance with "natural" law. He was banished with Dionysius to Cephro in the Libyan frontier, sharing in the rough reception the heathen inhabitants gave to the bishop and assisting him in the preaching which ere long won over "not a few" of them to "the word then sown among them for the first time." After a while the party were removed to Colluthion, much nearer to Alexandria (ib. vii. 11). When Dionysius, "worn out with years," died early in 265 (in Mar. according to Le Quien, Oriens Christ. ii. 395; Neale says Feb., Hist. Alex. i. 39, 83), Maximus was appropriately elected to succeed him. Maximus died on Sun. Apr. 9, 282 (Le Quien, ii. 396) and was succeeded by Theonas.
Maximus (10), bp. of Jerusalem, the 40th in succession from the apostles, succeeded Macarius on his death, a.d. 336. He had been a confessor in one of the persecutions (Theod. H. E. ii. 26)—according to Philostorgius (H. E. iii. 12) that of Maximian—in which he had lost one eye and had the sinews of one arm and one thigh severed while still serving as a presbyter at Jerusalem. He appears to have had no strength of character, being honest but timid, his simplicity making him the tool of the stronger and more designing. His career is consequently inconsistent. He attended the council of Tyre, a.d. 335, being admitted to a seat, together with Marcellus of Ancyra, Asclepas of Gaza, and others, as among those least committed to the cause of Athanasius, whose presence would give an air of impartiality to its deliberations, whom, also for their close vicinity, it would not have been decent to exclude (De Broglie, L’Eglise et l’Empire, ii. 326). The part he took is variously represented. According to Socrates (H. E. ii. 8) and Sozomen (H. E. iii. 6), he assented to the deposition of Athanasius. Rufinus, however (H. E. i. 17), records the dramatic incident that the aged confessor Paphnutius of the Thebaid, whose mutilated form had attracted so much attention at Nicaea, when he saw Maximus vacillating, took him by the hand and led him over to the small band of Athanasius's supporters, saying that it did not become those who bore the tokens of their sufferings for the faith to consort with its adversaries. Sozomen, who here, as elsewhere, is not consistent, records the same incident (H. E. ii. 25). We know little of the part taken by Maximus in the Arian troubles between the council of Tyre, a.d. 335, and that of Sardica. But if he had refused complicity when the solemn recognition of Arius was made by the 200 bishops assembled for the dedication of Constantine's church at the council of Jerusalem, it could hardly fail to have been recorded. The silence of all historians throws doubt on Rufinus's statement that Maximus remained always faithful to the cause of Athanasius. He, however, refused to attend the council of the Dedication assembled by the Eusebians at Antioch, a.d. 341, at which the sentence of the council of Tyre against Athanasius, to which he had been an assenting party, was confirmed. On this occasion he had been put on his guard in time; and, conscious of his weakness, discreetly kept away, fearing lest he might, as at Tyre, be carried away (συναρπαγείς) against his will and led to acquiesce in measures of which he would afterwards repent (Socr. H. E. ii. 8; Soz. H. E. iii. 6). At Sardica he was once more on the orthodox side and his name stands first of the Palestinian bishops who signed the synodical letters (Athan. Apolog. I. ad Const. p. 768). A little later he warmly welcomed Athanasius when passing through Jerusalem to resume his seat at Alexandria, summoning an assemblage of bishops to do honour to him, by the whole of whom, with two or three exceptions, Athanasius was solemnly received into communion. Congratulatory letters on the recovery of their chief pastor were written to the Egyptian bishops, and Maximus was the first to affix his signature (Socr. H. E. ii. 24; Soz. H. E. 21, 22; Athan. Apol. I. ad Const. p. 775 ; Hist. Arian. ad Solit. § 25; Labbe. Concil. ii. 92, 625, 679). Jerome states that Maximus died in possession of his bishopric, a.d. 350 or 351, and that Cyril was appointed to the vacant see.
Maximus (11), the Cynic; the intrusive bp. of
Constantinople, a.d. 380.
A native of Alexandria of low parentage, he boasted that his family
had produced martyrs. He was instructed in the rudiments of the
Christian faith and received baptism, but sought to combine the
Christian profession with Cynic philosophy. Gregory Nazianzen
describes him as having had no regular occupation, but
Maximus appealed from the Eastern to the Western church. In the autumn of 381 a synod held either at Aquileia or at Milan under Ambrose's presidency considered Maximus's claims. Having only his own representations to guide them, and there being no question that Gregory's translation was uncanonical, while the election of Nectarius was open to grave censure as that of an unbaptized layman, Maximus also exhibiting letters from Peter the late venerable patriarch, to confirm his asserted communion with the church of Alexandria, it is not surprising that the Italian bishops pronounced decidedly in favour of Maximus and refused to recognize either Gregory or Nectarius. A letter of Ambrose and his brother-prelates to Theodosius (Ep. xiii. c. i. § 3) remonstrates against the acts of Nectarius as no rightful bishop, since the chair of Constantinople belonged to Maximus, whose restoration they demanded, as well as that a general council of Easterns and Westerns, to settle the disputed episcopate and that of Antioch, should be held at Rome. In 382 a provincial synod held at Rome, having received more accurate information, finally rejected Maximus's claims (Hefele, Hist. of Councils, i. pp. 359, 378, 381, Eng. trans.). Jerome tells us that Maximus sought to strengthen his cause by writing against the Arians, and presented the work to Gratian at Milan. He appears also to have written against Gregory, the latter replying in a set of caustic iambics (Carm. clxviii. p. 250) expressing astonishment at one so ignorant venturing on a literary composition. Theod. H. E. v. 8; cf. Soz. H. E. vii. 9; Greg. Naz. Orat. xxii. xxviii.; Carm. 1 de Vita sua; Carm. cxlviii.; Tillem. Mém. eccl. ix. 444–456, 501–503.
Maximus
(15), patriarch of Antioch. After the deposition of Domnus II.,
patriarch of Antioch, by the "Latrocinium" of Ephesus,
a.d. 449, Dioscorus persuaded
the weak Theodosius to fill the vacancy with one of the clergy of
Constantinople. Maximus was selected and ordained, in violation of
all canonical orders, by Anatolius bp. of Constantinople, without
the official sanction of the clergy or people of Antioch. Maximus,
though owing his elevation to an heretical synod, gained a reputation
for orthodoxy in the conduct of his diocese and province. He dispatched
"epistolae tractoriae" through the churches subject to him
as metropolitan, requiring the signatures of the bishops to Leo's
famous "tome" and to another document condemning both Nestorius
and Eutyches (Leo Magn. Ep. ad Paschas. 88 [68], June 451). Having
thus discreetly assured his position, he was summoned to the council
of Chalcedon in Oct. 451, and took his seat without question, and when
the illegal acts of the "Latrocinium" were quashed, including
the deposition of the other prelates, a special exception was made of
the substitution of Maximus for Domnus on the express ground that Leo
had opened communion with him and recognized his episcopate (Labbe,
iv. 682). His most important controversy at Chalcedon was with Juvenal
of Jerusalem regarding the limits of their respective patriarchates. It
was long and bitter; at
The next notice of Maximus is in a correspondence with Leo the Great, to whom he had appealed in defence of the prerogatives of his see. Leo promised to help him against either Jerusalem or Constantinople, exhorting him to assert his privileges as bp. of the third see in Christendom (i.e. only inferior to Alexandria and Rome). Maximus's zeal for the orthodox faith receives warm commendation from Leo, who exhorts him as "consors apostolicae sedis" to maintain the doctrine founded by St. Peter "speciali magisterio" in the cities of Antioch and Rome, against the erroneous teaching both of Nestorius and Eutyches, and to watch over the churches of the East generally and send him frequent tidings. The letter, dated June 11, 453, closes with a desire that Maximus will restrain unordained persons, whether monks or simple laics, from public preaching and teaching (Leo Magn. Ep. 109 [92]). Two years later, a.d. 455, the episcopate of Maximus came to a disastrous close by his deposition. The nature of his offence is nowhere specified. We do not know how much longer he lived or what became of him. Tillem. Mém. eccl. t. xv. passim; Le Quien, Oriens Christianus, t. ii. p. 725.
Maximus (16), bp. of Turin, writer, reckoned as Maximus II., the third bishop, by Cappelletti (Le Chiese d’Ital. xiv. 12, 14, 76), who puts a Maximus I. in 390 as the first bishop. Ughelli (Ital. Sac. iv. 1022) counts them as one (cf. Boll. Acta SS. 25 Jun. v. 48). He was present at the council of Milan in 451 and signed the letter to pope Leo (Leo, Ep. 97; Labbe, iv. 583). He was also at the council of Rome in 465, where his name appears next after pope Hilary's, apparently on account of his seniority (Labbe, v. 86). Gennadius of Massilia (d. 496) gives a sketch of his works, most of which are still extant, but strangely says that he died in the reign of Arcadius and Honorius, i.e. before 423. This has led some to think that there were two bishops of this name, but the early date given by Gennadius seems irreconcilable with the many allusions to Nestorian doctrines in the homilies on the Nativity, and the general opinion is that he is wrong (Gennad. de Scrip. Eccl. c. xl. in Patr. Lat. lviii. 1081). The works of Maximus are in vol. lvii. of Migne's Patrologia Latina. They consist of 117 homilies, 116 sermons, 3 tractates on baptism, 2 (of very doubtful authority) entitled respectively contra Paganos and contra Judaeos, and a collection of expositions de Capitulis Evangeliorum (also doubtful). Many of the sermons and homilies were formerly ascribed to St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, St. Leo, etc. Several are on the great church festivals.
Points of interest in the homilies and sermons are: the notice of fixed lections (e.g. Hom, 36 and 37); abstinence from flesh meat in Lent (Hom. 44); no fasting or kneeling at prayer between Easter and Pentecost (Hom. 61). In Hom. 62, on the other hand, he mentions that the vigil of Pentecost was observed as a fast. This custom therefore probably originated in his time. St. Leo, mentioning the fast of Pentecost, makes it clear that he means the fast immediately following the festival. In Hom. 83 Maximus comments on the creed, which is exactly the same as the Roman creed given by Rufinus. Among contemporary events alluded to may be noticed the synod of Milan in 389, at which Jovinian was condemned (Hom. 9). Seven homilies (86–92) refer to the terror of the city at an impending barbaric invasion, apparently Attila's inroad, 452. Another homily (94) refers to the destruction of the church of Milan on the same occasion. He several times refers to superstitions in his diocese; their observance of the Calends of Jan. (16), their tumults during an eclipse (100), the idolatry still lurking among the lower orders (Serm. 101, 102). There are homilies on the feast of the Nativity of St. John the Baptist, on St. Lawrence, St. Cyprian, St. Agnes, and St. Eusebius of Vercelli, and several on the festival of SS. Peter and Paul which are worth particular attention. In some of these he uses very decided language on the supremacy of St. Peter, e.g., speaking of him as the keystone of the church (Hom. 54), the "magister navis" (Serm. 114); and as entrusted with "totius Ecclesiae gubernacula" (Hom. 70). But in other places he speaks of St. Peter as supreme in discipline, St. Paul in doctrine, and remarks "inter ipsos quis cui praeponatur incertum est" (72). Nowhere does he allude to the church of Rome as inheriting exclusively the supremacy of St. Peter. Gennadius mentions a work of Maximus de Spiritali Baptismi Gratia, and three treatises on this subject, formerly ascribed to St. Augustine, are published by Migne with the works of Maximus, on the strength of three ancient MSS., one of which the church of Turin possesses. Nothing in their style is against Migne's conclusion. The first treatise dwells on the significance of the anointing of the ears before baptism; the second gives an interrogatory creed identical with the one mentioned above in the homilies, and alludes to the custom of baptizing on the third day after the profession of faith; the third speaks of the anointing of the head after baptism, by which is conferred the full regal and sacerdotal dignity spoken of by St. Peter, and of the custom of washing the feet at the same time, after the example of Christ. See F. Savio's Gli Antichi Veseovi d'Italia (Turin, 1899), p. 283.
Maximus (24), an ecclesiastical writer, placed by Eusebius
(H. E. v. 27) in the reign of Severus and episcopate of Victor,
i.e. in the last decade of 2nd cent. Eusebius says the subject
of his work was the origin of evil and whether matter had been created,
and elsewhere (Praep. Ev. vii. 22) entitles it, "Concerning
Matter" (περὶ
τῆς ὕλης), and preserves a
long extract, from which it appears to have been in dialogue form. Routh,
whose Reliquiae Sacrae (ii. 87) is by far the best ed. of the
remains of Maximus, pointed out that the
Galland conjectures that the author of the dialogue is the Maximus who was 26th bp. of Jerusalem, and whom Eusebius, in his Chronicle, places about the reign of Commodus. It does not absolutely disprove this, that Eusebius, though he twice speaks of the writings of Maximus, does not mention that he was a bishop; probably Eusebius found in the book he used no mention of the author's dignity, and knew no more than we do whether he was the bp. of Jerusalem. But there seems increasing reason to think that Eusebius erroneously attributed to Maximus the work of Methodius: see Zahn in Zeitschr. für Kirchengesch. ix. 224–229, and J. A. Robinson, The Philocalia of Origen (Camb. 1893), pp. xl.–xlix.
Maximus
(25) of Ephesus. A "master of theurgic science," commonly
reckoned among the neo-Platonic philosophers, the interest of whose
life consists merely in the fact that he supplied an essential link in
the transit of the emperor Julian from Christianity to paganism. The
account given by Eunapius, in his Life of Maximus, shews exactly how
this was. Julian, while still under tutelage and in early youth, with
the natural self-will of a vigorous mind, had rebelled in secret against
his Christian instructors and betaken himself to Greek philosophy as a
liberal and congenial study. This bent was not disallowed by the emperor
Constantius, who thought it safe when compared with political ambitions
But philosophy at that era indicated much more than quiet intellectual
research. It was a name of power, to which all whose sentiments flowed
with a strong current towards the traditionary heathenism had recourse
for self-justification; and it was natural that Julian, once he had
attached himself to this study, should instinctively seek for more
practical advantages from it than the mere increase of theoretical
wisdom. Maximus, though flashy and meagre as a philosopher, was better
supplied with an ostentatious show of practical power than any of his
philosophic rivals. The amiable rhetorician Libanius, the aged sage
Aedesius, could please Julian, but evidently were lacking in the force
which could move the world. But when Aedesius, compelled by increasing
infirmity, resigned Julian to the tuition of his two followers,
Chrysanthius and Eusebius, Julian began to be struck with the terms in
which these two spoke of their old fellow-pupil Maximus. Chrysanthius,
indeed, alone seemed to admire him; Eusebius affected to depreciate
him; but this feigned depreciation was calculated to excite the interest
of Julian. For what Eusebius spoke of in this slighting manner was a
certain miraculous power possessed by Maximus, of which he gave one or
two casual instances. Julian had never seen miracles like those with
which Maximus was credited; so he bade Eusebius stick to his learning
and hurried off to Maximus. That skilful adept, after a solemn preparation
of his imperial pupil, in which he was aided by Chrysanthius, described
to Julian the revered religious authority of the hierophant of Eleusis,
whose sacred rites were among the most famous in Greece, and urged him
to go thither. He went, and was imbued with a teaching which combined
a mysterious exaltation of the power of the Greek deities with hints
of his own personal aggrandizement. By such acts as these, and by his
initiation into the Eleusinian mysteries, he passed over to paganism,
though his having done so was still unknown to the world. When,
Constantius being dead, he became sole master of the Roman empire, he
did not forget his instructors. He sent for Chrysanthius and Maximus;
they consulted the sacrificial omens; the signs were unfavourable, and
dissuaded them from accepting the invitation. Chrysanthius trembled,
and refused to go; the more ambitious Maximus declared it unworthy
of a wise man to yield to the first adverse sign, and went. He was
received by Julian with extraordinary honours, but by his haughtiness
and effeminate demeanour earned the censure even of the heathen, among
whom was the partial panegyrist Eunapius. After the death of Julian
he was severely and even cruelly treated by Valentinian and Valens,
and though released for a time, was beheaded by order of
Melania (1), a Roman lady of Spanish extraction, daughter of Marcellinus, who had been consul; born c. 350. Her husband died when she was only 22 years old, leaving her with three children, of whom two died immediately after their father. Full of ascetic enthusiasm, she rejoiced to be now more free to serve Christ, left her son to the charge of the urban praetor, and, though winter was beginning, sailed for the East (Hieron. Ep. xxxix. 4; Chron. Ann. 377, vol. viii. ed. Vall.), c. 372. She seems to have been acquainted with Jerome and his friends, who at that time formed an ascetic society at Aquileia. Her slave Hylas accompanied Jerome to Syria (Hieron. Ep. iii. 3), and Rufinus, from whom Jerome had then recently separated (ib.), was with her in 374 in Egypt, and possibly in Palestine (ib. iv. 2). During their stay in Egypt the persecution of the orthodox by Valens arose. Rufinus was imprisoned. Melania, who had only been in Egypt six months, went with a large body of exiled bishops, clergy, and anchorets to a place near Diocaesarea in Palestine, where she supported them at her own expense. Apparently she was joined by Rufinus after a time, and they went together to Jerusalem. There she established herself at the Mount of Olives, where, says Jerome (Chron. a.d. 377, properly 375), she was such a wonderful example of virtues, and especially of humility, that she received the name of Thecla. She formed a community of 50 virgins and was the means of reconciling to the church a large body of heretics called Πνευματομάχοι. Her house was open to all. Amongst those who visited her was EVAGRIUS, whom she persuaded to embrace the monastic life (a.d. 388). She knew John bp. of Jerusalem intimately, and no doubt shared with Rufinus in the friendship of Jerome and Paula when they settled at Bethlehem in 386, and afterwards in his contention with them. In 397 she returned with Rufinus to Italy, to confirm her granddaughter Melania the Younger in the practice of asceticism. She was received by Paulinus at Nola with great honour, and brought him a piece of the true cross set in gold, sent by John bp. of Jerusalem. She took up her abode at Rome, where she no doubt assisted Rufinus through the controversy as to his translation of Origen's works. She lived probably with her son Publicola and his wife Albina and their two children, the younger Publicola, and the younger Melania, with her husband Pinianus. Palladius, when he came to Rome to plead the cause of Chrysostom, stayed with them. She desired to induce her granddaughter Melania and Pinianus to take vows of separation, and was much displeased that, though willing to vow continency, they would not separate from each other's society. In her vehement enthusiasm she spoke of her conflicts with those who resisted her asceticism as "fighting against wild beasts." In 408, Italy being threatened with the invasion of Alaric, and her son Publicola having died, she determined to leave Rome. Rufinus, having quitted Aquileia on the death of his father, went with her and her daughter-in-law Albina, the younger Publicola, Melania and Pinianus. She had been to Africa in 400 with a letter from Paulinus to Augustine (Aug. Ep. xiv.), and it was now determined that she should go to Sicily and thence to Africa, in both which countries she had estates. In Sicily Rufinus died. She passed on to Africa with the others; and, after vainly attempting to induce Melania and Pinianus to embrace the monastic state, went on to her former habitation on the Mount of Olives, and 40 days after died, aged 60. Palladius, Hist. Laus. c. 118; Paulinus, Epp. 29, 31, 45, 94.
Melania (2), daughter of Publicola son of MELANIA
(1); born at Rome c. 383. She married Pinianus when
exceedingly young, yielding to the wish of her father, though she
was already imbued with the ascetic teachings of her grandmother,
then living at Jerusalem. The young husband and wife were induced
by Melania the elder in 397 to take a vow of continence, but
refused to separate. They accompanied the grandmother from Rome
(a.d. 408) to Sicily and
Africa; but, when she returned to Jerusalem, they remained at Sagaste,
attaching themselves to the bp. Alypius and enjoying the friendship of
Augustine. On the death of the elder Melania the still considerable
remains of her estates became the property of her granddaughter. She
gave away those in Gaul and Italy, but kept those in Sicily, Spain, and
Africa; and this led to the attempt of the people of Hippo to induce PINIANUS
to become a priest of their church. In the scene in which a promise was
exacted from them to remain at Hippo, Melania shewed great courage. When
through the rapacity of the rebel count Heraclian she was denuded of
her property, and thus set free from the promise to remain at Hippo,
she accompanied her husband to Egypt, and, after staying among the
monastic establishments of the Thebaid and visiting Cyril at Alexandria,
eventually went to Palestine, and, together with her mother Albina,
settled at Bethlehem in 414. There they attached themselves to Jerome,
and to the younger Paula, who then presided over the convent. Their
ascetic convictions had so developed that they now accepted that
separation which the elder Melania had vainly urged in her lifetime.
Pinianus became the head of a monastery and Melania entered a convent. By
the settlement of Melania at Bethlehem the feud was extinguished
which had separated the followers of Rufinus from those of Jerome;
and although in his letter to Ctesiphon (cxxiii. 3, ed. Vall., date
415) Jerome still has a bitter expression about the elder Melania,
in his last wetter to Augustine (cxliii. 2, ed. Vall.) in 419, Albina,
Pinianus, and Melania are joined with Paula in their reverential
greetings. Their intercourse with Augustine continued, and in answer to
their questions on the Pelagian controversy he wrote his treatise On
Grace and Original Sin, a.d.
418. Melania apparently lived on for many years. Photius says
that
Meletius (2) (Melitius), bp. of Lycopolis, consecrated not long before the beginning of the Arian controversy. The see of Lycopolis stood next in rank to that of Alexandria, of which Peter, afterwards martyr, was then bishop (a.d. 300–311). Meletius took advantage of Peter's flight from persecution (Soz. H. E. i. 24) to intrude into his and other dioceses, ordain priests, and assume the character of primate of Egypt. A protest against his conduct by four incarcerated Egyptian bishops, Hesychius, Pachomius, Theodore, and Phileas, urged that his act was uncalled-for and carried out without consulting them or Peter, involving a breach of the rule which forbade one bishop to intrude into the diocese of another. Meletius ignored the protest. The bishops were martyred, and Meletius went to Alexandria. He was received by the two elders, Isidore and the afterwards famous Arius; probably at their instigation he excommunicated two visitors appointed by Peter, and replaced them by others. The archbp. of Alexandria then wrote forbidding his flock to have fellowship with Meletius until these acts had been investigated. A synod of Egyptian bishops under Peter deposed Meletius (a.d. 306) for his irregular acts and insubordination. Athanasius and Socrates affirm indeed that the degradation of Meletius was specially due to his having "denied the faith during persecution and sacrificed"; but in this they probably express only the popular belief which could not otherwise explain why orthodox bishops were imprisoned and martyred, while Meletius passed through the length and breadth of the land unhindered. The council of Nicaea in its comments upon, and condemnation of, Meletius, takes no note of impiety; and the statement of Epiphanius—Meletius "was orthodox in his belief, and never dissented from the creed of the church in a single point. He was the author of a schism, but not of alterations of belief"—is probably true of the bishop, if not of his followers. Meletius retorted upon his deposers by separating himself and his followers. Peter preached against the Meletians, and rejected their baptism (Soz. i. xv.); Meletius retaliated by abusing Peter and his immediate successors Achillas and Alexander. At length the whole question was considered by the council of Nicaea. The 2nd, 4th, and 6th canons refer directly or indirectly to the Egyptian schism; and in a synodical epistle addressed by the bishops assembled there "to the holy and great church of the Alexandrians and to the beloved brethren throughout Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis," the "contumacy of Meletius and of those who had been ordained by him" is dealt with (Socr. i. 9; Theod. i. 9). The line adopted was one of "clemency"; although Meletius is described as "strictly speaking wholly undeserving of favour." He was permitted to remain in his own city and retain a nominal dignity, but was not to ordain or nominate for ordination. The council decreed that those who had received appointments from him should be confirmed by a more legitimate ordination and then admitted to communion and retain their rank and ministry, but were to be counted inferior to those previously ordained and established by Alexander; nor were they to do anything without the concurrence of the bishops of the Catholic and apostolical church under Alexander. Meletius himself was to be an exception; "To him," said the bishops, "we by no means grant the same licence, on account of his former disorderly conduct. If the least authority were accorded to him, he would abuse it by again exciting confusion."
It is doubtful whether Meletius was at the council; but he did not resist its decrees. At Alexander's request he handed in a list of his clerical adherents, including 29 bishops, and in Alexandria itself 4 priests and 3 deacons. Meletius retired to Lycopolis, and during Alexander's lifetime remained quiet; but the appointment of Athanasius to the see of Alexandria was the signal for union of every faction opposed to him, and in the events which followed Meletius took a personal part. The uncompromising sternness of Athanasius was contrasted with the "clemency" of the council and of Alexander; Arian and Meletian, schismatic and heretic banded together against the one man they dreaded, and so pitiless and powerful was their hate that it wrung from him the comment on the pardon accorded to Meletius by the council of Nicaea "Would to God he had never been received!"
Before his death, the date of which is not known, Meletius nominated, contrary to the decree of the Nicene council, his friend John as his successor (Soz. ii. 21), a rank accorded to him and recognized by that council of Tyre (a.d. 335) in which the Eusebians and others deposed Athanasius (ib. ii. 25). "In process of time," says Sozomen (ii. 21), "the Meletians were generally called Arians in Egypt." Originally differences in doctrine parted them; but their alliance for attack or defence gradually led the Meletians to adopt Arian doctrines [ARIUS] and side with Arian church politics. The Meletians died out after the 5th cent.; the monks described by Theodoret (i. 9) being among the latest and most eccentric of the sect. "They neglected sound doctrine, and observed certain vain points of discipline, upholding the same infatuated views as the Jews and Samaritans." Consult Walch, Ketzerhistorie; Neander, Bright, and the usual church historians.
Meletius (3), bp. of Antioch, previously of Sebaste in Armenia (Soz H. E. iv. 28; Theod. H. E. ii. 31), or according to Socrates (H. E. ii. 44), of Beroea in Syria.
He came to Antioch
(a.d. 361) when the see had been
vacated through the disorderly translation of Eudoxius to Constantinople
(a.d. 360) and the city was
still a focus for theological rancour and dispute. The Eustathians,
now under the venerated priest Paulinus, represented the orthodox
party with whom Athanasius was in communion; the Eudoxians were Arian
or semi-Arian. Meletius owed his appointment to the joint application
to Constantius of both parties, and
The death of Constantius (Nov. 361) and the decrees of toleration promulgated by Julian permitted the banished bishops to return. An effort was at once made, especially by Athanasius and Eusebius bp. of Vercelli, to establish unity in order to resist the pagan emperor; and this was one of the principal objects of a council held at Alexandria in 362 (Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, i. 727), where it was ordered that Paulinus and his followers should unite with Meletius, and that the church, thus united, should in the spirit of fullest toleration receive all who accepted the Nicene creed and rejected the errors of Arianism, Sabellianism, Macedonianism, etc. Eusebius of Vercelli and Asterius of Petra were commissioned to proceed to Antioch, taking with them the synodal letter (Tomus ad Antiochenos), which was probably the work of Athanasius. The prospects of peace had, however, been fatally imperilled before the commissioners reached the city. Lucifer, bp. of Calaris, had gone direct to Antioch instead of to the council of Alexandria. He appears to have repeatedly exhorted both Meletians and Eustathians to unity; but his sympathies were strongly with the latter; and, when the former opposed him, he took the injudicious step of consecrating Paulinus as bishop. "This was not right," Theodoret justly protests (iii. 5). When Eusebius reached Antioch, he found that "the evil had, by such unwise measures, been made incurable." The long connexion of Athanasius with the Eustathians made him unwilling to disown Paulinus, who accepted the synodal letter; and attempts at union were suspended.
During the short reign of Julian Meletius remained at his post. Jovian's death (a.d. 364.) and the edict of Valens re-expelling the bishops recalled by Julian once more drove Meletius into exile. Two devoted Antiochians, Flavian and Diodorus, rallied the persecuted who refused to communicate with the Arian Euzoïus and assembled them in caverns by the river side and in the open country. Paulinus, "on account of his eminent piety" (Socr. iv. 2), was left unmolested. During the 14 years which followed, bitterness and alienation were rife amongst the followers of Meletius and Paulinus. Basil (Ep. 89) recommended Meletius to write to Athanasius, who, however, would not sever the old ties between himself and the Eustathians. The death of Athanasius (A. D. 373) did not improve matters. His successor Peter, with Damasus of Rome, spoke in 377 of Eusebius and Meletius as Arians (Basil, Ep. 266). The Western bishops and Paulinus suspected Meletius and the Easterns of Arianism; the Easterns imputed Sabellianism to the Westerns.
Gratian, becoming sovereign of the whole empire in 378, at once proclaimed toleration to all sects, with a few exceptions (Socr. v. 2), amongst which must have been the Arians of Antioch (Theod. v. 2). Sapor, a military chief, went there to dispossess the partisans of Euzoïus and to give the Arian churches to the orthodox party. He pacified the Meletians by handing the churches over to them, and the animosity of the two parties was for the time allayed by the six principal presbyters binding themselves by oath to use no effort to secure consecration for themselves when either Paulinus or Meletius should die, but to permit the survivor to retain the see undisturbed.
In 379 a council at Antioch under Meletius accepted the synodal letter of Damasus (a.d. 378), which, known as "the Tome of the Westerns," was sent in the first instance to Paulinus; and two years later (381) Meletius—though disowned by Rome and Alexandria—was appointed to preside at the council of Constantinople. He was greeted by the emperor Theodosius with the warmest affection (ib. v. 6, 7). During the session of the council, Meletius died. His remains finally rested by those of Babylas the Martyr at Antioch.
The schism ought now to have ended. Paulinus was still alive, and should have been recognized as sole bishop. The Meletian party, however, irritated by his treatment of their leader, secured the appointment of FLAVIAN; and a fresh division arose, "grounded simply on a preference of bishops" (Socr. v. 269). The history of the Meletians now merges into that of the Flavianists. The schism was practically ended in Flavian's life time, 85 years after the ordination of Paulinus by Lucifer.
Melito, bp. of
Sardis, held in the middle of the 2nd cent. a foremost place among the
bishops of Asia as regards personal influence and literary activity.
Shortly before the end of that cent. his name is mentioned by Polycrates
of Ephesus in his letter to Victor of Rome (Eus. H. E. v. 24.) as
one of the luminaries of the Asiatic church by whose authority
His Apology presented to the emperor Marcus Aurelius may have been his latest work. It is placed under a.d. 170 in Jerome's translation of the Chronicle of Eusebius, but the date may be more safely inferred from a passage preserved by Eusebius. Melito, addressing Marcus Aurelius, and speaking of Augustus, says, "of whom you have become the much-wished-for successor, and shall be so with your son if you keep that philosophy which took its beginning with Augustus," etc. That he here says "with your son," not "with your brother," is evidence that the date is later than the death of Lucius Verus, in 169. Commodus was associated in the empire with his father in 176. The passage quoted does not shew whether this association had already taken place or was only anticipated. In 177 persecutions of Christians were raging violently all over the empire. Melito's memorial seems to have been written at the very first beginning of that persecution. The Christians seem to be suffering more in their property than in their persons, and Melito is able to express a doubt whether the emperor had sanctioned the cruelties, and a belief that, when he had examined the case, he would interfere in their favour. Melito declares that Nero and Domitian were the only emperors who had sanctioned persecutions of Christians, and probably from this passage Tertullian derived his argument that only bad emperors had persecuted the Christians. On the other side, as forbidding interference, Melito quotes the letter of Hadrian to Fundanus, and letters of Antoninus, at a time when Aurelius himself was associated in the government, to the people of Larissa, of Thessalonica, and of Athens. One extract from the Apology preserved in the Paschal Chronicle (p. 483, Dindorf) gave rise to some discussion in the early Socinian controversy. "We are not worshippers of senseless stones, but adore one only God, Who is before all and over all, and [over] His Christ truly God the Word before all ages." The second "over" given in Rader's ed. of the Chronicle does not appear in the latest ed. (Dindorf's).
An Apology is extant
in a Syriac trans. in one of the Nitrian MSS. in the Brit. Mus., which
bears the heading, "The oration of Melito the Philosopher held before
Antoninus Caesar, and he spoke to Caesar that he might know God, and
he shewed him the way of truth, and began to speak as follows."
Probably the Syriac translator, finding in his Greek original that
the Apology was "addressed" to the emperor, made a blunder
in supposing it delivered viva voce. It was printed in Syriac,
with English trans. by Cureton (Spicileg. Syr.) and by Pitra,
with a Latin trans. by Renan (Spicil. Solesm. vol. ii.) which
has been revised in Otto's Apologists, vol. ix. Although this
Syriac Apology appears complete, it contains none of the passages cited
by Eusebius, and its character seems entirely different from that of
the work known to Eusebius. The latter was mainly intended to induce
the emperor to stop the persecution by shewing that the Christians did not
deserve the treatment inflicted. The Syriac Apology is a calm argument
against the absurdities of polytheism and idolatry, such as might have
been written with the hope of making a convert of the emperor, but does
not exhibit any of the mental tension of one suffering under unjust
persecution. The Syriac Apology is, therefore, probably not the same
as that from which Eusebius made extracts. Did, then, Melito write two
apologies? The Paschal Chronicle records an Apology of Melito
under both a.d. 164 and 169,
but this is clearly only a double mention of one Apology, probably
caused by the double mention in Eus. iv. 13, 26. The ascription of the
Syriac Apology to Melito is probably an error, though the document
is perhaps not much later. There are slight, but we think decisive,
traces of the use of Justin Martyr's Apology: it must therefore
be later than that. It is addressed to an emperor Antoninus, who
might have been Pius, Aurelius, Caracalla, or Elagabalus. Probably
one of the latter two is intended. The writer's point of view
seems to be Syrian. In enumerating heathen idolatries he omits (as we
should not expect from Melito writing in Asia Minor) Cybele and the
Ephesian Diana; while he speaks in much detail of Syrian objects of
worship, and seems to be personally acquainted with the city of Mabug,
the Syrian Hierapolis. The, admonition, "if they wish to dress
you in a female garment, remember that you are a man," suggests
Elagabalus rather than any of the other emperors mentioned. One other
passage supports a presumption of Syrian authorship. The writer speaks
of the world as destined to suffer from three deluges—one of
wind, one of water, one of fire; the first two already past, the third
still to come. The deluge of wind is that by which the tower of Babel
was supposed to have been destroyed (see the Sibylline verses quoted
by Theophilus, ad Autol. ii. 31, and also Abydenus, quoted by
Eus. Praep. Evan. ix. 14). "Flood of wind" occurs in the
work called The Cave of Treasures (Cureton, Spicil. Syr.
p. 94), and in the Ethiopic book of Adam (Ewald's Jahrbücher
der Bibl. Wiss. 1853). It has been contended that the reference to
the deluge of fire shews acquaintance with II. Peter; but it seems to
us that this can by no means be positively asserted. On N.T. allusions
in this Apology see Westcott (N. T. Canon, p. 219). Against
placing it so late as Elagabalus it may be urged that its conclusion,
if interpreted naturally, speaks of the emperor as having children;
and though the apologist might be merely expressing a wish on behalf
of the emperor's unborn successors, it is simpler to refer the
work to the time of Caracalla, who
Of other works of Melito the περὶ τοῦ πάσχα is first in the list of Eusebius. The date is limited by the opening sentence which Eusebius quotes: "In the proconsulate over Asia of Servilius Paulus, at the time that Sagaris suffered martyrdom, there took place much dispute at Laodicea about the Paschal celebration ἐμπεσόντος κατὰ καιρόν in those days, and these things were written." Rufinus here reads "Sergius Paulus," and this appears from other authorities to have been the real name of the proconsul in question, probably within the limits 164–166.
The appeal of Polycrates to the
authority of Melito makes it clear that the latter, in his work on
Easter celebration, took the Quartodeciman side. Eusebius says that
the work of Melito drew forth another, no doubt on the opposite side,
from Clement of Alexandria. It has been conjectured that Melito
was the Ionian whom Clement (Eus. H. E. v. 11) enumerates as
among his teachers. It should be noticed that the extant fragments of
Melito refute the notion that Quartodecimanism was inconsistent with
the reception of the Fourth Gospel. Melito speaks of our Lord's
three years' ministry after His baptism, which he could not have
learned from the Synoptists. He accounts for the fact that a ram, not
a lamb, was substituted as a sacrifice for Isaac, by the remark that
our Lord, when He suffered, was not young like Isaac, but of mature
years. Possibly here may be an indication that Melito held the same
theory concerning our Lord's age as Irenaeus and other Asiatics,
derived no doubt from
The next work of Melito from which Eusebius has given an extract is called Selections, addressed to a friend named Onesimus, who had asked Melito to make selections from the law and the prophets of passages concerning our Saviour, and concerning all our faith, and also to give him accurate information as to the number and order of the O.T. books. Melito relates that he had gone up to the East to the place where the things were preached and done, and had accurately learned the books of the O.T. He enumerates the five books of Moses, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four of Kings, two of Chronicles, Psalms of David, Proverbs of Solomon, also called Wisdom, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job; of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, the twelve Minor Prophets in one book, Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras. The last, no doubt, includes Nehemiah and possibly Esther, which is otherwise omitted. This list gives the Hebrew canon adopted by the Church of England; but gives a different order of the books from that of Josephus, and does not attempt to make the number of books 22. The expressions "the Old Books," "the Books of the O.T.," shew clearly that the church of Melito's time had a New Testament canon.
Eusebius enumerates other works of Melito
as being known to him. The titles enable us imperfectly to guess at
their contents, and sometimes the titles themselves are uncertain. (4)
τὰ περὶ
πολιτείας
καὶ
προφητῶν, very
likely two separate works "on Christian Conversation" and
"on the Prophets" coupled together by Eusebius, because
contained in the same volume in the Caesarean Library. (5)
περὶ
ἐκκλησίας. It
has been conjectured that the breaking out of Montanism
may have made it necessary to insist on the authority of the
church. (6) περὶ
κυριακῆς. Possibly
the Quartodeciman controversy led to discussion
about the Lord's Day. This word κυριακή, used in
The list given shews Melito's great activity as a writer, and the wide range of his writings.
Of spurious writings ascribed to Melito, we need only mention a commentary on the Apocalypse, the ascription to Melito apparently having been made by the fraud or ignorance of some transcriber, and not intended in the work itself, which is a compilation from various writers, some as late as the 13th cent. Through two works, de Passione S. Joannis and de Transitu b. Mariae, with which Melito's name was connected, it became widely known in the West, though with various disguises of form, such as Mileto, Miletus, and Mellitus, the last being the most common.
The remains of Melito are given by Routh (Rel. Sac. i. 113–153), and more fully by Otto (Corp. Apol. Chr. ix. 375–478). See also Piper (Stud. und Krit. 1838, p. 54), Westcott (N. T. Canon, p. 218), Lightfoot (Contemp. Rev. Feb. 1876). Cf. esp. Harnack, Die Überlieferung der Apologeten (Text. und Untersuch. I. 240), and Geseh. der Alt. Chr. lib. i. 246 ff.
Mellitus, the first bp. of London and third archbp. of Canterbury. He was not one of the original missionaries who accompanied Augustine to Britain, but was sent by St. Gregory in 601 to strengthen the hands of the newly consecrated archbishop and to convey to him the pall. Mellitus, accompanied by Laurentius, whom Augustine had sent to Rome, and by Justus, Paulinus, and Rufinianus, left Rome c. July 22, 601. They carried letters of commendation to the bps. of Vienne, Arles, Lyons, Gap, Toulon, Marseilles, Châlons on the Saône, Metz, Paris, Rouen, and Angers; to Theodoric, Theodebert, and Clothair, kings of the Franks, and also to queen Brunichild. These names probably indicate the route of the missionaries, and there is no evidence to support Ussher's conjecture that they visited Columbanus at Luxeuil on the way. To Augustine Mellitus brought also the answers which Gregory sent to the questions laid before him by Laurentius, and a supply of church furniture, "all things which were needed for worship and the ministry of the church, sacred vessels, altar-cloths, church ornaments, priestly and clerical robes, relics of saints and martyrs, and several books" (Bede, H. E. i. 29). Some account of the remains of St. Gregory's benefaction, preserved at Canterbury in the 15th cent., is given by Elmham (ed. Hardwick, pp. 96 seq.). Augustine, having received from the pope authority to consecrate bishops for the newly converted nation, chose Mellitus for the see of London. That city, properly the capital of the East Saxons, was then under Ethelbert, king of Kent, who had prevailed on the dependent kings of the East Saxons to receive Christianity, and who now founded the church of St. Paul as the cathedral of the new bishopric. No distinct date, is given by Bede for the consecration of Mellitus, but it must have occurred some time between the winter of 601 and the early summer of 604, the most probable date for the death of Augustine.
Mellitus continued undisturbed in his see during the reign of Ethelbert. He joined in the letter addressed by Laurentius to the Irish bishops (Bede, H. E. ii. 4), and in 609 went to Rome to treat with pope Boniface IV. on matters necessary for the welfare of the English church. The precise object of this journey is not mentioned by the historian, who, however, tells us that Mellitus was present at a council on Feb. 27, 610, subscribed to the decrees, and subsequently carried them to the English church. The purpose of this council was to secure the peace of the monastic order and two versions of a decree are extant (Labbe, Conc. v. 619; Mansi, Conc. x. 504; Haddan and Stubbs, iii. 64, 65). Bede adds that Mellitus also brought letters from the pope to Ethelbert, Laurentius, and the whole clergy and people of the English (W. Malmesb. G. P. lib. i.; Haddan and Stubbs, iii. 65). The monks of St. Augustine's also shewed a bull of Boniface IV., dated Feb. 27, 611, addressed to Ethelbert, mentioning the request presented by Mellitus, and confirming the privileges of St. Augustine's (Elmham, u.s. pp. 129–131; Thorn, ap. Twysden, c. 1766; Haddan and Stubbs, iii. 67–69).
On the death of Ethelbert the newly-founded church was in danger of dissolution. Mellitus and Justus fled to Gaul, and Laurentius was only saved by a miracle from the disgrace of following them. Bede tells very circumstantially the story of Mellitus's flight. The sons of the Christian king Sebert had continued to be pagans. Seeing the bishop celebrate the holy communion and give the Eucharist to the people, they presumptuously asked, "Why do you not give us the white bread which you used to give to Saba our father and still give to the people?" The bishop replied that if they would be baptized they should have the bread. They refused the sacrament of initiation, but still demanded the bread. On Mellitus's persistence in refusing it, they banished him. He fled to Kent and afterwards to Gaul, whence he was recalled by Laurentius after the conversion of Eadbald. He probably remained at Canterbury until the death of Laurentius in 619, when he succeeded to the vacant see, which he held till 624. That his activity was impaired by gout is nearly all that is preserved about him. Bede mentions that he consecrated a church to the Blessed Virgin within the precincts of St. Augustine's monastery, and that, a great fire at Canterbury occurring in a place termed the "martyrdom of the four crowned martyrs," he was carried there and at his prayer a wind drove the flames southwards and saved the city (H. E. ii. 16, 17).
Menander,
a Samaritan false teacher in the early part of the 2nd cent. Our
knowledge of him is probably all derived, either directly or indirectly,
from Justin Martyr. What he tells directly (Apol. i. 26, 56)
is, that Menander was a native of the Samaritan town Capparatea,
and a disciple of Simon, and, like him, had been instigated by the
demons to deceive many by his magic arts; that he had had success
of this kind at Antioch, where he had taught, and had persuaded his
followers that they should not die; and that, when Justin wrote, some of
them survived, holding this persuasion. Justin wrote a special treatise
against heresies, and from this, in all probability,
Irenaeus (iii. 4, p. 179), having spoken of Valentinus and Marcion, says that the other Gnostics, as had been shewn, took their beginnings from Menander, the disciple of Simon; and there is every probability that it was from the "Samaritan" Justin that Irenaeus learned his pedigree of Gnosticism, viz. that it originated with the Samaritan Simon, and was continued by his disciple Menander, who taught at Antioch, and that there Saturninus (and, apparently, Basilides) learned from him.
The name Menandrianists occurs in the list of Hegesippus (Eus. H. E. iv. 22). Tertullian evidently knows only what he has learned from Irenaeus (de Anim. 23, 50; de Res. Carn. 5). The same may be said of all later writers, and it is scarcely worth while to mention the imaginary condemnation of these heretics by Lucius of Rome, invented by "Praedestinatus."
Mennas, patriarch of Constantinople, 536–552. On the deposition of ANTHIMUS, Mennas, superior of the great convent of St. Samson at Constantinople, was elected to the see. Pope Agapetus was then at Constantinople, having presided at the council there which dealt with the case of Anthimus, and himself consecrated Mennas. Mennas accepted the council of Chalcedon; he was a Catholic, well known for his knowledge and integrity. On May 2, 536, he presided at a council assembled by Justinian at Constantinople at the request of 11 bishops of the East and of Palestine, and of 33 other ecclesiastics, to finish the case of Anthimus, and to decide those of Severus of Antioch, Peter of Apamea, and the Eutychian monk Zoara. The request had been made to pope Agapetus, who had died on Apr. 22, before the council could be held. The result of the council was that, Anthimus having been sought for in vain, he was forbidden to resume his episcopate of Trapezus and deposed from his rank; the others were anathematized. Mennas obtained from Justinian the passing of a law, dated Aug. 6, 536, confirming the Acts of this council. He also sent them to Peter of Jerusalem, who held a council to receive them. On Sept. 13, 540, pope Vigilius wrote to Mennas and to the emperor Justinian, by the hands of Dominicus the patrician. He endeavoured to carry on the influence which Agapetus had over the affairs of the church of Constantinople. He confirmed the anathemas pronounced by Mennas against Severus of Antioch, Peter of Apamea, Anthimus, and other schismatics, offering communion again to all who should come to a better mind. Mennas died on Aug. 5, 552, just before the second great council of Constantinople, called the fifth general. It was in the midst of the angry discussions about the "Three Chapters." Mennas had signed the declaration of faith addressed to pope Vigilius by Theodore of Corsaria and others to satisfy his protests and to preserve the peace of the church.
In the controversies which gave rise to the Lateran council in 649, a Monothelite writing was brought forward by Sergius patriarch of Constantinople as a genuine work of Mennas, supposed to be addressed to pope Vigilius. But in the third council of Constantinople, Nov. 10, 680, this document was proved to be the composition of the monk George, who confessed himself its author.
Mansi, viii. 869, 870, 960, ix. 157, etc., x. 863, 971, 1003, xi. 226, etc.; Liberatus, Brev. xxi. in Patr. Lat. lxviii. 2039 (see also the dissertations at the end of that volume); Vigil. Pap. Ep. in Patr. Lat. lxix. 21, 25; Agapet. Pap. Ep. in Patr. Lat. xlviii.; Evagr. iv. 36 in Patr. Gk. lxxxvi. Pt. 2, 416, etc.; Ceillier, xi. 121, 194, 968, xii. 922, 947, 953.
Merlinus. The prophecies
of Merlin, which had great influence in the middle ages, represented
the enduring hate of the Welsh for the English conquerors, and were
probably the composition of Merddin, son of Morvryn, whose patron,
Gwenddolew, a prince in Strathclyde, and an upholder of the ancient
faith, perished a.d. 577 at
the battle of Arderydd, fighting against Rhydderch Hael, who had been
converted by St. Columba to Christianity. When the northern Kymry were
driven into Wales, Cornwall, and Brittany, they relocalized the story of
Merlin in their new abodes. Merddin is now represented as a Christian,
and said to be buried in Bardsey, the island of the Welsh saints;
but much of his career is passed in Cornwall, which was long under
the same dynasty as South Wales, even after the English got possession
of the coast at Bristol, and broke the connexion by land between the
two districts. As the mass of tradition grew into the shape in which
we find it in Nennius, and later on in Geoffrey, Merlin becomes a
wholly mythical character, the prophet of his race. It is not till
Geoffrey of Monmouth that we find the boy called Merlin and made the
confidant of Utherpendragon and of Arthur, and able to bring the stones
of Stonehenge from Ireland. Nennius does not mention Merlin among the
early bards, and the poems attributed to him were really composed in the
12th cent., when there was a great outburst of Welsh poetry (Stephens,
Literature of the Kymry, § 4). Among these poems
there is a dialogue between Merddin and his sister Gwenddydd ("The
Dawn"), which contains
Mesrobes, one of the most celebrated patriarchs and historians of Armenia, born in 354 at the town of Hasecasus, now Mush (Tozer's Turkish Armenia, p. 286) and educated under Nerses Magnus, the fourth patriarch of Armenia from St. Gregory the Illuminator, to whom also Mesrobes acted as secretary, an office which he likewise filled in the court of king Varaztad till dethroned by the Romans a.d. 386 (Langlois, Fragm. Hist. Graec. t. v. pt. ii. pp. 297–300). He then took holy orders and sought a solitary life. He became coadjutor to the patriarch Sahag in 390, when he devoted himself to the extirpation of the remains of idolatry still existing in Armenia. Under him a great revival of Armenian literature took place. >From the introduction of Christianity Syriac had become the dominant language, a knowledge of it being deemed a necessary qualification for holy orders (cf. Agathang. Hist. Tiribat.; Zenob. Hist. Daron. in Langlois, l.c. pp. 179, 335, Disc. Prelim. p. xiv.; Goriun, Hist. de S. Mesrop; Vartan, Hist. d’Arménie, p. 51, Venice, 1862). Mesrobes devoted himself to revive the ancient Armenian culture, some fragments of which can yet be traced in Moses Chorenensis. He was an accomplished Greek, Persian, and Syriac scholar, but wished to revive a national literature. His first step was to restore, if not to invent, an alphabet for the Armenian tongue instead of depending on the Syriac character. He induced the patriarch Sahag, alias Isaac, to convoke a national council at the city of Vagharschabad to consider the question, at which the king Vram-Schapouh assisted. Learning that a Syrian bishop, one Daniel, possessed an ancient Armenian alphabet, Mesrobes sent a priest named Abel to him, who brought it back. It is supposed to have consisted of 22 or 27 letters. With this as a basis and with the help of various persons who possessed some traditionary knowledge of ancient Armenian, as Plato chief librarian at Edessa and two learned rhetoricians, Epiphanius and Rufinus, he composed the alphabet which the Armenians adopted in 406, the seven vowels having been made known, it was said, by direct revelation from heaven (cf. Langl. l.c. Disc. prélim. p. xv.; Moses Choren. Hist. Armén. lib. iii. cc. 52, 53, and for minute details of the whole question, Karékin, Hist. de la litt. Armén. pp. 8 seq. Venice, 1865; Jour. Asiat. 1867, t. i, p. 200). Mesrobes attracted great numbers to his schools and sent the ablest pupils to study at Edessa, Athens, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and even Rome, whence they brought back the most authentic copies of the Scriptures, the Fathers, Acts of the councils, and the profane writers. These young scholars endeavoured to adapt the Armenian tongue to the rules of Greek grammar, translating into Armenian the grammar of Dionysius the Thracian, an ed. of which with a French trans. was pub. at Paris in 1830. This Hellenizing movement among them in cent. 5 was analogous to similar ones in cents. 6, 7, 8, among the Persians and Monophysites, and in cent. 9 among the Arabs, movements to which we owe the preservation of some of the most precious monuments of antiquity, as Tatian's long-lost Diatessaron, pub. at Venice out of the Armenian in 1875, cf. Qtly. Rev. Apr. 1881, art. on the "Speaker's Commentary on N.T." (cf. Renan, Hist. des lang. sémit. p. 297). Among the disciples of Mesrobes were all the leading writers of Armenia, including Leontius presb. and mart., Moses Taronensis, Kioud of Arabeza, afterwards patriarch, Mamprus lector, Jonathan, Khatchig, Joseph of Baghin, Eznig, Knith bp. of Terchan, Jeremiah, Johannes of Egegheats, Moses Chorenensis, Lazarus of Barb, Gorium biographer of Mesrobes, Elisaeus (Langl. l.c.; Neumann's pref. to Hist. of Vartan in Public. of Orient. Trans. Fund, London, 1830). The Armenian church through their labours possessed a vernacular edition of the Bible in 410. Mesrobes also invented an alphabet for Georgia similar to the Armenian but containing 28 letters. Both alphabets had the letters arranged after the Greek order. The Armenians attribute to him the settlement of their liturgy. Sahag died Sept. 9, 440, and was succeeded as bishop by Mesrobes, until he died on Feb. 19, 441. The Life of Mesrobes by Goriun, pub. by the Mekhitarite Fathers at Venice in 1833, was trans. into German and pub. by Dr. B. Welte (Tübingen, 1841). See Moses Choren. Hist. Armén. lib. iii. cc. xlvii. lii.–liv. lvii. lviii. lx. lxi. lxvi. lxvii. for copious details of his life, and an art. by Petermann s.v. in Herzog's Real Encyklop.
Methodius (called also Eubulius), commemorated June 20 (Basil, Menol.) and Sept. 18 (Mart. Rom.), a Lycian bp. highly distinguished as a writer, bp. first of Olympus, afterwards of Patara, early in 4th cent. Jerome (Cat. 83), Socrates (vi. 13), and Maximus (in Schol. Dionys. Areop. 7) state that he was bp. of Olympus. Leontius of Byzantium calls him bp. of Patara, and he is thus known to all later Greek authorities. Jerome's unsupported statement that he was translated to Tyre was probably due to a transcriber's error for Patara m the authority which Jerome followed.
Jerome states that "he was crowned with martyrdom
at the end of the last [i.e. Diocletian's] persecution; or
as some affirm under Decius and Valerian, at Chalcis in Greece."
The earlier date is inconsistent with the facts that Methodius wrote
against Porphyry and that Eusebius speaks of him as a contemporary
(ap. Hieron. Apol. adv. Rufin. I. vol. ii.). The martyrdom
of a Lycian or Phoenician bp. at a place so remote as Euboea must also
be pronounced incredible. The places were not then even under the same
ruler, Greece being under Licinius and the Eastern provinces under
Maximin. Accordingly Sophronius, the Greek translator of St.
Methodius wrote much, and his works were widely read and highly valued. Jerome several times refers to him: Epiphanius calls him ἀνὴρ λόγιος καὶ σφόδρα περὶ τῆς ἀληθείας ἀγωνισάμενος; Gregory Nyssen or Anastasius Sinaita (for the authorship is disputed), ὁ πολύς ἐν σοφίᾳ; Andrew of Caesarea, ὁ μέγας; Eustathius of Antioch, ὁ τῆς ἀγίας ἄξιος μνήμης; and he is quoted by Theodoret, besides many later writers. Photius has preserved copious extracts (Codd. 234–237); other shorter extracts are to be found in Catenae, and others are given in the Nitrian MSS. (see Wright, Cat. MSS. Syr. in Brit. Mus.). The works of which we have knowledge are:
(1) The only one extant entire is the Symposium, or Banquet of the Ten Virgins. It reveals Methodius as an ardent admirer of Plato, from whom he probably derived his preference for dialogue form. In the present case he has not only imitated him in several passages, but has taken from him the whole idea of his work. As in Plato's Symposium the praises of Love are celebrated, so here are proclaimed the glories of Virginity. The imitation of the form of Plato's work is even kept up in not presenting the dialogue directly, but as reported by one present at it. Eubulius, or Eubulium, receives from a virgin Gregorion an account of a banquet in the gardens of Areté, not under Plato's plane-tree, but under an agnus-castus, in which ten virgin guests, at their hostess's command, pronounce ten successive discourses in praise of chastity. At the end of the banquet the victor Thecla leads off a hymn, to which the rest standing round as a chorus respond. But Methodius has caught very little of Plato's style or spirit. He has little dramatic power, and there is often little to distinguish one speaker from another. Of his general soundness on our Lord's Divinity there can be no doubt; and we have not found anything in the writings ascribed to him which an orthodox man might not have written, especially before the Arian disputes had made caution of language necessary. Elsewhere (Cod. 162) Photius mentions Methodius with Athanasius and other great names as one from whose writings Andrew had produced extracts garbled and falsified so as to teach heresy.
(2) In the Catalogue of Jerome he gives the first place to the writings of Methodius against Porphyry. He elsewhere refers to them (in Comm. in Dan. Pref. c. 13, vol. v. pp. 618, 730; Apol. ad Pammach. vol. i.; Ep. 70 ad Magnum, i. 425), stating in Ep. 70 that they ran to 10,000 lines. Philostorgius (viii. 14) rates the reply of Apollinarius to Porphyry as far superior to either that by Eusebius or by Methodius. All three replies have perished.
(3) On
the Resurrection.—This work has been lost, but large extracts
have been preserved by Epiphanius, Haer. 64, and by Photius,
Cod. 234, see also Johan. Damasc. de Imag. Orat.
2. The text as given by Combefis and reprinted by Migne suppresses
the heretical portions of the Epiphanian extracts. This work also is
in the form of a Platonic dialogue, and is in refutation of Origen.
The Origenist speakers deny the materiality of the resurrection body,
and urge that it is enough if we believe that the same form shall rise
again, beautified and glorified. In heaven our bodies will be spiritual;
and so St. Paul teaches: "It is sown a natural body; it is raised
a spiritual body"; "Flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom
of God." Man had been originally in Paradise, that is, in the third
heaven (
(4) De Pythonissa.—Jerome tells us that this work, now lost, was directed against Origen. We may presume, therefore, that its scope was the same as that bearing the same title by Eustathius of Antioch, viz. to refute the opinion held by Origen after Justin Martyr that the soul of Samuel was under the power of Satan, and was evoked by the magical art of the witch of Endor. Methodius's view, however, could not have been the same as that of Eustathius, for a passage at the close of Photius's extracts from the treatise on the Resurrection implies a belief that the appearance of Samuel was real.
(5) Xeno.—Socrates (vi. i3), expressing his indignation against the reviling of Origen by worthless writers who sought to get into notice by defaming their betters, names Methodius as the earliest of Origen's assailants; adding that he had afterwards by way of retractation expressed admiration of him in a dialogue entitled Xeno. We believe the dialogue referred to by Socrates to be identical with (6). There is nothing in Methodius's confutations of Origen inconsistent with his having felt warm admiration for the man; and he has certainly followed him in his allegorical method of interpretation.
(6) Περὶ τῶν γενητῶν.—This work "on things created" is only known by extracts preserved by Photius (Cod. 235). It is a refutation of Origenist doctrine as to the eternity of the world, the principal arguments with which Methodius deals being that we cannot piously believe that there ever was a time when there was no Creator, no Almighty Ruler, and that there cannot be a Creator without things created by Him, a Ruler without things ruled over, a παντοκράτωρ without κρατούμενα. Further, that it is inconsistent with the unchangeableness of God to suppose that, after having passed ages without making anything, He suddenly took to creating. The orthodox speaker deals with his opponent by the Socratic method of question and answer. Photius's extracts begin with a discussion of the text, "Cast not your pearls before swine"; and we have near the commencement the phrase, μαργαρίτας τοῦ ξενῶνος. It is hard to get good sense by translating "pearls of the guest-chamber"; and with the knowledge we have that one of Methodius's dialogues was called Xeno, we are disposed to think that Xeno was one of the speakers in this dialogue, and that we are to translate "Xeno's pearls," i.e. pearls which Xeno presumably had mentioned, or else that the words τοῦ Ξενῶνος have got transposed and ought to be prefixed to the extract, the whole being taken from a speech by this interlocutor. Photius says that Methodius calls Origen a centaur, and interpreters have puzzled as to what he could have meant. In the extracts preserved the orthodox speaker addresses his Origenist interlocutor as ῶ Κένταυρε without the slightest air of uttering a sarcasm, so that we should be disposed to think that the name of the Origenist speaker in this dialogue was Centaurus.
(7) On Free Will.—[MAXIMUS (24)].
For the works of Methodius see Migne, vol. xviii.; Eng. trans. in Schaff's Ante-Nicene Fathers; Jahn; S. Methodii opera, and S. Method. Platonizans, Halis. Sax. 1865.
Miltiades (1), an active Christian writer of the 2nd cent. Eusebius tells us (H. E. v. 17) that, besides leaving other records of his diligent study of the divine oracles, he composed a treatise "against the Greeks," another "against the Jews," and an "Apology" addressed to the rulers of this world on behalf of the school of philosophy to which he belonged. It is a natural inference from the plural "rulers" that there were, when Miltiades wrote, two emperors, probably Aurelius and Verus. The Apology may be supposed to have been a learned plea for toleration of Christianity, the purity of whose doctrines may have been favourably contrasted with the teaching of heathen philosophy. It is not extant, but seems to have had at the time a high repute. The writer of the "Little Labyrinth" (Eus. v. 28) names Miltiades in company with Justin, Tatian, and Clement among the writers in defence of the truth or against contemporary heretics who, before Victor's episcopate, had distinctly asserted the divinity of Christ. Tertullian (adv. Valentin. 5) names him with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus as a writer against heresy, giving him the appellation, evidently intended in an honourable sense, "Sophista Ecclesiarum." St. Jerome twice mentions him (Catal. 39; Ep. ad Magnum, vol. i. p. 427), but gives no clear indication that he knew more of him than he had learned from Eusebius.
Great obscurity hangs over his relation to Montanism, owing to a strange confusion, either on the part of Eusebius or of his copyists, between the names Miltiades and Alcibiades. In H. E. v. 2 Eusebius tells a story about one of the Lyons confessors named Alcibiades, and, going on to speak about Montanism, mentions an Alcibiades as among its leaders. After the death of Montanus, his sect seems to have been known in Phrygia by the name of its leader for the time being; and in an anti-Montanist document preserved by Eusebius, v. 16, the sect is called the party of Miltiades. This is the reading of all the MSS.; yet having regard to the earlier passage, editors are disposed here to substitute Alcibiades for Miltiades. If we are not permitted to think that there might have been Montanists of both names, it would seem more natural to make the opposite correction. In c. 16 there was nothing to lead copyists astray; in c. 2 Eusebius, having named an Alcibiades just before, might easily by a slip of the pen have repeated the same name. This view is strengthened by the fact that at the close of the Muratorian fragment, a name transcribed as "Mitiades" occurs as that of one the ecclesiastical use of whose writings was totally rejected by the church. This would be explained by the supposition that a Miltiades had written records of Montanist prophesyings or some other document, which that sect had regarded as inspired and admitted to church use. But the case is complicated further in c. 17 of Eusebius. He begins by saying that the anti-Montanist document mentioned Miltiades as having written against Montanus; and then, having given extracts from the document, goes on to give the account we have already used of the other works of Miltiades. But the extract, according to the reading of all the MSS., names not Miltiades but Alcibiades as the author of an anti-Montanist treatise, "that a prophet ought not to speak in ecstasy." Here editors are compelled to correct the Alcibiades of the extract into Miltiades to make Eusebius consistent; yet this leaves it unexplained why transcribers should go so strangely wrong. Cf. Otto, Corpus Apol. ix. 364.
Miltiades
(2) (Melchiades), bp. of Rome after EUSEBIUS, from July 2, 310,
to Jan. 10 or 11, 314, the see having been vacant for 10 months and 14
days. The long vacancy is accounted for by the circumstances of his
The pontificate of Miltiades was marked by the accession, and so-called conversion, of Constantine the Great, and the definite termination of Diocletian's persecution. To Miltiades the possessions of the Christians at Rome, including the cemeteries, were at length restored by Maxentius: "Melchiades was recorded to have sent deacons with letters from the emperor Maxentius and from the prefect of the Praetorium to the prefect of the city, that they might recover possession of what had been taken away in the time of persecution, and which the aforesaid emperor had ordered to be restored" (Augustine, Brevic. Collat. cum Donat.; die iii. c. 34). Constantine, after the defeat and death of Maxentius (Oct. 28, 312), promulgated at Milan in 313 with Licinius the full edict of toleration known as "the Edict of Milan," which Licinius proclaimed in June 313 at Nicomedia in the East. All these important events were during the episcopate of Miltiades, who would be a personal witness of Constantine's entry into Rome after the battle of the Milvian bridge, with the labarum borne aloft, and the monogram of Christ marked upon the shields of his soldiers. But the pope's name does not become prominent until the complications which soon arose in connexion with the African Donatists. Constantine, according to Optatus, was greatly annoyed at being called upon to settle disputes among the clergy, but he complied with the request, nominating three Gallic bishops whom he commanded to go speedily to Rome to adjudge the matter in conjunction with Miltiades. He wrote a letter preserved by Eusebius, addressed to Miltiades and an unknown Marcus. There is no evidence, in this or other acts of Constantine, that he regarded the bp. of Rome as the sole or necessary judge of ecclesiastical causes on appeal. He was, indeed, careful to refer spiritual cases to the spirituality, and he naturally and properly referred the chief cognizance of a case arising in W. Africa to the Roman see, though not to the pope singly, but to him assisted by assessors whom he named himself. The three bishops of Gaul are named in the letter as colleagues of Miltiades and Marcus, and it appears from Optatus that 15 Italian bishops were added to the conclave, summoned, we may suppose, by Miltiades himself, so that he might hear the case canonically in synod with the assistance of the Gallic assessors. The decisions of the conclave were duly transmitted to Constantine, whom they fully satisfied (Ep. Constant. ad vicar. Africae; ejusd. ad Episc. Syrac.—Labbe, i. p. 1445; Eus. H. E. x. 5). Moved, however, by the continued complaints of Donatus and his party, he summoned the general synod of Arles (a.d. 314) with a view to a final settlement. In these further proceedings the bp. of Rome does not appear to have been consulted by the emperor, or regarded as possessing any position of supremacy. Constantine, professing great reverence for the episcopate in general, and recognizing the right of the clergy to settle cases purely ecclesiastical, himself set in motion and regulated ecclesiastical proceedings, delegated their administration to such ecclesiastics as he chose, and certainly shewed no peculiar deference to the Roman see. Nor do we find any protest on the part of the church of his day against his mode of procedure.
The fact that the conclave under Miltiades met in the Lateran palace (in the house of the empress Fausta) is adduced by Baronius (A.D. 312) as proving the tradition true that Constantine had made over that palace to the pope as a residence. But it is not known with any certainty when the popes came into permanent possession of the Lateran.
Miltiades was, in the time of St. Augustine, accused by African Donatists of having, as one of the presbyters of pope MARCELLINUS, with him given up the sacred books and offered incense under the persecution of Diocletian. Augustine treats the whole charge as unsupported by documentary evidence, and probably a calumny; and we find no mention of any such charge against Miltiades during his life, when the party of Donatus was likely to have made a strong point of it had it been known of them. Further, in the conference with the Donatists held a.d. 411 by order of the emperor Honorius the charge was alleged, but all proof of it broke down (Augustine, u.s.).
Miltiades was buried, as his predecessors since Pontianus till the commencement of persecution had been, in the cemetery of St. Callistus on the Appian Way. There also he had deposited the remains of his immediate predecessor Eusebius (Depos. Episc. Liber.). Yet neither of these two popes (according to early recensions of the Pontifical) lay in the old papal crypt of that cemetery, but each in a separate cubiculum apart from it. De Rossi supposes the approaches to the old crypt to have been blocked up by the Christians to save it from profanation; and the state in which the passages leading to it have been found confirms this supposition. He has identified positively the cubiculum of Eusebius, but that of Miltiades only conjecturally (see Northcote and Brownlow, Rom. Sotter. p. 146). Miltiades was the last pope buried in this cemetery.
Minucius Felix,
Marcus, one of the earliest and most pleasing of the Latin Christian
apologists. His personal history can only be gathered from his own book.
The earliest writer to mention him by name is Lactantius (Institut.
v. 1), who describes him as a lawyer, "non ignobilis
inter causidicos loci," but Lactantius may be merely drawing
a natural inference from the introduction to the book itself, where
Minucius tells how he had taken advantage of the court holidays to leave
Rome for Ostia, "ad vindimeam feriae judiciariam
curam relaxaverant." St. Jerome three times mentions
Minucius (Ep. 48 ad Pammach. vol. i. p. 221; Ep.
70 ad Magnum, vol. i. p. 427; de Vir. Illust. c. 58,
vol. ii. p. 883), and describes him as "insignis
causidicus Romani fori"; but it seems clear that Jerome drew
this description from Lactantius, whom he quotes. It has been attempted
to deduce the date of Minucius from the place which Jerome assigns him
in his list of illustrious men; but there is no evidence that Jerome
really knew more than we know ourselves.
The only extant work of Minucius is a dialogue entitled "Octavius," modelled on the philosophical works of Cicero, whose writings, particularly de Natura Deorum and de Divinatione, Minucius has carefully studied. Minucius recalls a conversation of his lately deceased friend Octavius which resulted in the conversion to Christianity of their common friend Caecilius. He tells how Octavius had come to Rome, and gives a charming description of the morning walk on the beach taken by the three friends after they had gone from Rome to Ostia, until at last they sat down for rest and serious discussion on large stones placed for protection of the baths. At the beginning of the walk the heathen Caecilius, as they were passing an image of Serapis, had saluted it, as was customary, by kissing hands, whereupon Octavius charged Minucius with culpable negligence in having allowed his friend to continue in such degrading superstition. Caecilius challenges Octavius to a formal dispute.. The little treatise then divides itself into two parts, containing first a lively attack by Caecilius on the Christian doctrines and practices, then a reply, about twice as long, by Octavius, refuting and retorting the heathen arguments. Each point of the attack is dealt with in order. Caecilius confesses himself vanquished, gladly ranging himself on the conquering side.
The following is an abstract of the arguments used by Caecilius on the heathen side. He censures the presumption of the Christians, who, though unlettered men, venture to pronounce positively on questions about which the greatest philosophers have doubted; he denies that there is any good ground for believing in the existence of a God, since the chance concourse of atoms will sufficiently account for the origin of the world, while the prosperity of the wicked and the misfortunes of the good shew that the world is governed by no Providence. Then shifting his ground, he urges the duty of worshipping the gods whom their ancestors had worshipped, and the folly of rejecting what universal experience and the consent of all nations had found to be salutary. Each nation had its peculiar god: the Romans, the most religious of all, worshipped gods of all nations, and so had attained the highest prosperity. The power of their deities bad been exhibited in many oracles and prodigies; only one or two philosophers had ventured to deny their agency, and one of these, Protagoras, had in consequence been banished by the Athenians. Was it not then deplorable that the gods should be assailed by men of the dregs of the people, who, collecting credulous women and silly men, banded them in a fearful conspiracy, cemented by secret and detestable rites? Tales are repeated, for some of which the authority of Fronto is cited, of the initiation of Christian neophytes by partaking of the blood of a slaughtered infant, and other customary charges. If these things were not true, at least the obscurity in which they shrouded their rites shewed that they were such as they had cause to be ashamed of. These members of an illegal society dreaded to bring their doctrines into the light of day; they had no altars, no temples, no images, and were not even in their manner of worship like the Jews, the only people besides themselves who worshipped that wretched lonely God Who had not been able to save His own people from captivity; yet wished to meddle with everything and pry into every thought and every action. Nor was this the only absurdity of Christian doctrine. They threatened destruction to the world, which always had lasted and was bound together by fixed laws, and said that one day it would be burnt up. Yet for themselves, who were not eternal like the world, but were seen to be born and die, they dared to hope for immortality, and expect that their dust and ashes would live again. In the prospect of this imaginary life they gave up all enjoyment of their real present life, trusting in a God Whose impotence was exhibited in their daily sufferings from which He was unable to save His worshippers. In fine, if the Christians had any modesty, let them give up philosophy, of which their want of education had made them incapable; or if they must philosophize, let them fallow that greatest of philosophers, Socrates, whose maxim was, "What is above us we have nothing to do with," otherwise the result will be either the destruction of all religion or the adoption of anile superstition.
Octavius replies that a
hearing shall not be refused to the arguments of Christians because of
their low worldly condition. Reason is the common property of all men.
It is the rich who, intent on their wealth, are too often unable to lift
their eyes to things divine. Some of those afterwards recognized as the
greatest philosophers were at first despised as poor and plebeian. He
then establishes, by the ordinary arguments from the order of the
universe, the existence and providence and unity of God, confirming his
conclusions by the authority of various philosophers, whose opinions
respecting the Deity he extracts from Cicero's treatise. In proof
how natural is the belief in God's unity, he appeals to the common
use of the singular Deus, both in common speech and in the writings of
the poets. He shews that the gods whom the heathen worshipped were but
deified men, and exposes the absurdity of the fables commonly told of
them, the folly of image-worship, and the cruelty and licentiousness
of the rites by which the gods were honoured. He shews that it is false
that the Romans owed their prosperity to their religion, since it was
by a multitude of irreligious acts that their empire grew, and because
their original native gods, to whom, if to any, must be ascribed the
origin of their greatness, had been deposed from their position by
the adoption of gods of the conquered peoples. He traces the source
of all idolatry to the operation of the demons who, having lost their
first estate, desired to draw others into the same ruin as themselves,
who inspired oracles, wrought fictitious cures and other pretended
miracles to deceive men, and were also the inventors and instigators
of
It will be seen how meagre
Minucius is in his exposition of Christian doctrine, thus differing
from all the other apologists. The doctrines of the unity of God, the
resurrection of the body, and future retribution make up nearly the whole
of the system of Christian doctrine which he sets forth. The doctrine
of the Logos, so prominent in the apologies of Justin, Athenagoras,
and Tertullian, is absent; our Lord's name is not mentioned,
and though from the manner in which Octavius repels the charge that
the Christians worshipped a man who had been punished for his crimes,
it may reasonably be inferred that he believed our Lord to be more
than man, yet this is not plainly stated. Minucius clearly shews that
the topics he omits are excluded, not from disbelief in, or ignorance
of, them, but from a designed limitation of the objects of his work,
because at the end, when Caecilius has declared himself satisfied on
the main questions of the existence of God and of Providence and of the
general truth of the Christian religion, he asks for another conversation,
not because of remaining doubts, but because he desires to be taught
other things still necessary to perfect instruction. It cannot be
accident that Minucius does not imitate the entire unreserve with which
Justin speaks of Christian doctrines and Christian rites. The work of
Minucius was doubtless intended mainly to influence intelligent heathen;
and we must infer that in the West at least the feeling prevailed when
Minucius wrote which made Christians fear to cast their pearls before
swine. One striking difference between Minucius and Justin is the
former's complete omission of the argument from prophecy, yet
the inspiration of the Jewish prophets is incidentally recognized
(c. 35). Minucius never mentions the writings of either O. or N. T.,
and has scarcely any coincidence of language with them. There is
(c. 29) an echo of
His date
is generally agreed to have been before 250, somewhere about which time
Cyprian published his de Idolorum Vanitate, in which large use
is made of Minucius. A nearer limit depends on settling the relation
of Minucius to Tertullian. His dialogue and the apology of Tertullian
have in common so many arguments, sometimes in nearly the same words,
that one of the two undoubtedly used the work of the other, but
as to which was the follower critics have held opposite opinions. The
difficulty is mainly caused by the excellent use both writers have made
of their materials, whencesoever obtained, and the thoroughness with
which they have incorporated them. We have already shewn the perfect
workmanship of the dialogue of Minucius. Tertullian's Apology
is equally excellent, though its plan is entirely different. It is an
advocate's speech, written for presentation to heathen magistrates
to convince them that Christians did not deserve persecution. It is
more loosely constructed, and evidently more hastily written, than
that of Minucius, but bears a strong stamp of originality. Many
points briefly touched on in Minucius are expanded in Tertullian,
so that either Minucius has abridged Tertullian or Tertullian has
used and developed the suggestions of Minucius. This has furnished
the best argument for the priority of Tertullian. Tertullian, it has
been said, is one of the most original of writers, Minucius quite
the reverse. We have already mentioned his obligations to Cicero; his
work is also largely indebted to Seneca, besides containing traces of
Juvenal and other writers. Is it not, then, most natural to believe
that as he has drawn his arguments for Theism from Cicero, he has
taken his defence of Christianity from Tertullian? In the common
matter there are considerable differences as to arrangement and
form of expression. If Tertullian were the original, Minucius would
have a change of arrangement forced on him by the plan of his work,
while the changes in form of expression either improve the Latinity
or make the sentence more pointed; whereas
A useful ed. is in Gersdorf's Bibl. Pat. Ecc. (Leipz. 1847), one with variorum notes in vol. iii. of Migne's Patr. Lat., an excellent one by Holden (Camb.1853), and one by Halm (Vienna, 1867) founded on a new collation of the MS., which may therefore be regarded as the best authority for the text, but contains only critical notes. See also Waltzing, Bibliographie raisonnée de Min. Fel. in Muséon Belge (1902), vi. pp. 216 ff.; also G. Bossier in La fin du Paganisme, 3rd ed. (Paris, 1898), i. 261. There is an English trans. in the Lib of Ante-Nic. Fathers.
Miro (Mirio, Mirus), king of the Suevi in Spain, 570–583.
Authorities.—Greg. Tur. Hist. Franc. v. 42, vi. 43; Joannes Bicl. ap. Esp. Sagr. v. 377, 380, 383; Isid. Hist. Suev. ib. 506; Acts of the second council of Braga; Tejada y Ramiro, Colecc. de Lan. de la Igl. Esp. ii. 620; Formula Honestae Vitae, by Martin of Braga; Pref. Esp. Sagr. xv. 383.
Miro represents a period in the history of the Suevian kingdom of Gallicia, when, having renounced the Arianism imposed upon them in the 5th cent. by their then existing relations to the Visigoths, the Suevi entered into alliance with the Franks on the one hand and probably the Eastern empire on the other, with the view of checking the power of the Arian West-Gothic king LEOVIGILD, which at the beginning of Miro's reign threatened the absorption of the Suevian state in the kingdom of Toledo, a result actually achieved two years after Miro's death. The known facts of his reign, which although few in number are often contradictorily given by the authorities, are as follows. In 572 the second council of Braga, a kind of supplementary council to the more important gathering of 561 [MARTINUS (2)] was held, and the king is specially mentioned as contributing to its assembly. In the same year Miro conducted an expedition against the Ruccones in Cantabria, one of the restless Basque tribes, with whom Suevi and Goths alike were perpetually at war. Four years later Miro's great West-Gothic contemporary Leovigild appeared on the borders of Gallicia. Miro sued for peace, and obtained it for a short time. In 580 the Catholic rebellion of HERMENIGILD against his father Leovigild broke out, and the rebellious son became the centre of Frankish, Suevian, and Byzantine policy in the peninsula. In 580 we hear of envoys sent by Miro to Guntchramn of Burgundy, Leovigild's worst enemy, and intercepted and detained on the way by Leovigild's ally, Chilperic of Soissons. In 583 Miro set out from Gallicia at the head of an army destined to raise the siege of Seville, then closely invested by Leovigild. He was met on the way by Leovigild, and, according to Gregory of Tours, who is evidently best informed on the matter, withdrew homewards, and died shortly after from the effects of the bad air and water of S. Spain. The two Spanish sources, Joannes Biclarensis and Isidore, say that he died before Seville, and describe him as assisting Leovigild in the siege of the town. On the reconciliation of these conflicting accounts, cf. Dahn, Könige der Germanen, vi. 571; and Görres, Kritische Untersuch. über den Aufstand und das Martyrium der Westgoth. Königssohnes Hermenigald, in Zeitschrift für Hist. Theol. 1873, I. Miro's relations to Martin of Braga, the Catholic leader and organizer of Gallicia during his reign and that of his father, seem to have been intimate and friendly. Martin's principal work, Formula Vitae Honestae, is dedicated to him, and the Exhortatio Humilitatis, printed among Martin's works, is also probably addressed to him (Esp. Sagr. xv. Appendix).
Modestus
(3), prefect of the Praetorium, persecutor of the Catholics under
the emperor Valens (Socr. iv. 16; Soz. vi. 18; Theod. H. E.
iv. 18; Tillem. vi. 510, 555, 562, 574), who commissioned him to
offer Basil the choice between deposition and communion with the
Arians. A severe sickness having supervened, which he regarded as
a judgment for his insolent behaviour, he entreated Basil to visit
his sick-bed, humbly asked pardon, and commended himself to his
prayers. Attributing his recovery to St. Basil's intercessions,
he regarded him with the greatest reverence (Greg. Naz. pp. 352,
353). From this time Basil's influence with Modestus was so great
that persons came from a great distance to request letters from him to
the prefect. Six of these remain (Basil. Epp. 104 [279], 110
[277], 111 [276], 279 [274], 280 [275], 281 [278]), in which Basil
claims immunity from taxes for all ministers of the church, begs
for a lessening of the taxes for the impoverished inhabitants of
the Taurus range, commends to him a friend. summoned to the capital
by legal
Monnica, St. The name of this most celebrated of Christian mothers is spelt thus (not Monica) in the oldest MSS. of the writings of St. Augustine.
Her birthplace, nowhere explicitly named, may be assumed to be Tagaste,
the home of her husband, Patricius. Her family was, probably, like his
in point of social grade, curialis (Possidii Vita Aug.
c. 2)—i.e. contributed a member or members to the
senate of the colonia. Her parents'
names are not known. They were consistent Christians; their home
was (Conf. ix. 8) "domus fidelis, bonum
membrum Ecclesiae." Monnica was born 331 or 332. Her early
domestic training was pure and severe, under the strong hand of an
aged and trusted Christian nurse, who had once carried the child's
father in her arms. By her Monnica and her sisters (no brothers are
mentioned) were taught to abstain entirely from drinking even water
between meal-times, with the aim of guarding them beforehand against
habits of intemperance when, after marriage, they should become
"dominae apothecarum et cellariorum"
(ib.). Yet Monnica, when scarcely past her early childhood, was
on the verge of a confirmed love of wine, as she confessed long after
to her son (ib.). She was married, at what age we know not,
to Patricius of Tagaste, "vir curialis";
a man passionate ("ferox"), immoral,
and not formally a member of the church; perhaps what would now be
called an "adherent."
She bore children more than
once, for Augustine not only mentions a brother expressly (ib.
ix. 11, etc.) but was the uncle of many nephews and nieces (Vita
Benedictina Aug. c. i.). Augustine was born when Monnica was 23 years
old, and when, as we gather from his language about her whole influence,
she was already a Christian in the noblest sense, strong in the power
of spiritual holiness, and ardently prayerful for the salvation of her
child, and therefore for his personal acceptance of the faith. It is
a sign of the popular Christian opinion and usage at the time that she
did not bring him as an infant to baptism but merely to the initiation
of a catechumen (Conf. i. 11; vi. 16), the sign of the cross and
the salting with salt. She evidently thought that baptism required
evidence of a previous true change of will.
Monnica joined cordially with Patricius in securing the highest education for Augustine and in stimulating his studies; and even during her widowhood made every effort to maintain him in them. But his impurity and unbelief caused her agonizing distress, aggravated by his cynical conduct. For a time she declined his presence beneath her roof and at her table, "aversans et detestans blasphemias [filii]" (ib. iii. 11); but a memorable dream altered her decision. She saw a radiant being ("juvenum splendidum, hilarem, atque arridentem sibi") approach her as she stood on a wooden beam ("regula") bewailing her son's spiritual ruin; and he bade her be consoled, for where she was, there too her son should be. Augustine suggested that this might portend his mother's unbelief; but she instantly rejoined that the words were not "Where he is, there thou shaft be." This was nine years before his conversion. About the same time she received the well-known consolation from a bishop, wearied ("substomachans taedio") with her entreaties that he would reason with her son: "Go, prythee; the son of those tears cannot perish" (ib. 12).
She sorely bewailed Augustine's resolve to migrate to Italy, and would not leave his side; and when he escaped her, affecting to bid a friend good-bye on board ship and persuading her to spend the night in a chapel dedicated to Cyprian, she would not give him up. Beside herself with grief (ib. v. 8), she took ship and followed him, and on a stormy voyage consoled the terrified sailors, assuring them that she had seen a vision which promised safety (ib. vi. 1). Augustine arrived before her at Milan, and was already under the influence of Ambrose, but not yet won to the orthodox faith ("non manichaeus, sed neque catholicus christianus"); but she calmly assured him of her certainty that she should see him a believer before she died (ib.).
The ministrations of Ambrose she attended with
great and reverent delight ("diligebat illum
virum sicut angelum Dei"), and gave a striking proof of her
feeling in submitting at once to his judgment on a point that must
have touched her nearly. She had been used to bring oblations of
vegetables, bread, and wine to the shrines of the African martyrs,
and began the like practice at Milan. But Ambrose had forbidden the
usage, partly because it was much abused to intemperance, partly
(a significant fact) because it so closely resembled the pagan parentalia. Augustine owns that probably his mother
would have obeyed none but Ambrose in such a case; to him, however,
she yielded without a murmur. Ambrose fully understood Monnica's
strength of Christian character and delighted to praise her to her son
(ib. vi. 2). At Milan she was a
The final crisis of her son's conversion was instantly reported to her by Augustine and Alypius, to her extreme delight (ib. viii. 12), though it involved not only his baptism but his acceptance of a life of celibacy. Between his conversion and baptism she retired with him to Cassiciacum, the campagna of his friend Verecundus. The dialogues de Ordine and de Beatâ Vitâ give a charming picture of this retirement, spent in holy intercourse and in lofty thought lighted up with eternal truth. Monnica appears as an interlocutor in both dialogues, conspicuous for strength of native sense, and occasionally speaking with a vigour and spirit evidently reported from the life; a woman who might have shone at any period for intellectual gifts. "We fairly forgot her sex, and thought that some great man was in our circle" (de B. V. § 10). At the close of the dialogue she speaks of the bliss of the Eternal Vision: "This beyond dispute is the blessed life, the perfect; at which we must look to be enabled to arrive, hastening on in solid faith, joyful hope, and burning love " (ib. ad fin.). In the dialogue de Ordine Augustine speaks of his mother's "ingenium, atque in res divinas inflammatus animus" (ii. § 1).
She was now near the end. Her son, an orthodox believer, was about to return with her to Africa. They were lodging at Ostia, and making the last preparations for the voyage (Conf. ix. 10). Augustine records a conversation with his mother as they sat at a window looking on the viridarium of the house—a delightful colloquy ("colloquebamur soli valde dulciter"), rising from theme to theme of subtle but holy thought to the height of the beatific vision. The "colloquy" was surely no mere monologue on Augustine's part, if he has drawn his mother truly in his two dialogues. It closed with a solemn utterance from her: "she had done with the wish to live; her son was a believer, and fully consecrated; what did she there?" (ib.). Five days later she was taken ill ("decubuit febribus"), and at once recognized the end. Her long-cherished wish to lie in the grave of Patricius was gone. "Nothing," she said, "is far from God. There is no fear lest He, at the last day, should not know whence to raise me up." "So on the ninth day of her illness, in the 56th year of her age, and in the 33rd of my own, that devout and saintly soul was released from the body." She died in the presence of Augustine, of another son, of her grandson Adeodatus, so soon to follow her, and of many others ("omnes nos") (ib. 11, 12).
Augustine's grief was great. The burial was tearless ("cum ecce corpus elatum est, imus redimus sine lacrymis"), but another time of anguish followed, and a vain effort for relief at the bath. Then sleep came and a calmer waking, and now Augustine, like his blessed mother, found help in an Ambrosian hymn, "Deus creator omnium," and at last could weep calmly. He records his prayers for the departed soul, and begs those of the reader.
Monnica's character was equally strong, lively, and tender by nature and refined by grace to extraordinary elevation. Augustine lavishes his unique eloquence upon her heavenly tone of life and influence and the intensity of her longings for the salvation of the souls she loved. He calls her his mother both in the flesh and in the Lord. His whole being was due, under God, to Monnica. Christians who knew her " dearly loved her Lord in her, for they felt His presence in her heart " (ib. 10). She was an eager student of the Scriptures (de Ord. i. § 32). In Brieger's Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, vol. i. p. 228, is printed (from Riese's Anthologia Latina, fasc. ii. p. 127) an epitaph on Monnica, bearing the name of Bassus, ex-consul; probably Anicius Bassus, consul a.d. 408, and therefore a contemporary of Augustine's. The lines are:
In the last couplet Monnica and her son are, apparently, addressed together. The pentameter apostrophizes Monnica as "Mother of Virtues," and Augustine as her yet "happier offspring"; happier, it may be, as a celibate saint. This epitaph is an interesting proof of the religious reverence accorded from the first to Monnica. Brieger's Zeitschrift also mentions the translation of the bones of Monnica from Ostia to Rome, in 1430, in the reign of Martin V., and at the expense of Mapheus Veghius. The relics were deposited in a chapel dedicated on the occasion to Augustine, and on the sarcophagus were inscribed the following lines, a curious and instructive advance upon the older epitaph in their ascription of mediatorial powers to Monnica:
This translation is dated, in the Roman Martyrology, April 9. Monnica appears as a saint in the Roman calendar, Sancta Monica vidua, Apr. 4, and not infrequently as a figure in medieval art. Scheffer's picture, painted 1845, "St. Augustin et sa mère," gives a noble modern realization of Monnica.
Such, we believe, is the ordinary interpretation of the picture; as if it represented the colloquy at Ostia. But an interesting passage in Mrs. Jameson's Sacred and Legendary Art, p. 314, seems to shew that Scheffer had in view some moment before Augustine's conversion; perhaps that recorded Conf. vi. 1, when Monnica assures Augustine that she should yet see him a believer.
Monoimus (a form, possibly representing the Jewish name Menaham), an Arabian Gnostic of 2nd cent. His name had been only preserved by a brief notice in Theodoret (Haer. Fab. i. 18) until the recovery of the lost work of Hippolytus against heresies shewed that from this work Theodoret derived his knowledge. Hippolytus gives a short abstract of the doctrine of Monoimus and an extract from a letter of his to one Theophrastus. The system described might at first seem one of mere pantheism; but a closer examination shews Christian elements in it, so that it is rightly classed as a heresy, and not as a form of heathenism. There is an express quotation from Colossians and a probable reference to the prologue of St. John's Gospel. The starting-point of the speculation is the ascription in N.T. of the work of creation to the Son of Man, whence it was inferred that the first principle was properly called Man. It follows that it is a mistake to look for God in creation; we must seek Him in ourselves, and can best find him by the study of the involuntary operations of our own soul. The relation between the "Man" and "Son of Man" exists from beyond time. The latter is derived from the former, but, it would seem, by an immediate and eternal necessity of His nature, just as from fire is necessarily derived the light which renders it visible. Thus, concerning the first principle, the Scriptures speak both of a "being" and a "becoming" (ἤν καὶ ἐγένετο), the first word properly applying to the "Man," the second to the "Son of Man." The speculations of Monoimus, as reported to us, relate only to the creation; we are told of none as to redemption.
His use of the phrases "Man" and "Son of Man" reminds us of the system of the Naassenes (Hippol. Ref. § 7; see also our art. GNOSTICISM), and a closer examination shews that Monoimus is really to be referred to that sect, although Hippolytus has classed them separately; for Monoimus describes his first principle as bisexual, and applies to it the titles "Father, Mother, the two immortal names," words taken out of a Naassene hymn. But there is a common source of this language in the Ἀπόφασις μεγάλη of Simon, this passage also being clearly the original of the description given by Monoimus of the contradictory attributes of his first principle. Further traces of the obligations of Monoimus to Simon are found in the reference to the six powers instrumental in creation, which answer to Simon's six "roots," while a similar indebtedness to Simon on the part of the Naassene writer in Hippolytus is found on comparing the anatomical speculations connected with the name Eden (v. 9; vi. 14). It is more doubtful whether there is any relation of obligation between Monoimus and the Clementine Homilies; both contrast "the Son of Man" with those "born of women" (Hom. ii. 17). Monoimus has mysteries in connexion with the number 14, shewing that he attached importance to Paschal celebration.
Monophysitism. The passionate protest raised in Egypt against the heresy of NESTORIUS, supported as it was by court influence, was carried so far that it led to a strong reaction. The Nestorian heresy was condemned because it tended to separate Christ into two beings, one God and the other man, and to regard the inhabitation of the latter by the former as differing in degree only from the inhabitation by the Deity, of the patriarchs and prophets of the Old Dispensation. The cruel persecution of Nestorius himself (who, though he undoubtedly went too far in some of his statements, was willing to qualify many of them), the harsh treatment of the learned and holy Theodoret, and the forcible suppression of the teaching of the Syrian school, produced great indignation, and when the emperor Theodosius II. died, and was succeeded in 450 by Marcian, the reaction against Monophysitism broke out all the more fiercely in consequence of the violence and long duration of these measures of repression. Cyril had died in 444, and had been succeeded by Dioscorus, a man of equally violent passions and uncharitable spirit, but of far less self-control and diplomatic skill. Cyril had himself been guilty of confounding the divine and human natures of Christ as completely as Nestorius had been guilty of dividing them, and as long as he and Theodosius II. survived, what was afterwards condemned as Monophysite heresy was in the ascendant. Extremes very frequently meet, and it was not unfairly contended that Cyril, when he insisted on the personal supremacy of the Logos over the Manhood, had practically divided the Person of Christ as much as Nestorius had, when he taught that the human nature was no more than a mere adjunct to the Godhead (Dorner, On the Person. of Christ, I. div. ii. pp. 67–71, where, however, there seems some "confusion of substance" in the way in which the author treats the question whether the Godhead could itself suffer pain, augmentation, or diminution through association with the manhood).
History of the Controversy.—When Theodosius and Cyril, with the
aid of Rabbulas, endeavoured altogether to suppress the Syrian school in the
East, considerable resistance was offered. As early as 435 Cyril had begun
to resume his attacks on the reputation of Diodorus and Theodore. Even the
patriarch Proclus [NESTORIUS]
endeavoured to moderate the violence of Cyril's methods. John of Antioch informed
the latter that the Syrian bishops would rather be burned than condemn their
great teacher Theodore. The emperor was prevailed upon to forbid further proceedings,
and Cyril himself found it necessary to yield. But he kept up the irritation
by writing a treatise on the oneness of Christ's Person, to which Theodoret
felt bound to reply, so that though repressive measures were abandoned, the
controversy continued. Dioscorus, Cyril's successor, was not inclined to let
it drop. He intrigued at Constantinople, and encouraged two monks
Of this synod Dioscorus, not Flavian, was appointed president, and Flavian
was present rather as an accused person than as a judge. The violence displayed
at it by Dioscorus and his party caused it to be universally rejected by the
Catholic church. It obtained the name of the Synod of Brigands, or Robber
Synod (Latrocinium), which it has ever since retained. By trickery and tumult
the bishops were forced to declare that there was but one nature in Christ,
and the patriarch Flavian was so roughly handled at the council that he died
shortly after of the injuries he had received. Flavian and Eusebius of Dorylaeum
were deposed. Domnus of Antioch yielded to the clamour, in spite of the warnings
of Theodoret, but he also was afterwards deposed. Theodoret was exiled to the
monastery in which he had been brought up. For fuller details of this synod
see DIOSCORUS;
EUTYCHES. Within
a few months, however, the situation underwent a great change. Theodosius
died (450), and was succeeded by Marcian. The new emperor had previously espoused
Pulcheria, who had contrived to regain her influence over the deceased emperor
before his death, and who had already honoured the remains of the martyred
patriarch Flavian with a public funeral. The bishops who had disgraced themselves
by their craven submission to the decrees of the "Robber Synod"—"chameleons,"
as Theodoret calls them—now further disgraced themselves by as sudden a recantation.
Leo, who had sent four representatives to Ephesus, had by this time learned
from them the true history of the proceedings there. One of them, Hilary the
deacon, had made a formal protest against these proceedings. Hilary had also
taken with him from Ephesus the appeal of Flavian for a rehearing of the case
in Italy. Leo now determined, if possible, to decide the question himself.
As in the Arian, so in the Nestorian and Monophysite controversies, the West
displayed a marked capacity for seizing on the salient points of the question
at issue, which the Easterns often failed to grasp in consequence of their
taste for metaphysical subtleties. Leo himself was a man "of strong character,
undaunted courage, and clear, practical understanding," though "more skilled
in liturgical than in theological questions" (Dorner). He was also by no means
averse from making these controversies a means for increasing the prestige
of his see. Socrates (H. E. vii. 7, 12) has remarked on the use which
the patriarchs of Rome and Alexandria alike were making at this period of
all opportunities of adding to their secular importance. Accordingly Leo held
several synods at Rome in which the decrees of the "Robber Synod" were rejected.
And even before the assembling of that synod he had written his celebrated
letter to Flavian which, though suppressed at Ephesus, was afterwards read
at Chalcedon, and accepted as an accurate statement of the doctrine handed
down from the first in the church. He now made use of Flavian's appeal to
him to procure the assembling of a council at Rome. But the emperor was too
politic to permit this, and sent out letters for a council to be held at Nicaea.
Such serious riots, however, broke out there that the emperor ultimately resolved
to assemble it at Chalcedon, on the opposite side of the Bosphorus to Constantinople,
where he could more easily prevent disturbances. There 630 bishops assembled.
Leo now pretended that it was not only contrary to ecclesiastical
The resolution first proposed to the synod was not adopted, it being considered
too favourable to the party of Dioscorus. The Roman delegates threatened to
leave the council unless Leo's letter were accepted as an authoritative statement
of doctrine. If this were not done, they intimated that the question should
be settled at Rome. As many points of importance connected with the relations
between the churches of the East and of the West remained unsettled, especially
the question of the status of the patriarch of Constantinople, some of the
Eastern prelates feared the prolongation of these disputes which would result
from the retirement of Leo's representatives. Therefore, though not without
many energetic protests, Leo's letter was recognized, at the request of the
emperor, and a definition of doctrine in accordance with that letter was drawn
up. The synod first recognized the creed put forth at Nicaea (325), and next
the enlarged form of it adopted at Constantinople (381). Whether such a creed
was actually promulgated at Constantinople has been disputed of late. But
much of the evidence existing in 451 has disappeared, and it seems hardly
safe to conclude from the silence of contemporary writers that the 630 bishops
at Chalcedon had been misinformed on so vital a point. The synod went on to
condemn the vain babblings (κενοφωνίας)
of those who denied to the Virgin the title of
θεοτόκος, as well as those who, on the
other hand, affirmed a confusion and mixture (σύγχυσιν
καὶ κρᾶσιν) in Christ, under the foolish impression that there could
be one nature (consisting) of the Flesh and the Deity in Him, and who, in
consequence of (this) confusion, resorted to the amazing suggestion that the
divine nature of the Only-begotten was capable of suffering. After having
formally accepted Leo's treatise as in conformity with this statement, the
decree went on to declare that Jesus Christ was "Perfect in Godhead and Perfect
in Manhood, truly God and truly Man; that He was possessed of a reasonable
or rather rational (λογικῆς) soul
and body, of the same substance (ὁμοούσιον)
with the Father according to His Godhead, and of the same substance with us
as regards His Manhood"; and that He is "to be recognized as existing in two
natures, without confusion, without change, indivisibly, and inseparably (ἀσυγχύτως,
ἀτρέπτως, ἀδιαιρέτως, ἀχωρίστως), the distinction of the natures being
in no way removed by their union, but rather the speciality (ἰδιότης)
of each nature being preserved, coalescing (συντρεχούσης)
in one Person (πρόσωπον) and one hypostasis,
not divided nor separated into two Persons, but being one and the same Son,
and Only-begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ." There can be no doubt
that the decision thus promulgated was a sound one, and that, as Leo did not
fail to remark pertinently more than once, the doctrines condemned at the
two councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon pointed out two rocks on which the doctrine
of Christ might be shipwrecked. "The Catholic church," he goes on to say,
"could not teach the Humanity of Christ apart from His true Divinity, nor
His Divinity without His true Humanity" (Letter to Flavian, c. 5).
Yet he did not feel compelled, as Dorner observes, to explain "the internal
relations of the two natures." That was, and has remained, a mystery which
the human intellect has been unable to unravel. All he had to do was to lay
down the particular propositions which, when enunciated by too daring theologians,
were in plain conflict with the express teaching of God's
The resistance against the decrees of the council of Chalcedon has nevertheless been even more formidable than against those of Ephesus, and the communities still in existence which are separated from the church at large on the question of the decrees of Chalcedon are more numerous, less scattered, and more thoroughly organized than those called into existence by the decrees of Ephesus. Yet this can hardly be attributed to the more harmless character of Monophysitism, because as a fact the opinions advocated by Dioscorus and Eutyches were pushed to far greater extremes and far less carefully qualified than those expressed by theologians so competent as Theodore of Mopsuestia and Theodoret of Cyrus. The survival, in forms so fully organized, of Monophysitism seems rather due to the break-up of the Roman empire, and the progressive decline of its political power, as well as to the spread of Mohammedanism in N. Africa and Armenia. In both cases the attempt at translation of Greek ideas into the Syrian and Egyptian vernacular had been an additional reason for the long continuance of the controversy.
A violent controversy at once sprung up, and a schism was organized, followed by violent disturbances. But it is notable that Dioscorus disappears from history after his deposition. His adversaries did not subject him to the same severities as those under which Nestorius perished. He had reason to be thankful that the fair-minded and gentle-hearted Theodoret was the leader of his opponents, and not the hard, intolerant, and relentless Cyril. Marcian contrived to restore order. But on his death fresh tumults arose. A rival patriarch, Timotheus Aelurus, was nominated, and Proterius, who had succeeded Dioscorus, was slain. The new emperor, Leo, deposed Timotheus. But the schism continued. The emperor Zeno next (482) issued his famous HENOTICON, in which, while Nestorius and Eutyches were anathematized, twelve chapters (or selections) from the works of Cyril were accepted. But Zeno's manner of life evoked no enthusiasm, and Philoxenus—favourably known to us as the patron of the Philoxenian-Syriac version of the Scriptures—"Peter the clothier," and Severus, organized a formidable Monophysite party in Syria, Egypt, and Constantinople respectively. Justinian, emperor from 527–565, did his utmost to support the decrees of Chalcedon, while his consort, the famous, or, as some historians prefer to put it, the infamous, Theodora, did her best to thwart her husband, at the instance of some ecclesiastical intriguers who had contrived to worm themselves into her confidence. For the controversy of the "Three Chapters" see NESTORIUS. Its result was to encourage Monophysitism, and that form of Christian belief rooted itself in Armenia, Mesopotamia, Egypt, and ultimately in Abyssinia. The Coptic (the word Coptic is etymologically the same as Egyptian) church has remained as a separate body in Egypt to the present day. The Maronites in Armenia form another community which owes its existence to the Monophysite controversy. The Monophysites called their orthodox opponents Melchites, on the ground that they had accepted their opinions from the civil government and its head, the emperor; while the orthodox bestowed on their opponents the name of Jacobites, from Jacob of Edessa, an enthusiastic disseminator of Monophysite views.
It is unnecessary to follow out in full detail the history of the Monophysite
schism. It only remains to mention that a reaction dating from the condemnation
of the "Three Chapters" issued in Monotheletism, or the assertion of only
one will in Christ. This controversy led to the summoning of a sixth
oecumenical council at Constantinople in 680, in which Monotheletism was condemned,
after having been anathematized at Rome, under Martin I., in 649. Communion
between the East and the West had been broken off for some time on this point,
and pope Honorius, like his predecessors Liberius and Vigilius, fell into
suspicion of heresy in the course of the controversy. But the decision of
the above-mentioned council restored the interrupted communion, and more friendly
relations between the East and the West continued to subsist for above 300
years. The Coptic church, persecuted first by its orthodox sister, and afterwards
by the Mohammedans, has obstinately maintained a precarious and downtrodden
existence from the 6th cent. to the present moment. It has practically ceased
to be heterodox, and in 1843 Proposals for union with the Orthodox church
would have been carried into effect, but that when the Moslem Government heard
of them, the Coptic patriarch was invited to take coffee with a prominent
Government official, and went home to die of poison. Since the British occupation
in 1882 the Coptic church has begun to emerge from its long period of depression.
The lay Copts have become educated and even wealthy. Though but a seventh
of the population, they own one-fifth of the property of their country. One
of their number became prime minister—the first Coptic prime minister for
a very long period—but was unfortunately murdered in an outburst of political
and religious fanaticism early in 1910. Though the Coptic clergy are still
ignorant and fanatical, and the aged patriarch refuses to take any steps towards
their better education, the laity have extorted a permission from him for
the appointment of a certain number of laity authorized to give instruction
to their co-religionists on the truths of the Christian religion. The educated
laity are decidedly friendly towards the Anglican church. Two missions to
the Copts have been sent of late years from England, one in 1843 and the other
in the last decade of the 19th cent. Neither of them were successful, and
the
General Effect of the Controversies about the Person of Christ.—It may not be out of place, in conclusion, to endeavour to arrive at some estimate of the influence of these prolonged and bitter controversies upon the history of the Christian church. On the surface that influence appears unfavourable. Not only was the church of Christ broken up into antagonistic sections which mutually hated each other, but a divided Christendom fell an easy victim to the Mohammedan invader. Western theology, when deprived of the balance afforded by the more purely intellectual characteristics predominant in the East, crystallized into a Roman mould. Not even the revival of letters cured this evil, and we find that even post-Reformation theology has not altogether escaped from the long domination of purely Western forms of thought. But to stop short here would be one-sided and superficial. The effect of these prolonged controversies has undoubtedly been to clear up the confusion which long existed in the Christian mind about the relations of the three Persons (or distinctions) in the Trinity, and of the two natures in the one Christ. The two conflicting tendencies at work in the Nestorian and Monophysite heresies were (1) the disposition to divide the Redeemer into two separate beings, united to one another for God's purpose of salvation, and (2) the disposition either (a) to make the Redeemer a Being compounded out of two other beings, God and Man, being Himself neither one nor the other, or (b) to regard the Humanity of Christ as swallowed up by His Divinity. Of these two forms of Monophysite doctrine the former is ultimately unthinkable. An Infinite Being and a finite one cannot possibly coalesce into a third being, which is neither the one nor the other. The second view, though in itself by no means inconceivable, has been felt to contradict the definite statements of Scripture on the nature of the union between God the Word and the Man Christ Jesus, and is therefore inadmissible. The controversy, pursued with great virulence for about a century and a half, ended by the definite establishment of a mean between the two extremes, namely, that Christ consisted of two separate natures, the Godhead and the Manhood, conjoined into one Personality or Individuality, i.e. one ultimate source of thought and action. Not that there was only one mind, or one will, in the Personality underlying these two natures, but that the action of the lower will was confined within certain limits, and ultimately determined by the fiat of the Divine and Higher Will. If it was permitted to the theologian to speak of a communicatio idiomatum (transfer of attributes), this involved no confusion nor amalgamation of the two natures, no absorption of the one by (or into) the other. Each remains separate and complete. But some attributes of the one nature may be spoken of as transferred to the other, by reason of the inseparable conjunction of both in the One Person (ὑπόστασις or πρόσωπον). Thus if, as is sometimes the case, God is spoken of as suffering or dying, it is not to be supposed that the Godhead, as such, is capable of suffering or of death. The expression is only permissible in consequence of the inseparable conjunction of Christ's Godhead and Manhood in one Personality. The same caution must be borne in mind when the Blessed Virgin is spoken of as θεοτόκος. God cannot be brought forth into this world as man is brought forth. Yet the Divine Word and the Man Christ Jesus are inseparably one. Another point must not be lost sight of. In the Nestorian and Monophysite controversies the word Hypostasis is applied to the Personal Mind and Will which separates the Being thus indicated from any other existence. But when, as in the Arian controversy, the word Hypostasis is applied to the so-called Persons in the Godhead, it is not used to indicate separate sources of thought and action, but is employed to denote certain eternal distinctions declared in Holy Scripture to exist within the Godhead Itself, where there can be only one Mind and Will. We confess that the Father's sole prerogative is to originate, the Son's to reveal, the Spirit's to guide, direct, inspire. But all these prerogatives co-exist harmoniously in Him, Who is above all, and through all, and in us all. The decisions of the four great oecumenical councils are thus a standing witness to the fact that the church, from the beginning till now, has taught consistently that Jesus Christ was (1) ἀλήθως (truly), (2) τελέως (completely), (3) ἀδιαιρέτως (indivisibly), and (4) ἀσυγχύτως (without confusion [of nature]) the Word, or Son of the Eternal God, Who in the last times, "for us men and for our salvation," took upon Him our flesh, and manifested Himself to the world "in the form of a bond-slave," and that His two natures remained separate and uncombined. And so, being at once Perfect God and Perfect Man, He is able, not only to reconcile God and Man, and to destroy the empire of sin in the latter, but can in the end present us, reconciled and saved, as perfect and unblamable before the God and Father of us all.
Bibliography.—Our authorities are nearly the same as those given
under NESTORIUS.
We have no longer the help of Socrates, but Evagrius is vivid, and generally
accurate, though often very credulous. He accepts implicitly the decisions
of Ephesus and Chalcedon, and of the latter he gives a detailed and careful
summary. The letters of Theodoret, and the collection of the letters of other
men of mark in his day, found in
Monothelitism. [MONOPHYSITISM.]
Montanus (1), a native of Ardabau, a village in Phrygia, who, in the latter half of the 2nd cent., originated a widespread schism, of which traces remained for centuries.
I. Rise of Montanism.—The name Montanus was not uncommon in the district. It is found in a Phrygian inscription (Le Bas, 755) and in three others from neighbouring provinces (Boeckh—3662 Cyzicus, 4071 Ancyra, 4187 Amasia). Montanus had been originally a heathen, and according to Didymus (de Trin. iii. 41) an idol priest. The epithets "abscissus" and "semivir" applied to him by Jerome (Ep. ad Marcellam, vol. i. 186) suggest that Jerome may have thought him a priest of Cybele. That after his conversion he became a priest or bishop there is no evidence. He taught that God's supernatural revelations did not end with the apostles, but that even more wonderful manifestations of the divine energy might be expected under the dispensation of the Paraclete. It is asserted that Montanus claimed himself to be the Paraclete; but we believe this to have merely arisen out of the fact that he claimed to be an inspired organ by whom the Paraclete spoke, and that consequently words of his were uttered and accepted as those of that Divine Being. We are told that Montanus claimed to be a prophet and spoke in a kind of possession or ecstasy. He held that the relation between a prophet and the Divine Being Who inspired him was the same as between a musical instrument and he who played upon it; consequently the inspired words of a prophet were not to be regarded as those of the human speaker. In a fragment of his prophecy preserved by Epiphanius he says, "I have come, not an angel or ambassador, but God the Father." See also Didymus (u.s.). It is clear that Montanus here did not speak in his own name, but uttered words which he supposed God to have put into his mouth; and if he spoke similarly in the name of the Paraclete it does not follow that he claimed to be the Paraclete.
His prophesyings were soon outdone by two female disciples, Prisca or Priscilla and Maximilla, who fell into strange ecstasies, delivering in them what Montanus and his followers regarded as divine prophecies. They had been married, left their husbands, were given by Montanus the rank of virgins in the church, and were widely reverenced as prophetesses. But very different was the sober judgment formed of them by some of the neighbouring bishops. Phrygia was a country in which heathen devotion exhibited itself in the most fanatical form, and it seemed to calm observers that the frenzied utterances of the Montanistic prophetesses were far less like any previous manifestation of the prophetic gift among Christians than they were to those heathen orgiasms which the church had been wont to ascribe to the operation of demons. The church party looked on the Montanists as wilfully despising our Lord's warning to beware of false prophets, and as being in consequence deluded by Satan, in whose power they placed themselves by accepting as divine teachers women possessed by evil spirits. The Montanists looked on the church leaders as men who did despite to the Spirit of God by offering the indignity of exorcism to those whom He had chosen as His organs for communicating with the church. It does not appear that any offence was taken at the substance of the Montanistic prophesyings. On the contrary, it was owned that they had a certain plausibility; when with their congratulations and promises to those who accepted them they mixed a due proportion of rebukes and warnings, this was ascribed to the deeper art of Satan. What condemned the prophesyings in the minds of the church authorities was the frenzied ecstasy in which they were delivered.
The question as to the different characteristics of real and pretended prophecy was the main subject of discussion in the first stage of the Montanist controversy. It may have been treated of by Melito in his work on prophecy; it was certainly the subject of that of Miltiades περὶ τοῦ μὴ δεῖν προφήτηϖ ἐν ἐκστάσει λαλεῖν; it was touched on in an early anonymous writing against Montanism [ABERCIUS], of which large fragments are preserved by Eusebius (v. 16, 17). Some more of this polemic is almost certainly preserved by Epiphanius, who often incorporates the labours of previous writers and whose section on Montanism contains a discussion which is clearly not Epiphanius's own, but a survival from the first stage of the controversy. We learn that the Montanists brought as Scripture examples of ecstasy the text "the Lord sent a deep sleep (ἔκστασιν) upon Adam," that David said in his haste (ἐν ἐκστάσει) "all men are liars," and that the same word is used of the vision which warned Peter to accept the invitation of Cornelius. The orthodox opponent points out that Peter's "not so" shews that in his ecstasy he did not lose his individual judgment and will. Other similar instances are quoted from O.T.
The same argument was probably pursued by Clement of Alexandria, who promised to write on prophecy against the Montanists (Strom. iv. 13, p. 605). He notes it as a characteristic of false prophets ἐν ἐκστάσει προεφήτευον ὡς ἂν Ἀποστάτου διάκονοι (i. 17, p. 369). Tertullian no doubt defended the Montanist position in his lost work in six books on ecstasy.
Notwithstanding the condemnation of Montanism and the excommunication of
Montanists by neighbouring bishops, it continued to spread and make converts.
Visitors came from far to witness the wonderful phenomena;
Were the Gallic churches consulted by the orthodox, by the Montanists, or by both? and what answer did the Gallic Christians give? Eusebius only tells us that their judgment was pious and most orthodox, and that they subjoined letters which those who afterwards suffered martyrdom wrote while yet in prison to the brethren in Asia and Phrygia and also to Eleutherus, bp. of Rome, pleading (or negotiating, πρεσβεύοντες) for the peace of the churches. If, as has been suggested, the last expression meant entreating the removal of the excommunication from the Montanists, Eusebius, who begins his account of Montanism by describing it as a device of Satan, would not have praised such advice as pious and orthodox.
We think that the Montanists had appealed to Rome; that the church party solicited the good offices of their countrymen settled in Gaul, who wrote to Eleutherus representing the disturbance to the peace of the churches (a phrase probably preserved by Eusebius from the letter itself) which would ensue if the Roman church approved what the church on the spot condemned. We have no reason to think of Rome as then enjoying such supremacy that its reversal of an Asiatic excommunication would be quietly acquiesced in. Yet the Asiatic bishops might well be anxious how their decision would commend itself to the judgment of a stranger at a distance. To such a one there would be nothing incredible in special manifestations of God's Spirit displaying themselves in Phrygia, while the suggestion that the new prophesying was inspired by Satan might be repelled by its admitted orthodoxy, since all it professed to reveal tended to the glory of Christ and to the increase of Christian devotion. To avert, then, the possible calamity of a breach between the Eastern and Western churches, the Gallic churches, it would appear, not only wrote, but sent Irenaeus to Rome at the end of 177 or the beginning of 178. This hypothesis relieves us from the necessity of supposing this πρεσβεία to have been unsuccessful, while it fully accounts for the necessity of sending it.
The Asiatic churches laid before the Christian world justification for their course. Their case was stated by one of their most eminent bishops, Claudius Apolinarius of Hierapolis. Apolinarius gives the signatures of different bishops who had investigated and condemned the Montanist prophesyings. One of these, Sotas of Anchialus, on the western shore of. the Black Sea, was dead when Apolinarius wrote; but Aelius Publius Julius, bp. of the neighbouring colony of Debeltus, gives his sworn testimony that Sotas had tried to cast the demon out of Priscilla but had been hindered by the hypocrites. We learn from a later writer that Zoticus of Comana and Julianus of Apamea similarly attempted to exorcise Maximilla, and were not permitted to do so. Another of Apolinarius's authorities adds weight to his signature by appending the title martyr, then commonly given to those who braved imprisonment or tortures for Christ. The result was that the Roman church approved the sentence of the Asiatic bishops, as we know independently from Tertullian.
II. Montanism in the East, second stage.—For the history of Montanism in the East after its definite separation from the church, our chief authorities are fragments preserved by Eusebius of two writers, the anonymous writer already mentioned and Apollonius of Ephesus. The date of both these writings is considerably later than the rise of Montanism. Apollonius places himself 40 years after its first beginning. In the time of the Anonymous the first leaders of the schism had vanished from the scene. Montanus was dead, as was Theodotus, an early leader in the movement, who had probably managed its finances, for he is said to have been towards it a kind of ἐπίτροπος. The Anonymous states that at the time he wrote 13 full years had elapsed and a 14th had begun since the death of Maximilla. Priscilla must have died previously, for Maximilla believed herself to be the last prophetess in the church and that after her the end would come.
Themiso seems to have been, after Montanus, the head of the Montanists. He was at any rate their leading man at Pepuza; and this was the headquarters of the sect. There probably Montanus had taught; there the prophetesses Priscilla and Maximilla resided; there Priscilla had seen in a vision Christ come in the form of a woman in a bright garment, who inspired her with wisdom and informed her that Pepuza was the holy place and that there the New Jerusalem was to descend from heaven. Thenceforth Pepuza and the neighbouring village Tymium became the Montanist holy place, habitually spoken of as Jerusalem. There Zoticus and Julianus visited Maximilla, and Themiso was then at the head of those who prevented the intended exorcism.
Montanus himself probably did not live long to preside over his sect, and
this is perhaps why it is seldom called by the name of its founder. The sectaries
called themselves πνευματικοί, spiritual,
and the adherents of the church ψυχικοί,
carnal, thus following the usage of some Gnostic sects. In Phrygia
Apparently after Themiso MILTIADES presided over the sect; the Anonymous calls it the heresy τῶν κατὰ Μιλτιάδην. One other Montanist of this period was Alexander, who was honoured by his party as a martyr, but had, according to Apollonius, been only punished by the proconsul, Aemilius Frontinus, for his crimes, as the public records would testify. We cannot, unfortunately, fix the date of that proconsulship.
Taking the Eusebian date, 172, for the rise of Montanism, Apollonius, who wrote 40 years later, must have written c. 210. The Epiphanian date, 157, would make him 15 years earlier. The Anonymous gives us a clue to his date in the statement that whereas Maximilla had foretold wars and tumults, there had been more than 13 years since her death with no general nor partial war, and the Christians had enjoyed continual peace. This, then, must have been written either before the wars of the reign of Severus had begun or after they had finished. The latest admissible date on the former hypothesis gives us 192, and for the death of Maximilla 179. It is hardly likely that in so short a time all the original leaders of the movement would have died.
Before the end of the 2nd cent. Montanist teachers had made their way as far as Antioch; for Serapion, the bishop there, wrote against them, copying the letter of Apolinarius. It is through Serapion that Eusebius seems to have known this letter.
Early in the 3rd cent. the church had made converts enough from Montanists born in the sect for the question to arise, On what terms were converts to be received who had had no other than Montanist baptism? Matter and form were perfectly regular; for in all essential points of doctrine these sectaries agreed with the church. But it was decided, at a council held at Iconium, to recognize no baptism given outside the church. This we learn from the letter to Cyprian by Firmilian of Caesarea in Cappadocia, when the later controversy arose about heretical baptism. This council, and one which made a similar decision at another Phrygian town, Synnada, are mentioned also by. Dionysius of Alexandria (Eus. vii. 7). Firmilian speaks as if he had been present at the Iconium council, which may be dated c. 230.
So entirely had the Catholics ceased to regard the Montanists as Christian brethren that, as stated by the Anonymous, when persecution by the common enemy threw confessors from both bodies together, the orthodox persevered till their final martyrdom in refusing to hold intercourse with their Montanist fellow-sufferers; dreading to hold any friendship with the lying spirit who animated them. Epiphanius states that in his time the sect had many adherents in Phrygia, Galatia, Cappadocia, and Cilicia, and a considerable number in Constantinople.
III. Montanism in the West.—If we set aside the worthless Praedestinatus, there is no evidence whatever that any Roman bp. before Eleutherus had heard of Montanism, and the history of the interference of the Gallic confessors in 177 shews that it was then a new thing in the West. The case submitted to Eleutherus no doubt informed him by letter of the events in Phrygia; but apparently no Montanist teachers visited the West at this time, and after the judgment of Eleutherus the whole transaction seems to have been forgotten at Rome. It was in a subsequent episcopate that the first Montanist teacher, probably Proclus, appeared at Rome. There was no reason to regard him with suspicion. He could easily satisfy the bishop of his perfect orthodoxy in doctrine; and there was no ground for disbelieving what he might tell of supernatural manifestations in his own country. He was therefore either received into communion, or was about to be so and to obtain authority to report to his churches in Asia that their commendatory letters were recognized at Rome, when the arrival of another Asiatic, Praxeas, changed the scene. Praxeas could shew the Roman bp. that the Montanist pretensions to prophecy had been condemned by his predecessors, and probably the letter of Eleutherus was still accessible in the Roman archives. The justice of this previous condemnation Praxeas could confirm from his own knowledge of the Montanist churches and their prophesyings; and his testimony had the more weight because, having suffered imprisonment for the faith, he enjoyed the dignity of a martyr. The Montanist teacher was accordingly put out of communion at Rome. This story, which has all the marks of probability, is told by Tertullian (adv. Prax.), who probably had personal knowledge of the facts. The bishop could only be Zephyrinus, for we cannot go later; and as predecessors in the plural number are spoken of, these must have been Eleutherus and Victor. The conclusion which we have reached, that Montanism made no appearance in the West before the episcopate of Zephyrinus, is of great importance in the chronology of this controversy.
The formal rejection of Montanism by the Roman church was followed by a public disputation between the Montanist teacher Proclus, and Caius, a leading Roman presbyter. Eusebius, who read the record of it, says it took place under Zephyrinus. The Montanist preachers, whatever their failures, had one distinguished success in the acquisition of Tertullian. Apparently the condemnation of the Roman bishop was not in his mind decisive against the Montanist claims, and he engaged in an advocacy of them which resulted in his separation from the church. His writings are the great storehouse of information as to the peculiarities of Montanist teaching. The Italian Montanists were soon divided by schism arising out of the violent Patripassian controversy at Rome at the beginning of the 3rd cent. Among the Montanists, Aeschines was the head of the Patripassian party, and in this it would appear from an extract in Didymus that he followed Montanus himself; Proclus and his followers adhered to the orthodox doctrine on this subject.
IV. Montanism and the Canon.—The most
V. Montanist Doctrines and Practices.—The church objected, as against Montanism, to any addition being made to the teaching of Scripture. What, then, was the nature of the additions actually made by the Montanists?
(1) New Fasts.—The prophetesses had ordained that in addition to the ordinary Paschal fast of the church two weeks of what was called Xerophagy should be observed. In these the Montanists abstained, not only from flesh, wine, and the use of the bath, but from all succulent food, e.g. juicy fruit, except on Saturday and Sunday. The weekly stations also, or half fasts, which in the church ended at three p.m., were by Montanists usually continue till evening. The church party resisted the claim that these two new weeks of abstinence were divinely obligatory. The real question was, Had the prophetess God's command for instituting them? This particular revelation only came into prominence because at recurring intervals it put a marked difference between Montanists and Catholics, similar to that which the Paschal fast put between Christians and heathen.
(2) Second Marriages.—On this subject again the difference between
the Montanists and the church really reduces itself to the question whether
the Paraclete spoke by Montanus. Second marriages had before Montanus been
regarded with disfavour in the church. Tertullian deprecates them with almost
as much energy in his pre-Montanist work ad Uxorem as afterwards in
his Montanist de Monogamia. But however unfavourably such marriages
were regarded, their validity and lawfulness were not denied. St. Paul had
seemed to declare that such marriages were not forbidden (
(3) Church Discipline.—The treatise of Tertullian (de Pudicitia)
shews a controversy of Montanists with the church concerning the power of
church officers to give absolution. The occasion was the publication, by one
whom Tertullian sarcastically calls "Pontifex Maximus" and "Episcopus Episcoporum,"
of an edict of pardon to persons guilty of adultery and fornication on due
performance of penance. Doubtless a bp. of Rome is intended, and as Hippolytus
tells (ix. 12) of Callistus being the first to introduce such laxity in granting
absolution, it seems plain that Callistus was referred to. Tertullian holds
that for such sin absolution ought never to be given. Not that the sinner
was to despair of obtaining God's pardon by repentance;
We refer to our art. TERTULLIAN for other doctrines which, though advocated by Tertullian in his Montanist days, we do not feel ourselves entitled to set down as Montanistic, in the absence of evidence that Tertullian had learned them from Montanus, or that they were held by Eastern Montanists. The bulk of what Tertullian taught as a Montanist he probably would equally have taught if Montanus had never lived; but owing to the place which Montanism ascribed to visions and revelations as means of obtaining a knowledge of the truth, his belief in his opinions was converted into assurance when they were echoed by prophetesses who in their visions gave utterance to opinions imbibed from their master in their waking hours.
VI. Later History of Montanism.—We gather from Tertullian's language (adv. Prax.) that it was some time before his persistent advocacy of Montanism drew excommunication on himself. To this interval we refer the Acts of Perpetua and Felicitas, in the editor of which we may perhaps recognize Tertullian himself. Both martyrs and martyrologist had clearly been under Montanist influences: great importance is attached to visions and revelations, and the editor justifies the composition of new Acts, intended for church reading, on the grounds that the "last days" in which he lived had witnessed, as had been prophesied, new visions, new prophecies, new exhibitions of the mighty working of God's Spirit, as great as or greater than in any preceding age. Yet the martyrs are evidently in full communion with the church. The schism which soon afterwards took place appears to have been of little importance either in numbers or duration. We hear nothing of Montanists in the writings of Cyprian, whose veneration for Tertullian would scarcely have been so great if his church were still suffering from a schism which Tertullian originated. In the next cent. Optatus (i. 9) speaks of Montanism as an extinct heresy, which it were slaying the slain to refute. Yet there were some who called themselves after Tertullian in the 4th cent. Augustine (Haer. 86) at Carthage heard that a well-known church which formerly belonged to the Tertullianists had been surrendered to the Catholics when the last of them returned to the church. He had evidently heard no tradition as to their tenets, and set himself to search in Tertullian's writings for heresies which they presumably may have held. Elsewhere in the West Montanism entirely disappears.
In the East, we have already mentioned the councils of Iconium and of Synnada. There is a mention of Montanism in the Acts of Achatius (Ruinart, p. 152). Though these Acts lack external attestation, internal evidence strongly favours their authenticity. Their scene is uncertain; the time is the Decian persecution a.d. 250. The magistrate, urging Achatius to sacrifice, presses him with the example of the Cataphrygians, "homines antiquae religionis," who had already conformed. Sozomen (ii. 32) ascribes the extinction of the Montanists, as well as of other heretical sects, to the edict of Constantine depriving them of their places of worship and forbidding their religious meetings. Till then, being confounded by heathen rulers with other Christians, they could meet for worship, and, even when few in number, keep together; but Constantine's edict killed all the weaker sects, and among them the Montanists, everywhere except in Phrygia and neighbouring districts, where they were still numerous in Sozomen's time. He says (vii. 18) that, unlike Scythia, where one bishop ruled over the whole province, among these Phrygian heretics every village had its bishop. At last the orthodox zeal of Justinian took measures to crush out the remains of the sect in Phrygia, and the Montanists in despair gathered with wives and children into their places of worship, set them on fire, and there perished (Procop. Hist. Arc. 11). In connexion with this may be taken what is told of John of Ephesus in the same reign of Justinian (Assemani, Bibl. Or. ii. 88), that a.d. 550 he had the bones dug up and burned of Montanus and of his prophetesses Carata, Prisca, and Maximilla. What is disguised under the name Carata we cannot tell. It is hardly likely that Montanism survived the persecution of Justinian. Besides Cataphrygians they were often called from their headquarters, Pepuzans, which Epiphanius counts as a distinct heresy. The best monograph on Montanism is by Bonwetsch (Erlangen, 1881). See also Zahn, Forschanger zur Gesch. des N. T. Kanons, etc. (1893), v. 3 ff., on the chronology of Montanism.
Montanus (3), bp. of Toledo, c. 523–c. 531.
Authorities.—(1) His Life by Ildefonsus (de Vir. Ill. c. 3). (2) Two letters printed by Loaysa (Conc Hisp. p. 88), Aguirre (Coll. Max. Conc. Hisp. ii. 159), and Florez (Esp. Sagr. v, 409, 415). (3) The Acts of the second council of Toledo (Tejada y Ramiro, Coll. de Can. de la Igl. Esp. ii. 701).
His Life.—The facts related by Ildefonsus are meagre. We are told
that Montanus was the successor of Celsus in the "prima sedes" of the province
of Carthaginensis; that he defended and maintained his office; that he wrote
two letters on points of church discipline, one to the inhabitants of Palencia,
the other to a certain Turibius, a "religious"; and that he rebutted a scandalous
accusation by the help of a miracle wrought in his favour. These Acts of the
second council of Toledo are curious and important, and have been suspected
of at least containing interpolations, if not of being altogether supposititious,
but there seems no sufficient reason for doubting their genuineness. The council
opened on May 17 in the 5th year of Amalaric (a.d. 527) according to the reckoning
generally adopted since Florez's day, 531 according to the older reckoning.
The bishops began by expressing their intention of adding to the Codex
Canonum certain provisions not already contained in the ancient canons
on the one hand, and of reviving such prescriptions as had fallen into disuse
on the other. The material of these canons is common to most of the various
Spanish councils of the first half of 6th cent. It is the concluding passage
of the Acts which makes the council of special interest in Spanish ecclesiastical
history. "According to the decrees of ancient canons, we declare that,
Moses (3) (Moyses), Roman presbyter (? of Jewish origin), a leading member of an influential group of confessors in the time of Cyprian, about the commencement of the Novatianist schism. The others were Maximus, Nicostratus, Rufinus, Urbanus, Sidonius, Macarius, and Celerinus. They wrote early in the persecution, urging the claims of discipline on the Carthaginian confessors (Ep. 27) (cf. Tillem. t. iii. Notes s. Moyse, t. iv., S. Cyp. a. xv., Lipsius, Chr. d. röm. Bisch. p. 200), and Moyses signed the second letter of the Roman clerus (viz. Ep. 30), drawn up by Novatian according to Cyprian (Ep. 55, iv.), and he wrote with the other confessors Ep. 31 to Cyprian (Ep. 32). When they had been a year in prison (Ep. 37), or more accurately 11 months and days (Liberian Catalogue, Mommsen, Chronogr. v. Jahre 354, p. 635). i.e. c. Jan. 1, 251, Moyses died and was accounted a confessor and martyr (Ep. 55). Shortly before his death he refused to communicate with Novatian and the five presbyters who sided with him (ἀποσχίσασιν) because he saw the tendency of his stern dogma (Cornelius to Fabius of Antioch, Eus. vi. 43, κατιδών).
Moyses' severance was not because Novatian had already left the Catholics, which he did not do till June 4, after the election of Cornelius; and Novatus, who induced it, did not leave Carthage for Rome until April or May (Rettberg, p. 109). Moyses' great authority remained a strong point in Cornelius's favour, when the rest of the confessors (Ep. 51) after their release threw their influence on the side of Novatian as representing the stricter discipline against Cornelius. The headship of the party belonged after Moyses' death to MAXIMUS (3).
Moses (5), of Khoren (Moses Khorenensis)—-called by his countrymen the Father of History—the poet, grammarian, and most celebrated writer of Armenia, was the nephew and disciple of St. Mesrob, the founder of Armenian literature. [MESROBES.] Born at Khoren or Khorni, a town of the province of Darou, he was one of a band of scholars sent by Mesrob to study at Edessa, Constantinople, Alexandria, Athens, and Rome. There he accumulated very wide historical knowledge (cf. Hist. Armen. iii. 61, 62). Returning to Armenia, he assisted St. Mesrob in translating the Bible into his native language, a work which was accomplished between 407 and 433. This fixes his birth in the early part of cent. v.; though some place it in the latter part of cent. iv. Beyond his literary activity we do not know much about his life. He succeeded Eznig as bp. of Pakrevant, where he displayed great spiritual activity. According to the medieval Armenian chronicler, Samuel of Ani, he died in 488, aged 120. The following works attributed to him are extant: (1) Hist. of Armenia, (2) Treatise on Rhetoric, (3) Treatise on Geography, (4) Letter on Assumption of B. V. M., (5) Homily on Christ's Transfiguration, (6) Oration on Hripsinia, an Armenian Virgin Martyr, (7) Hymns used in Armenian Church Worship. He wrote also 2 works now lost, viz. Commentaries on the Armenian Grammarians, of which fragments are found in John Erzengatzi, an Armenian writer of cent. xiii., and Explanations of Armenian Church Offices, of which we have only some fragments in Thomas Ardzrouni (cent. vii.). The Hist. of Armenia is perhaps the work of a later writer, but it is in some respects one of the most important historical works of antiquity. It embodies almost our only remains of pre-Christian Armenian literature and preserves many songs and traditions retained at that time in popular memory. For special studies of it see Dulaurier in Journ. Asiat. Jan. 1852. It is also very valuable because it preserves extensive remains of Assyrian, Chaldean, Syrian, and Greek writers. Moses had studied long at Edessa, where the library was very rich in ancient Assyrian chroniclers. This work also throws much light on the history of the Roman empire in cents. iv. and v., and its struggles against the renewed Persian empire and the efforts of Zoroastrianism. It has been translated into Italian by the Mechitarite Fathers (Venice, 1841); into French by V. Langlois in Historiens anciens de l’Arménie (Paris, 1867). See also AE. Carriére, Moise de Khoren, etc. (Paris, 1891); Id., Nouvelles sources de Moise de Kh. (Vienna 1894); Id., La. legende d’Abgar, dans l'hist. de Moise de Kh.; also F. C. Conybeare in Byzant. Zeitschr. (1901), x. 489 seq.
Muratorian Fragment, a very ancient list of the books of N.T. first
pub. in 1740 by Muratori (Ant. Ital. Med. Aev. iii. 851) and found
in a 7th or 8th cent. MS. in the Ambrosian Library at Milan. The MS. had come
from the Irish monastery of Bobbio, and the fragment seems to have been a
copy of a loose
The first line of the fragment evidently concludes its notice of St. Mark's
Gospel; for it proceeds to speak of St. Luke's as in the 3rd place, St. John's
in the 4th. A notice of St. Matthew's and St. Mark's must have come before,
but we have no means of knowing whether the O.T. books preceded that notice.
The document appears to have dealt with the choice of topics in the Gospels
and the point where each began (cf. Iren. iii. 11). It is stated that St.
Luke (and apparently St. Mark also) had not seen our Lord in the flesh. For
its story as to the composition of St. John's Gospel see LEUCIUS.
The document goes on to say that by one and the same sovereign Spirit the
same fundamental doctrines are fully taught in all concerning our Lord's birth,
life, passion, resurrection, and future coming. At the date of this document,
therefore, belief was fully established in the pre-eminence of the four Gospels,
and in their divine inspiration. Next comes the Acts, St. Luke being credited
with purposing to record only what fell under his own notice, thus omitting
the martyrdom of St. Peter and St. Paul's journey to Spain. Thirteen epistles
of St. Paul are then mentioned. (a) epistles to churches, in the order:
I. and II. Cor., Eph., Phil., Col., Gal., I. and II. Thess., Rom. It is observed
that St. Paul addressed (like St. John) only seven churches by name,
Westcott has shewn that no argument can be built upon the omissions (Ep.
of James, both Epp. of Peter, and Hebrews) of our fragment, since it shews
so many blunders of transcription, and some breaks in the sense. Certainly
I. Peter held, at the earliest date claimed for the fragment, such a position
in the Roman church that entire silence in respect to it seems incredible.
Of disquisitions on our fragment we may name Credner, N. T. Kanon,
Volkmar's ed. 141 seq. 341 seq.; Routh, Rell. Sac. i. 394; Tregelles,
Canon Muratorianus; Hesse, op. cit.; Westcott, N. T. Canon,
208 seq. 514 seq.; and esp. Zahn, Gesch. der N.T. Kanons, ii. 1 (1890),
pp. 1–143; also Lietzman's Das Mur Frag. (Bonn, 1908), besides countless
arts. in journals, e.g. Harnack, in Text und Unters. (1900);
Overbeck, Zur Geschichte des Kanons (1880); Hilgenfeld, Zeitschrift
(1881), p. 129. Hilgenfeld (Kanon, p. 44), and Bötticher (De Lagarde)
in Bunsen's Hippolytus i. 2nd ed. Christianity and Mankind,
attempted its re-translation into Greek; an ed., with notes and facsimile
by S. P. Tregelles, is pub, by the Clar. Press. The present writer expressed
in 1874 (Hermathena i.) an opinion which he now holds with more confidence
that
Musonius (1), bp. of Neocaesarea, on whose death in a.d. 368 Basil wrote a long letter of consolation to his widowed church (Ep. 28 [62]), lauding him greatly and designating him no unworthy successor of Gregory Thaumaturgus. He describes him as a rigid supporter of old customs and the ancient faith, endeavouring to conform his church in all things to the primitive model. His watchful care had preserved his church from the storms of heresy ravaging all neighbouring churches. In so great reverence was he held that, though by no means the oldest of the bishops, the presidency in council was always his. He must have attained the episcopate comparatively young, for, though he ruled the church of Neocaesarea many years, he was not very aged when he died. Though Musonius had been prejudiced against Basil, and regarded his election to the episcopate with no friendly eyes, so that, though they were united in faith and in opposition to heresy, they were unable to co-operate for the peace of the church, Basil mentions him in a second letter to the Neocaesareans as the "blessed Musonius," the follower of the traditions of Gregory Thaumaturgus, "whose teaching was still sounding in their ears" (Ep. 210 [64]).
N
Narcissus (1), bp. of Jerusalem. Clinton (Fasti Romani) accepts the date a.d. 190 for the commencement of his episcopate. He was the 15th of the Gentile bishops of Jerusalem, reckoning from Marcus, a.d. 136, and the 30th in succession from the apostles (Eus. H. E. v. 12). According to the Synodicon, Narcissus presided over a council of 14 bishops of Palestine held at Jerusalem a.d. 198, on the Paschal controversy, and took part in that at Caesarea on the same subject under the presidency of Theophilus, bp. of the city (Labbe, Concil. i. 600). Eusebius speaks of the synodical letter of these bishops as still extant in his time (Eus. H. E. v. 23). Narcissus was conspicuous in the church of his day (Neale, Patriarch. of Antioch, p. 34; Eus. H. E. v. 12). Eusebius records a miracle traditionally ascribed to him, whereby water was converted into oil one Easter Eve, when the oil required for the great illumination had failed (Eus. H. E. vi. 9). The sanctity of his life raised against him a band of slanderers. Narcissus, stung by their calumny, abdicated his bishopric, and retired to the remotest part of the desert, where for several years he lived the ascetic life he had long coveted, no one knowing the place of his concealment.
Having been sought for in vain, the neighbouring bishops declared the see vacant, and ordained Dius as his successor, who was succeeded by Germanicus, and he by Gordius. During the episcopate of Gordius, Narcissus reappeared. Shortly after his disappearance the falsity of the charges against him, Eusebius tells us, had been proved by the curses imprecated by the false accusers having been fearfully made good. This, having eventually reached Narcissus's ears, probably led to his return. He at once resumed the oversight of his see at the earnest request of all (ib. 9, 10). In the 2nd year of Caracalla, a.d. 212 (Eus. Chronicon), Alexander, a Cappadocian bishop, a confessor in the persecution of Severus, visiting the holy city in fulfilment of a vow, was selected by the aged Narcissus as his coadjutor and eventual successor. Eusebius preserves a fragment of a letter written by Alexander to the people of Antinous, in which he speaks of Narcissus as being then in his 116th year, and as having virtually retired from his episcopal office (Eus. H. E. vi. 11). Epiphanius states that he lived ten years after Alexander became his coadjutor, to the reign of Alexander Severus, a.d. 222 (Epiph. Haer. lxvi. 20). This, however, is very improbable. Tillem. Mém. eccl. iii. 177 ff.
Nebridius (4), an intimate friend of St. Augustine, and probably of about the same age, described by him as very good and of a very cautious disposition. While Augustine was at Carthage under the influence of Manichean doctrine, it was partly through Nebridius and Vindicianus that he was induced to give up his belief in astrology, or, as it was then called, mathematics. Nebridius had already abandoned Manicheism and delivered lectures against it, a.d. 379 (Aug. Conf. iv. 3; vii. 2, 6). When Augustine removed from Rome to Milan as a lecturer in rhetoric, a.d. 384, Nebridius, out of love for him, determined to leave his home and mother, and take up leis abode with Augustine and Alypius there, "for no other reason," says Augustine, "than that he might live with me in most ardent pursuit of truth and wisdom" (ib. vi. 7, 10). By and by Nebridius undertook to assist Verecundus in his grammar lectures at his earnest request and that of Augustine. This duty he performed with great care and discretion (ib. viii. 6). Soon after Nebridius appears to have taken up the notion of the Docetae, that our Lord took human nature not in reality but only in outward appearance, an error which, after a period of unknown length, he recanted. Soon after the conversion of Augustine he died, a true Catholic, having induced his household to join him in the change. "He is now," says Augustine with confidence, "in the bosom of Abraham" (ib. ix. 3, 4).
Though a much-loved friend, Nebridius was a troublesome correspondent, most persevering in his inquiries, which were sometimes very difficult to answer, and not satisfied with brief replies or always ready to make allowance for his friend's occupations (Aug. Ep. 98, 8). Of the 12 letters which remain of their correspondence, two only are addressed by Nebridius to Augustine. Those of Augustine are very long, chiefly on metaphysical subjects of extreme subtlety.
Nectarius (4), archbp. of Constantinople a.d. 381–397 or 398, successor to St. Gregory of Nazianzus. When Gregory resigned, Nectarius was praetor of Constantinople. He was of noble family, born at Tarsus in Cilicia, an elderly man, widely known for his admirable character, still only a catechumen. Preparing for a journey to Tarsus, he called on the bp. of Tarsus, Diodorus, who was attending the council, to ask if he could take letters for him. The appearance and manners of his visitor struck Diodorus so forcibly that he at once determined that he should be advanced as a candidate; and, alleging some other business, took the praetor to call on the bp. of Antioch, who, though laughing at the idea of such a competitor, asked Nectarius to put off his journey a short time. When the emperor Theodosius desired the bishops at the council to suggest candidates, reserving to himself the right of choosing one of them, the bp. of Antioch put at the bottom of his list, in compliment to the bp. of Tarsus, the name of the praetor. The emperor, reading the lists, declared his choice to be Nectarius. The Fathers were amazed. Who and what was this Nectarius? He was not even baptized. Astonishment at the emperor's unexpected choice was great. Even the bp. of Tarsus seems not to have known this disqualification. The startling information did not move Theodosius. The people of Constantinople were delighted at the news. The whole council agreed. Nectarius was baptized. The dress of a neophyte was changed for the robes of the bishop of the imperial city. The praetor, a few days previously a catechumen, became at once president of the second general council. He ruled the church upwards of 16 years, and made an admirable prelate. His name heads the 150 signatures to the canons of the second general council. The 3rd canon declares that "the bp. of Constantinople shall hold the first rank after the bp. of Rome, because Constantinople is new Rome."
The bishops of the West were not disposed to accept the election, and asked for a common synod of East and West to settle the succession. Accordingly the emperor Theodosius, soon after the close of the second general council, summoned the bishops of his empire to a fresh synod—not, however, as the Latins wished, at Alexandria, but at Constantinople. There were assembled here, early in the summer of 382, very nearly the same bishops who had been at the second general council. On arriving they received a letter from the synod of Milan, inviting them to a great general council at Rome. They replied that they must remain where they were, because they had not made preparations for so long a journey, and were only authorized by their colleagues to act at Constantinople. They sent three of their number—Syriacus, Eusebius, and Priscian— with a synodal letter to pope Damasus, archbp. Ambrose, and the other bishops assembled in council at Rome.
The Roman synod to which this letter was addressed was the 5th under Damasus. No certain account remains of its proceedings, nor of how its members treated the question of Nectarius. Theodosius, however, sent commissaries to Rome in support of the statements of his synod, as we learn from the letters of pope Boniface. In his 15th letter (to the bishops of Illyria) he shews that the church in Rome had finally agreed to recognize both Nectarius and Flavian. St. Ambrose, in his 63rd letter, adduces the election of Nectarius as an approval of his own by the East.
Six graceful letters from Nectarius remain in the correspondence of his illustrious predecessor Gregory. In the first he expresses his hearty good wishes for his episcopate. The last is of great importance, urging him not to be too liberal in tolerating the Apollinarians.
In 383 a third synod at Constantinople was held. In spite of the decrees of bishops
and emperor, the Arians and Pneumatomachians continued to spread their doctrines.
Theodosius summoned all parties to the imperial city for a great discussion in June,
hoping to reconcile all differences. Before the proceedings, he sent for the archbishop
and told him of his intention that all questions should be fully debated. Nectarius
returned home, full of profound anxiety, and consulted the Novatianist bp. Agelius,
who agreed with him in doctrine and was held in high personal esteem. Agelius felt
himself unsuited for so grave a controversy; but he had a reader, Sisinnius, a brilliant
philosopher and theologian, to whom he proposed to entrust the argument with the
Arians. Sisinnius suggested that they should produce the testimonies of the old
Fathers of the church on the doctrine of the Son, and first ask the heads of the
several parties whether they accepted these authorities or desired to anathematize
them. The archbishop and the emperor gladly agreed to this scheme. When the bishops
met, the emperor asked: Did they respect the teachers who lived before the Arian
division? They said, Yes. He then asked: Did they acknowledge them sound and trustworthy
witnesses of the true Christian doctrine? The divisions this question produced shewed
that the sectaries were bent on disputation. The emperor ordered each party to draw
up a written confession of its doctrine. When this was done, the bishops were summoned
to the imperial palace, Nectarius and Agelius for the orthodox, Demophilus (formerly
bp. of Constantinople) for the Arians, Eleusius of Cyzicus for the Pneumatomachians,
and Eunomius for the Anomoeans. The emperor received them with kindness and retired
into a room alone with their written confessions. After praying God for enlightenment,
he rejected and destroyed all except that of the orthodox, because the others introduced
a division into the Holy Trinity. The sectaries thereupon sorrowfully returned home.
The emperor now forbade all sectaries, except the Novatianists, to hold divine service
anywhere, to
In 385 died Pulcheria, the emperor's daughter, and his wife Placilla. The archbishop asked Gregory of Nyssa to preach the funeral sermons on both occasions.
Towards the close of his episcopate Nectarius abolished the office of presbyter penitentiary, whose duty appears to have been to receive confessions before communion. His example was followed by nearly all other bishops. The presbyter penitentiary was added to the ecclesiastical roll about the time of the Novatianist schism, when that party declined to communicate with those who had lapsed in the Decian persecution. Gradually there were fewer lapsed to reconcile, and his duties became more closely connected with preparation for communion. A disgraceful occurrence induced Nectarius to leave the participation in holy communion entirely to individual consciences and abolish the office.
Nectarius died in 397 or 398, and was succeeded by St. John Chrysostom. (Theod. H. E. v. viii. etc.; Socr. H. E. v. viii. etc.; Soz. H. E. vii. viii. etc.; Theoph. Chronogr. 59. etc.; Nectarii Arch. CP. Enarratio in Patr. Gk. xxxix. p. 1821; Mansi, Concil. t. iii. p. 521, 599, 633, 643, 694, etc.; Hefele, Hist. Christ. Councils, tr. Oxenham (Edinb. 1876), vol. ii. pp. 344, 347, 378, 380, 382, etc.
Nemesius (4), bp. of Emesa in the latter half of 4th cent., of whom nothing is certainly known but that he wrote a rather remarkable treatise, περὶ φύσεως ἀνθρώπου, de Natura Hominis, of which cc. ii. and iii. wrongly appear as a separate work, entitled περὶ ψυχῆς, de Anima, among the writings of Gregory Nyssen. Le Quien (Or. Christ. ii. 839) places Nemesius fifth among the bishops of Emesa, between Paul I., who attended the council of Seleucia, a.d. 359, and Cyriacus, the friend of Chrysostom. The date of his writing is tolerably certain from his mentioning the doctrines of Apollinaris and Eunomius and the Origenists, but not those of Nestorius, Eutyches, or Pelagius. He could hardly have avoided mentioning Pelagius if his teaching had been known to him, in the part of his treatise relating to free will. That he was bp. of Emesa is stated in the title of his treatise in the various MS. copies, and by Maximus (ii. 153, ed. Combefis) and Anastasius Sinaita (Quaest. xviii. and xxiv.) in quoting his work. He is also quoted, though without his name, by Joannes Damascenus, Elias Cretensis, Meletius, Joannes Grammaticus, and others. The treatise is an interesting work which will well reward perusal, and has received much praise from able judges of style and matter. Nemesius establishes the immortality of the soul against the philosophers, vindicates free will, opposes fatalism, defends God's providence, and proves by copious examples the wisdom and goodness of the Deity. He gives indications that he was not ignorant of the circulation of the blood and the functions of the bile (cc. xxiv. xxviii. pp. 242, 260, ed. Matthaei). The best ed. is by C. F. Matthaei (Halae, 1802), reprinted by Migne in Patr. Gk. The treatise has been translated into most modern European languages, into Italian by Pizzimenti (no date), English, G. Wilkes (1636 and 1657), German by Osterhammer (Salzburg, 1819), and French by J. R. Thibault (Paris, 1844). Cf. M. Evangelides, Nemesius und seine Quellen (Berlin, 1882).
Nero (1), Claudius Caesar, emperor (Oct. 13, 54, to June 9, 68). For our purpose the interest of Nero's life centres in his persecution of the Christians. For his general history see Merivale, cc. lii.–lv. During his early reign Christianity was unmolested and seems to have spread rapidly at Rome. No doubt it received a great impetus from the preaching of St. Paul during the two years after his arrival, probably early in 61. But before long a terrible storm was to burst on the infant church. On the night of July 16, 64, a fire broke out in the valley between the Palatine and the Aventine. That part of the city was crowded with humble dwellings and shops full of inflammable contents. The lower parts of the city became a sea of flame. For six days the fire raged till it reached the foot of the Esquiline, where it was stopped by pulling down a number of houses. Soon after a second fire broke out in the gardens of Tigellinus near the Pincian, and raged for three days in the N. parts of the city. Though the loss of life was less in the second fire, the destruction of temples and public buildings was more serious. By the two fires three of the 14 regions were utterly destroyed, four escaped entirely, in the remaining seven but few houses were left standing. Nero was at Antium when the fire broke out, and did not return to Rome till it had almost reached the vast edifice he had constructed to connect his palace on the Palatine with the gardens of Maecenas on the Esquiline.
The horrible suspicion that Nero himself was the author of the fire gained strength. This is asserted as a positive fact by Suetonius (c. 38), Dion (lxii. 16), and Pliny the Elder (xvii. 1), the last being a contemporary, but Tacitus alludes to it only as a prevalent rumour. Whether well founded or not, and whether, supposing it true, the emperor's motive was to clear away the crooked, narrow streets of the old town in order to rebuild it on a new and regular plan, or whether it was a freak of madness, need not be discussed here. At any rate Nero found it necessary to divert from himself the rage of the people and put the blame upon the Christians.
The only author living near the time of the persecution who gives an account
of it is Tacitus. After describing the origin of Christianity he proceeds: "First
were arrested those who confessed, then on their information a vast multitude was
convicted, not so much on the charge of arson as for their hatred of the human race.
Their deaths were made more cruel by the mockery that accompanied them. Some were
covered with the skins of wild beasts and torn to pieces by dogs; others perished
on the cross or in the flames; and others again were burnt after sunset as torches
to light up the darkness. Nero himself granted his gardens (on the Vatican) for
the show, and gave an exhibition in the circus, and, dressed as a charioteer, mixed
with the people or drove his chariot himself. Thus, guilty and deserving the severest
punishment as they were, yet they were pitied, as they
The persecution was probably confined to Rome. There is little evidence of it extending to the rest of the empire. The Acts of the saints mentioned by Tillemont (Mém. eccl. ii. 73–89) are all more or less fabulous, and even if authentic there seems little or no ground for placing them in the reign of Nero. The accounts in Acts of the journeys of St. Paul shew how easily an outbreak of popular fury might be excited by Jews or heathens, who, either on religious or private grounds, were hostile to the new doctrine, and how easily in such an outbreak a conspicuous Christian might be murdered without any state edict against Christianity, or without the public authorities interfering at all, and it is not unreasonable to suppose that, when Nero set the example of persecution, many provincial magistrates would take a harsher view than previously of the case of any Christian brought before them.
The question of the connexion between Nero and Antichrist was brought into prominence by M. Renan. The significance of the Neronian persecution lies in the fact that it was the first. Hitherto the attitude of state officials to Christianity had on the whole been favourable; at worst they treated it with contemptuous indifference. All this was now suddenly changed. The head of the state had made a ferocious attack on the infant church. Henceforth the two powers were in more or less violent antagonism till the struggle of 250 years was closed by the conversion of Constantine. Whatever the date of the Apocalypse, it can hardly be doubted that the Neronian persecution with .all its horrors was vividly present to the mind of the author. To have perished obscurely by his own hand seemed both to pagans and Christians too commonplace an end for a monster who for 14 years had filled such a place in the eyes and the minds of men. Few had witnessed his death, so that the notion easily arose that he was still alive, had taken refuge with the Parthians, and would reappear. Tacitus mentions (Hist. i. 2; ii. 8, 9) the appearance of two false Neros, and Suetonius (c. 56) alludes to another. In the days of his prosperity diviners had predicted his fall and that he would gain a new dominion in the East and Jerusalem and at last regain the empire (ib. c. 40).
According to the theory of M. Reuss (Hist. de la théol. chrétienne, i. 429–452), adopted by Renan, the Apocalypse was written during the reign of Galba, i.e. at the end of 68 or beginning of 69, when men's minds were agitated, especially in Asia Minor, by the appearance of a false Nero in the island of Cythnus (Tac. Hist. ii. 8). M. Reuss interprets the first six heads of the first beast as the emperors Augustus, Tiberius, Caius, Claudius, Nero, and Galba, of whom the first five were dead, while the sixth, Galba, was then reigning. As he was 73 years old his reign must soon terminate; a seventh was to follow and reign for a short time, after which one of the emperors supposed to be dead was to reappear as Antichrist. The first four emperors had not been hostile to the Christians, and none of them, except Caius, had died a violent death. Nero therefore alone answers the description. Finally M. Reuss interprets the number of the beast as the numerical value of the letters of the words Νέρων Καῖσαρ when written in Hebrew, and explains the existence of the ancient variant reading 616 by supposing it due to a Latin reader who had found the solution, but pronounced the name Nero and not Neron. Whether this theory be well founded or not, the opinion that Nero would return as Antichrist certainly continued for centuries. Commodianus, who probably wrote c. 250, alludes to it (xli. in Migne, Patr. Lat. v. 231), and even in the 5th cent. St. Augustine (de Civ. Dei, xx. 19, in ib. xli. 686) mentions that some then believed he would rise again and reappear as Antichrist, and that others thought he had never died, but would appear at the appointed time and recover his kingdom. Another view was that Nero would be the precursor of Antichrist (Lact. Mortes 2, Sulp. Sev. Dial. ii. 14 in Patr. Lat. vii. 197; xx. 211.)
Nerva, Roman emperor, a.d. 96–98. M. Cocceius Nerva was the third in succession
of a family conspicuous for legal and administrative power in the first century
of the empire.
Nestorian Church. This is the name given in modern times to those whom 5th-cent. writers called simply "Easterns"; by which they meant the church that existed to the east of them, outside the boundary of the Roman empire, in the kingdom that was at first Parthian, and later Sassanid Persian. The body is also called "east Syrian" (the term Syrian implying use of the Syriac language rather than residence in "Syria"), and sometimes also "Chaldean" or "Assyrian."
Foundation of the Church.—During the course of the 1st cent. Christianity spread from Antioch, not only to the west but also eastwards, and in particular it extended to Edessa, then the capital of the little "buffer state" of Osrhoene, situated between the Roman and Parthian empires. The political independence of the state ended in 216, but it had lasted long enough to give a definite character to the local church, which was marked off by its Syriac vernacular and Oriental ways of thought from the Greek Christianity to the west of it. Missionaries went out from Edessa to the east again, and founded two daughter-churches, one in Armenia and one in what was then Parthia, the latter of which is the subject of this article.
The first two "apostles" and founders of this church were Adai (=Thaddeus) and Mari. Tradition identified the former with either the disciple of Christ—a statement hard to reconcile with the recorded fact that he was still able to travel in the year 100—or with one of "the Seventy." He is known to have preached in Assyria and Adiabene before the close of the 1st cent., and to have consecrated his disciple Paqida as first bishop of the latter province, in a.d. 104 (Hist. of Mshikha-zca); while the statement of the "doctrine of Adai" that the apostle died in peace at Edessa has the ring of truth in it. The later history of the church in that place is outside our subject.
Of Mari, his companion, little is known certainly (his life is a mere piece of hagiography), but he appears to have penetrated into the southern provinces of the Parthian kingdom, to have preached without much success at the capital, Seleucia-Ctesiphon, and to have died in peace at Dor-Koni. There seems no reason to doubt the historic character of both these teachers; and later tradition added that St. Thomas the Apostle, passing through this country on his way to India, was co-founder of the church with them.
The Church under the Arsacids and Sassanids.—Under Parthian rule, which was tolerant, and where the state religion was an outworn and eclectic paganism, the new faith spread rapidly and easily. There was no persecution by the government, though converts from one special religion, Zoroastrianism, had sometimes to face it, from the powerful hierarchy of that faith, the Magians. Thus the church had more than 20 bishops, and these were distributed over the whole country when, in 225, the 2nd Persian replaced the Parthian kingdom, and the Arsacid dynasty gave way to the Sassanid. This revolution was to its authors a revival of the old kingdom destroyed by Alexander, and the Persian nation rose again with a national religion, that of Zoroaster. It made no effort to destroy the Christianity that it found existing, but, like Islam later, tolerated it as the religion of a subject race, and so put it into the position that it still occupies in those lands, though the dominant religion has changed. Christians became a melet (a subject race organized in a church), recognized by the government, but despised by it. For them to proselytize from the state faith was a crime, punishable with death, though they were allowed to convert pagans. Apostasy from Christianity to the established faith meant worldly prosperity, but there was no persecution, though there was often oppression, by the government, until the adoption of Christianity by the Roman emperor (the standing enemy of the shah-in-shah) made every Christian politically suspect. Thus Persia continued to be a refuge for many Christians from Roman territory during the "general" persecutions of the 3rd cent., and the church grew, both by conversions and by the advent of "captivities," largely Christian in faith, brought by conquerors like Sapor I. from Roman territory.
Episcopate of Papa.—Though it extended rapidly elsewhere, the church made little progress in the capital, and there was no bishop there, and only a few Christians, till late in the 3rd cent. In 270 Akha d’Abuh’, bp. of Arbela, joined with others in consecrating Papa to that see, and this man became its first bishop since the days of Mari. In later days legend supplied the names of earlier holders of what had then become a patriarchal throne, and indeed made Akha d’Abuh’ himself one of the series, and told how in a.d. 170 he was recognized by the four "western patriarchs" as the fifth of the band.
Papa, as by of the capital, soon claimed to be the chief bishop of the church,
its catholicos; the claim was favoured by the circumstances of the time, as in his
days all the "greater thrones" were obtaining jurisdiction over the lesser sees
within their sphere of attraction, and the patriarchates so formed were soon to
be recognized at Nicaea. The conditions of melet life also tend to produce
some one head, through whom the government can deal with the people. Papa, however,
so claimed the honour as to produce irritation, and a council met in 315 to judge
his claim. It was very adverse to Papa, who refused in
Papa, on recovery, appealed for support to "the Westerns," i.e. not to Antioch or Rome (the "Nestorian" church never deemed herself subject to either of them), but to the nearest important sees to the west of him, Nisibis and Edessa. These supported him on the whole, but their advice did not, apparently, go beyond recommending a general reconciliation and submission to the see of Seleucia-Ctesiphon, on the ground that it would be for the good of the whole church that it should have a catholicos. This recommendation was carried out, all parties being a little ashamed of themselves. Papa was recognized as catholicos, with Shimun as colleague, cum jure successionis, and the right of the throne concerned to the primacy has never since been disputed. Papa survived these events for 12 years, and so was ruling during the council of Nicaea, though neither he nor any bishop of his jurisdiction (which did not then include Nisibis) was present at that gathering. Arianism passed by this church absolutely, and the fact is both a testimony to its isolation and a merciful dispensation. Church history might have been very different had that heresy found a national point d’appui.
Persecution of Sapor II.—Shimun succeeded Papa, and in his days the church had to face the terrible "forty years' persecution" of Sapor II. The acceptance of Christianity by the Roman empire meant terrible suffering for the church outside it, in that any outbreak of the secular rivalry of the two empires meant thereafter persecution for the church in one of them. This was inevitable, and the same dilemma exists to-day. Given a state professing a certain variety of militant religion (Zoroastrianism or Islam), how can loyalty to it be compatible with profession of the religion of its rivals? Constantine, like some Czars, liked playing the general protector of Christians; and Christians looked to him as naturally as, in the same land, they have since looked to Russia.
Thus, when Sapor made war on Constantius in 338, persecution commenced almost as a matter of course. Shimun the catholicos was one of the first victims, 100 priests and clerics suffering with him; and the struggle thus inaugurated continued until the death of Sapor in 378, in which time 16,000 martyrs, whose names are recorded, died for their faith.
This greatest of persecutions was not, of course, uniformly severe at all times in all provinces, and both it and others after it were rather the releasing of the "race-hatred" of Zoroastrianism against Christianity than the ordered process of law against a religio illicita. Thus, it resembled both in outline and detail the "Armenian massacres" of a later age. Clergy, of course, and celibates of both sexes, who were numerous, were specially marked, and so were the Christian inhabitants of the five provinces about Nisibis, when their surrender by the emperor Jovian in 363 handed them over to a notorious persecutor.
Practically, though not absolutely, the trial ended with the death of Sapor; but the exhausted church could do little to reorganize herself until a formal firman of toleration had been obtained. The influence of Theodosius II. secured this in 410 from the then shah-in-shah, Yezdegerd I.
Council of Isaac.—The church was then formally put into the position that it had, previously to the persecution, occupied practically: it was made a melet in the Persian state, under its catholicos, Isaac; it was allowed to hold a council, under his presidency and that of the Roman ambassador, Marutha; and it now for the first time accepted the Nicene Creed. Canons were also passed for the proper organization of the body, and some of these are based on Nicene rules. The church shewed its independence, however, by dealing very freely with the canons even of that council.
Seemingly, the council of Constantinople was accepted also at this time, but it was not thought to deserve special mention.
A period of rapid growth followed the enfranchisement and organization of the
church that had proved its power to endure, and 26 new sees were added in 15 years
to the 40 existing in 410, these including Merv, Herat, Seistan, and other centres
in central Asia. Internal troubles arose, however, caused by the quarrels of Christians,
and by their habit of "using pagan patronage"—i.e. applying to non-Christians
of influence—in order to escape censure, to gain promotion, etc. The habit was,
of course, destructive of all discipline. A council held in 420 to deal with this,
under the catholicos Yahb-Alaha, and another Roman ambassador, Acacius of Amida,
could only suggest the acceptance of the rules of several Western councils—Gangra,
Antioch, Caesarea—without considering whether rules adapted for the West would for
that reason suit the East. Persecution soon recommenced, Magian jealousy being stirred
by Christian progress, and raged for four years (420–424, mainly under Bahrain V.)
with terrible severity. As usual, a Perso-Roman war coincided with the persecution,
and the end of the one marked the end of the other also. With the return of peace
another council was allowed, the catholicos Dad-Ishu presiding. This man had suffered
much, both in the persecution and from the accusations of Christian enemies, and
was most anxious to resign his office. There was, however, a strong feeling among
Christians that their church must be markedly independent of "Western" Christianity
(i.e. that of the Roman empire), as too much connexion spelt persecution.
Thus they insisted that the catholicos should remain, and styled him also "patriarch,"
and specially forbade any appeal from him to "Western" bishops. The fact that Acacius
of Amida, though actually the guest of the king at the time, was not at the council
is another indication of
The Work of Bar-soma.—Another persecution fell on this much-tried church in 448, but otherwise we know little of its history till 480, when the Christological controversy reached it for the first time.
In the Roman empire at that period Chalcedon was past, and the Monophysite reaction that followed that council was at its height; the "Henoticon of Zeno" was the official confession, accepted by all the patriarchs of the empire with the exception of the Roman. The church in Persia, however, was emphatically "Dyophysite," and thus there was a theological force at work that hardened the independence already found necessary into actual separation.
The protagonist of the movement was Bar-soma of Nisibis, a very typical son of his nation; a quarrelsome and unscrupulous man, who yet had a real love both for his church and for learning. He was a favourite with the shah-in-shah, Piroz, who employed him as warden of the marches on the Romo-Persian frontier, and he was practically patriarch of the church. The real patriarch, Babowai, had just been put to death for supposedly treasonable correspondence with Rome, and Bar-soma had rather gone out of his way to secure that this prelate (his personal enemy) should not escape the consequences of his own imprudence. Bar-soma easily persuaded Piroz that it would be better that "his rayats" should have no connexion with the subjects of the Roman emperor, and under his influence a council was held at Bait Lapat, a "Dyophysite" (or perhaps Nestorian) confession published, and separation brought about. By another canon of this council marriage was expressly allowed to all ranks of the hierarchy.
Some say that the church was simply dragooned into heresy, but the mass of Christians seem to have at least acquiesced in the work of Bar-soma, and it must be remembered that they separated from a church that was Monophysite at the time. There was, moreover, a better side to the work of Bar-soma. He was a lover of learning, and when the imperial order brought the theological school at Edessa to an end (this had hitherto been the sole means of education open to sons of the "church of the East"), he took a statesman's advantage of the opportunity by founding at Nisibis a college that was a nursery of bishops to his church for 1,000 years.
Bar-soma's power ended with the death of Piroz (484), and Acacius became patriarch. His reign saw the breach with the "Westerns" healed more or less, as the council of Bait Lapat was repudiated (though the canon on episcopal marriage was allowed to stand) and another confession of faith was drawn up. This was not Nestorian, but was indefinite, designedly, and Acacius was received as orthodox during a visit to Constantinople, on condition of his anathematizing Bar-soma. As they were already at open feud on a minor matter, the patriarch readily agreed to this, but the memory of the schism was of evil omen for the future.
Mar Aba.—A period of confusion (490–540) followed. The whole country of Persia was disturbed by the communism preached by Mazdak, to which even the king, Kobad, was converted for a while. The strange movement was stamped out in blood, but it left indirect effects on the church, and Bar-soma also bequeathed them a bad tradition of quarrelsomeness. This culminated in an open schism in the patriarchate, lasting for 15 years, with open disorder in the whole church, a state of things that only terminated with the accession of Mar Aba to the patriarchate in 540.
Meantime, Monophysite supremacy in the Roman empire had ended with the accession of the emperor Justin in 518, and friendly relations between the church there and that in Persia had been resumed: the advantage had to be paid for by the latter, in that it implied a renewal of persecution.
Mar Aba, the greatest man in the series of patriarchs of the East, reformed the abuses in the church, going round from diocese to diocese with a "perambulatory synod," which judged every case on the spot with plenary authority—a precedent so excellent that it is surprising that it has never been followed. He was able to establish rules for the election of the patriarch which still hold good in theory, and founded schools and colleges (in particular, one at Seleucia), in addition to the one at Nisibis. His table of prohibited degrees in matrimony—a most necessary thing for Christians in a Zoroastrian land—is still the law of his church.
In his days the monastic life, which had wilted under Bar-soma and during the period of disorder, was revived, and was provided with a body of rules by Abraham of Kashkar, a pupil of Aba, while the friendship of the church in Persia with that in the empire led also (though dates are here rather uncertain) to the definite acceptance, by this "Nestorian" church, of the council of Chalcedon, which stands among the "Western synods" received by these "Easterns." This acceptance was certainly previous to 544.
Mar Aba's great work for his church was done in the teeth of great difficulties. He was a convert from Zoroastrianism, and as such was legally liable to be put to death, and therefore lived in daily peril from the Magians. The shah-in-shah, Chosroes I., would never allow his execution, but feared also to protect him efficiently, and for 7 of the 9 years of his tenure of office he was in prison, ruling his flock thence. Though he was released at last, and passed his last days in honour at court, there is no doubt that his sufferings hastened his death.
Position of the Church in the 6th Cent.—In the following half-century
(550–600) there was no special incident. A series of patriarchs of the three stock
eastern types (court favourite, respectable nonentity, and strict ascetic) ruled
the church, and the services were arranged much in their present form. In particular
the "Rogation of the Ninevites,"
The anomalous relation of the church in Persia with other parts of the Catholic church cannot be fitted into any defined theory. Several Christological confessions were issued by these so-called "Nestorians" which are certainly not unorthodox, and individual patriarchs were readily received to communion when they happened to visit Constantinople (e.g. Ishu-yahb, 585). Nevertheless, there was a growing estrangement, and a conviction on either side that the other was somehow wrong, which was strengthened as the church in Persia slowly realized that the man whom they called "the interpreter" par excellence, Theodore of Mopsuestia, had been condemned at Constantinople.
In Persia the church was a stationary melet, though beyond the frontier it was a missionary force among Arabs, Turks, and Chinese. It was numerous enough to make the king anxious not to offend it, the mercantile and agricultural classes being largely of the faith. On the other hand, the feudal seigneurs were very seldom of it, and soldiers practically never. In "the professions" doctors were generally Christian, and indeed are largely so to this day, while each faith had its own law and lawyers.
The clergy were usually married, but there was a growing feeling in favour of celibate bishops, though the law passed by Bar-soma was never repealed.
Monophysite Controversy.—The bulk of Persian Christians were Dyophysite in creed, but there was a Monophysite minority, organized under bishops (or a bishop) of their own, and including many monks. This body was recruited by the enormous "captivities" brought from Syria in 540 and 570. In 612 they were strong enough to make a daring and nearly successful attempt to capture the church hierarchy. The patriarchate was then vacant (Chosroes had been so annoyed by the substitution of another Gregory for the Gregory whom he had nominated to that office, that he had refused to allow any election when that man died in 608), and when petition was made for the granting of a patriarch, the Monophysites, whose interest at court was powerful, petitioned for the nomination of a man of their own. They had formidable supporters, for Shirin, the king's Christian wife, and Gabriel, his doctor, were both of that confession.
A deputation of Dyophysites came to court to endeavour to secure a patriarch of their own colour, and a most unedifying wrangle over the theological point followed, Chosroes sitting as umpire. Of course, neither side converted the other, but the occasion was important, for from it dates the employment of the Christological formula now used by this church, viz. "two Natures, two 'Qnumi,' and one Person in Christ," the repudiation of the term "Mother of God" as applied to the B.V.M., and the acceptance of the nickname "Nestorian" now given them by the Monophysites. Ultimately the Dyophysites saved themselves from the imposition of a Monophysite patriarch, at the cost of remaining without a leader till the death of Chosroes, and the Monophysites organized a hierarchy of their own.
During the long wars between Chosroes and Heraclius, and the anarchy that followed in Persia, the " Nestorian" church has naturally no recorded history, yet at their conclusion it was once more to have formal relations with the patriarchate and church of Constantinople.
Drift into Separation.— In the year 628 its patriarch, Ishu-yahb II., was sent as ambassador to Constantinople, and he was there asked to explain its faith, and was admitted as orthodox. He was, however, attacked on his return home, on suspicion of having made unlawful concessions, and not all the efforts of men like Khenana and Sahdona could shake the general conviction on each side that "those others" were somehow wrong. The two men named laboured to shew the essential identity, under a verbal difference, of the doctrines of the two churches, but the only visible result was the excommunication of both peacemakers.
Then the flood of Moslem conquest drifted the two churches apart, and the bulk of organized Monophysitism between them hid each from the other.
The separation of "Nestorians" from "orthodox" was a gradual process, commenced before 424, and hardly complete before 640. In that period, however, it was completed, and the "church of the East" commenced her marvellous medieval career in avowed schism from her sister of Constantinople. Whether her doctrine, then or at any time, was what the word "Nestorian" means to us, and what is the theological status of a church which accepts Nicaea, Constantinople, and Chalcedon, but rejects Ephesus, are separate and difficult questions. [MONOPHYSITISM; NESTORIUS (3).]
Authorities for the History of the Church.—History of Mshikha-zca. (ed. Mingana); Acta Sanct. Syr. (ed. Bedjan, 6 vols.); Hist. de Jabalaha et de trois patriarches nestoriens (Bedjan); Synodicon Orientale (ed. Chabot); Bar-hebraeus, Chron. Eccles. pt. ii.; John of Ephesus, Eccl. Hist. pt. iii. (Cureton); Amr and Sliba, Liber Turris; the Guidi Chronicle (ed. Noldeke); Zachariah of Mitylene (ed. Brooks); Socr., Soz., Theod., Evagr., Eccles. Histories; Book of Governors (Thomas of Marga, ed. Budge); Babai, de Unione (MS. only); Ishu-yahb III., Letters (ed. Duval); Tabari, Gesch. der Sassaniden (ed. Noldeke); Assemani, Bibl. Orient. iii.
Books and Pamphlets.— Labourt, Christianisme dens la Perse; Chabot, Ecole de Nisibe; De S. Isaaci vita; Duval, Histoire d’Edesse; Goussen, Martyrius-Sahdona; Hoffmann, Aussuge aus Syrische Martyrer; Bethune Baker, Nestorius and his Teaching; Wigram, Doctrinal Position of Assyrian Church; Introd. to Hist. of Assyrian Church; Rawlinson, Seventh Oriental Empire; Christiansen, L’Empire des Sassanides.
Nestorius (1), St. (Nestor), the first known bp. of Side in Pamphylia
Prima (Le Quien, i. 997), a martyr in the Decian persecution, a.d. 250. He was arrested
by the local Irenarch, required to sacrifice, and on refusing dispatched in charge
of two lictors to the court
Nestorius (3) and Nestorianism. One of the most far-reaching controversies in the history of the church is connected with the name of Nestorius, who became patriarch of Constantinople in A.D. 428, in succession to Sisinnius. So protracted has it been that even to the present day Nestorian churches, as they are called, exist in Assyria and India, and their members are not in communion with those of the other Christian churches in the East. The history of the form of thought which produced such far-reaching results must be interesting to every student of theology. Nestorius himself was brought up in the cloister, and had, as Neander remarks, imbibed the tendencies to narrowness, partisanship, impatience, and ignorance of mankind which are not unfrequently found among those who have been educated apart from their fellows. He was brought from Antioch, we are told—a fact of which the significance will presently be seen. He appears to have been eloquent and sincere, and his austerity of life had won for him the admiration of man. Socrates, a specially well-informed contemporary, and a layman of judgment and fairness, speaks with some severity of his first steps after he became patriarch (H. E. vii. 29). He is described as addressing the emperor (Theodosius II.) immediately after his appointment, "before all the people," with the words, "Give me, O prince, a country purged of heretics, and I will give you heaven as a recompense. Assist me in destroying heretics, and I will assist you in vanquishing the Persians." Such language was more enthusiastic than wise. It was no doubt pleasing to the multitude, but (Socr. l.c.) it made a very bad impression on thoughtful hearers. "Before he had tasted of the waters of the city," the historian proceeds, using a proverbial phrase, he had flung himself headlong into acts of violence and persecution. On the fifth day after his consecration, he resolved to destroy the oratory in which the Arians were wont to celebrate their worship, and thereby he not only drove them to desperation, but, as Socrates adds, he alienated thinking men of his own communion. He next attacked the Quartodecimans and the Novatianists with equal violence, although neither sect was involved in heresy by its schism from the church, and the Novatianists had steadily supported the church in its controversy with the Arians. He then turned his attention to the Macedonians. [MACEDONIUS.] For his treatment of this sect there is more excuse. The bp. of Germa, on the Hellespont, had treated them with such severity that, driven to desperation, they had sent two assassins to murder him. For this rash act they were deprived of their churches in Constantinople and the neighbourhood. It was at least unwise to convert the members of four "denominations," as we should now call them, into bitter antagonists, and it was not very long before an occasion arose for them to display their hostility.
The development of theology in Syria had for some time taken a different direction
from that which it had taken in Egypt, where the tendency had been to lay stress
on the divine, and therefore mysterious, side of Christianity. But in Syria a school
had arisen, of which Diodorus of Tarsus and the celebrated Theodore of Mopsuestia
were the leaders, which devoted itself to the critical interpretation of Scripture,
and favoured the application of logical investigation to the facts and doctrines
of Christianity. These two tendencies were certain some day to come into collision,
and when reinforced by the personal jealousy felt by successive patriarchs of Alexandria
at the elevation in 381 of Constantinople, as New Rome, to the second place among
the patriarchates, over the head of a church which could boast of St. Mark as its
founder, there was plenty of material for a conflagration. Already premonitions
of the approaching conflict between Alexandria and Constantinople had appeared in
the successful intrigues of THEOPHILUS,
patriarch of Alexandria, against the renowned JOHN
CHRYSOSTOM, patriarch of Constantinople.
The violence of Nestorius and his supporters set fire to the material already provided;
the immediate occasion being the sermon of a presbyter named Anastasius, whom Nestorius
had brought with him from Antioch, and in whom he reposed much confidence. Anastasius
is said to have used the words (Socr. H. E. vii. 32), "Let no man call Mary
θεοτόκος, for Mary was human, and it is impossible
that God could be born from a human being." This utterance naturally caused amazement
and distress, for the word θεοτόκος had been
applied to the Virgin by authorities as high as Origen, Athanasius, and Eusebius
of Caesarea, and it was insisted on with some vehemence by Gregory of Nazianzus.
It is also found in the letter of Alexander of Alexandria to Alexander of Constantinople.
[ARIUS.] Nestorius supported
his protégé, and delivered several discourses, in which he maintained the thesis
of his subordinate with ability and energy, and with some heat. He was promptly
charged with having involved himself in the heresies of Photinus or Paul of Samosata.
Socrates denies that this was the case. But he remarks on the unreasonable antipathy
of Nestorius to a word to which orthodox churchmen were well accustomed. This antipathy
may partly, perhaps, be explained by a dislike on the part of Nestorius to the tendency
to undue honour to the Virgin which had already displayed itself. But it was still
more due to the teaching of Theodore of Mopsuestia and his school, which had laid
undue stress on the humanity of Christ, and had not shrunk from representing the
inhabitation of the Man Christ Jesus by the Divine Logos as differing rather in
degree than
The ferment caused by these injudicious utterances spread far and wide, and soon reached Alexandria. Cyril, the patriarch, who had succeeded his uncle Theophilus, was by no means disinclined to lower the credit of a rival whose elevation he at once envied and despised. We must not suppose, however, that Cyril had no convictions of his own on the point, for, as Dorner very properly reminds us, he had already published his opinions on it. Not content, however, with assailing with rare theological ability the opinions of Nestorius, he condescended to less worthy expedients. Not only did he exaggerate and misrepresent the language of his antagonist, but he tried to involve him in charges of Apollinarianism [APOLLINARIS] and Pelagianism [PELAGIUS]. Theodore, from whom Nestorius had imbibed his theology, was in the most direct antagonism to Apollinaris, whose teaching, while insisting strongly on the Godhead of Christ, involved the denial of His Perfect Manhood. And the divines of all schools of thought in the East, in the opinion of the disciples of Augustine, were more or less tinged with Pelagianism. As Nestorius had shewn some kindness to Pelagians who had fled to him from the West, the accusation of Pelagianism suited Cyril's purpose.
Before entering into the history of the controversy, we must pause for a moment and endeavour to understand the questions involved, and the different aspects from which they were approached by the disputants. The Syrian school, as we have seen, approached these questions from the human side, and favoured inductive methods. The starting-point of Theodore was man, in the sphere of the visible and tangible. The starting-point of Cyril was God, in the sphere of the mysterious and unknown. The development (for of such a development Scripture unquestionably speaks) of the Manhood of Christ when inhabited by the Godhead seems to have been the prominent idea on the part of the Syrian school. It inquired whether the indwelling of the Godhead in Jesus Christ was one of Nature or simply of energy, and it undoubtedly leaned too much toward the assertion of a dual personality in Christ. The watchword (as Neander calls it) of the Alexandrians, on the other hand, was the ineffable and (to human reason) inconceivable nature of the inhabitation of the Man Christ Jesus by the Divine Logos. We must not forget that the Syrians, though not of course unacquainted with Greek, habitually thought in Syriac, and used a Syrian version of the Scriptures, which had been in existence in their churches in one form or another ever since the 2nd cent. The use of the term θεοτόκος had been approved by Theodore himself, under certain limitations, which makes the passionate protest of Nestorius against it the more unfortunate. Nestorius, unfortunately for himself, was not a clear thinker or reasoner, and was therefore no match for his antagonist Cyril. Great confusion, it should be remarked in passing, has been caused by the inaccurate translation of θεοτόκος into modern languages by the words Mother of God. Whether the soul of an infant is derived from its parents is an old and still debated question. But the term "mother" unquestionably involves in many minds the idea of transmission of essence, whereas the title θεοτόκος, as Theodoret does not fail to point out in his reply to Cyril's anathemas, simply means that she to whom it was applied was the medium through which a Divine Being was introduced into this world in human form. The controversy raised the question whether the term συνάφεια (connexion or conjunction) or ἕνωσις (union) were the better fitted to denote the nature of the relation between the Godhead and the Manhood in Christ. The Syrians inclined to the former, the Alexandrians to the latter. Some confusion of thought continued to exist about the use of the terms πρόσωτον and ὑπόστασις to signify what we in English express by the one inadequate word "person." These two Greek words [ARIUS, FOLLOWERS OF] were, from the council of Constantinople onward, usually understood to signify respectively the appearance, as regarded by one outside it, and the inward distinction, or, as Gregory of Nazianzus puts it, "speciality" (ιδιότης), which distinguishes one individual of a genus or species from another. But when the word ὑπόστασις is applied to the conditions of Being in God, the caution of our own Hooker is verb necessary (Eccl. Pot. V. lvi. 2), that the Divine Nature is itself unique. It seems pretty plain that even so clear a thinker as Cyril, in his defence of his anathemas as well as elsewhere, does not distinguish sufficiently between the use of the word ὑπόστασις at Nicaea, and the signification which had come to be attached to it in the first council of Constantinople. Nor should it be forgotten that though many modern divines are wont to represent Theodore of Mopsuestia as a dangerous heretic, he was rather, like Origen at an earlier period, a pioneer of theological inquiry [ARIUS], and that, like Origen, he lived and died m the communion of the church, though some of the propositions laid down by him were afterwards shewn to be erroneous. It may not be amiss to sum up these remarks on the question at issue in the words of Canon Bright, who certainly cannot be charged with undue tenderness for Nestorius, on the title θεοτόκος. "It challenged objection; it was open to misconstruction; it needed some theological insight to do it justice; it made the perception of the true issue difficult; it stimulated that 'cultus' which has now, in the Roman church, attained proportions so portentous."
History of the Controversy.—There was considerable ferment in Constantinople in
When John and the Syrian bishops arrived, they, though only between 30 and 40 in number, held a counter-synod, which was ridiculed by Cyril and his party for its great inferiority in numbers. John, however, persisted, alleging that the rest of the bishops were simply creatures of Cyril and Memnon. John's party then excommunicated Cyril and Memnon, posted up their sentence and transmitted their report to the emperor. A letter had meanwhile arrived from Celestine in condemnation of Nestorius. This letter was read by Cyril to the bishops of his party, but Nestorius replied that it had only been obtained by gross perversions of his language. Cyril now resorted to other means of attaining his purpose. He endeavoured to gain over the emperor, a task which was only too easy. He contrived to bring the ladies of the court, including Pulcheria, over to his side. To attain this end, there is evidence extant—though Canon Bright has failed to notice it—(in a letter from Epiphanius, Cyril's archdeacon and syncellus, to the patriarch Maximian, see below), that he made a lavish use of money and presents of other kinds. He also stirred up the monks at Constantinople to tumult through an agent of his, one Dalmatius, who had immured himself in his cell for 48 years, and was in high repute for his ascetic practices. Dalmatius now represented himself as drawn from his retirement by a voice from heaven, in order to rescue the church from the peril of heresy. A torchlight procession to the emperor was organized. The excitement in Constantinople was general. The emperor was terrified at the furious riots which broke out, in which many persons were injured. So the influence of the court was now openly exerted in favour of Cyril, and the Oriental bishops began to waver. Nestorius himself lost heart. Even at the council he had gone so far as to say, "Let Mary be called θεοτόκος, and let all this tumult cease." He had throughout been less illiberal than his antagonists, and he was probably terrified at their violent and unscrupulous proceedings. He may also have discovered, when it was too late, that he had rushed into controversy without having been sufficiently sure of his ground. Therefore although a deputation of 8 bishops from each side were sent to Constantinople, the result was a foregone conclusion. A compromise was arrived at. Cyril and Memnon were reinstated in their sees. John of Antioch signed a condemnation of Nestorius, while Cyril consented in 432 to sign an Antiochene formulary which had been submitted by Theodoret to the Syrian bishops at Ephesus and was afterwards transmitted to the emperor. It is worth noting that this formulary contains the ἔνωσις φυσική (see above), but guards it by a definite assertion of both the divinity and humanity of Christ. The sentence on Nestorius was carried out. He was deposed, and Maximian became patriarch in his stead, but soon died, and was succeeded by Proclus, the old antagonist of Nestorius. The controversy continued to rage, Rabbulas, bp. of Edessa, went so far as to attack Theodore of Mopsuestia, and raised a storm of opposition in the East by so doing. Cyril, writing to Acacius of Melitene (not to be confounded with the aged Acacius of Beroea), declared that though it was possible theoretically (ἐν ἐννοίαις) to conceive of the two natures in Christ as distinct, yet after their union in His Person they became but one nature. This doctrine, essentially Monophysite as it was, he did not scruple to attribute to his Syrian opponents in order to magnify the concessions he made to them (Neander, iv. p. 176). Meanwhile Theodoret still held out, though he offered to condemn those who denied the divinity of Christ, or divided Him into two Sons. And he implored John of Antioch and count (comes) Irenaeus, a friend of the emperor, to accept the word θεοτόκος. But he maintained that to condemn Nestorius would be unjust. Yet even he had become weary of the controversy, and was at last prevailed upon to exert himself in favour of a reconciliation. He had great difficulty in bringing over the Oriental bishops. So he went so far as to beseech Nestorius to yield for the sake of peace. It has been felt that the extent to which he carried his submission has left a stain on his otherwise high character. In his Commentary on the Psalms (written c. 433) he calls Nestorius δυσσέβης, and a worshipper of a foreign and new God, and classes his followers with Jews, Arians, and Eunomians; but he earnestly begged that the venerable age of Nestorius might be exempt from violence or cruelty, and besought the patriarch John to use his influence to prevent this; and [MONOPHYSITISM] he retrieved by his later conduct his reputation for courage and impartiality.
John, however, was not to be softened. He had thrown his influence on the side
of the court, and he was determined to persevere in his policy. Nestorius was banished
to a convent just outside the gates of Antioch, and Meletius of Mopsuestia, Alexander
of Hierapolis, and Helladius of Tarsus, strong supporters of the school of Theodore,
were involved in the fate of Nestorius. In 435 it was thought that Nestorius was
nearer the patriarch of Antioch than was convenient, so his exile to Petra in Arabia
was decreed, though he was actually taken to Egypt instead. An assault was made
on his place of residence by a horde of Libyan barbarians, who carried him off.
When released, he made his way to the Thebaid, and gave himself up to the prefect,
begging for kindness and protection. This modest request was not granted. He was
dragged about from place to place, with every sign of contempt and hatred. The historian
Evagrius, who loses no opportunity of loading
Though his enemies might remove him from this world, they could not so easily destroy his influence. The extent of his error had been much exaggerated. His opponents went ultimately to greater extremes than he had ever done, though it must be confessed that his utterances were often ill-considered, as when he denied without qualification that the Son could be said to have suffered. For the history of the immediate results of their victory see MONOPHYSITISM. Cyril, in his Ep. to Acacius of Melitene, had, before his death in 444, committed himself to the doctrine that the two natures (φύσεις) of Christ became one after the union had been effected. This doctrine, in the days of his successor, brought about a strong reaction in favour of the Syrian interpretation of the word θεοτόκος. Meanwhile the party of Nestorius was very rigorously treated by the emperor. In 435 laws were enacted ordaining that the Nestorians should be called Simonians (their own name for themselves was Chaldeans); that the writings of Nestorius should be burnt; that all bishops who defended his opinions should be deposed; punishments were decreed against any one who should copy, keep, or even read his writings or those of his supporters; and all meetings of Nestorians for public worship were rigorously proscribed.
The after-history of Nestorianism is extremely interesting, but cannot be treated in detail here. The rigorous measures above mentioned were fiercely resisted in Syria and Babylonia, and when Rabbulas sought to prohibit the reading of the works of Diodorus and Theodore, the Nestorian teachers crossed the border into Persia. Barsumas, bp. of Nisibis from 435 to 489, did much to spread Nestorianism in the far East, and his work received an additional impulse from the policy of the emperor Zeno, who persecuted Nestorians and Monophysites alike. [MONOPHYSITISM.] Thence Nestorianism spread to Chaldea, India, and even China. It has even been stated that there was a time when the disciples of Nestorius outnumbered the members of all the other communions in the Christian church. Of the progress of Nestorianism in China there can be no doubt, for the Jesuits found a monument there, recording the fact. Their statement has been disputed, but it is hardly likely that they would have pretended to have made a discovery which tended to glorify what they regarded as a deadly heresy. The Nestorian doctrines, however, in the extreme form they assumed when interpreted by their later exponents, did not contain the "seeds of eternity." The spread of Mohammedanism ultimately destroyed the once flourishing Nestorian churches outside the limits of the Roman empire, though the Arab caliphs, as distinguished from the Turks, shewed them some favour. At present only a few down-trodden communities in Assyria (to the assistance of which the Anglican church has lately sent a mission), and the so-called Christians of St. Thomas on the Malabar coast, remain to represent the church once dominant in the far East. The latter were harassed and all but destroyed in the 16th cent. by Portuguese Romanists, with the aid of the Inquisition; and the object of the Anglican mission to the struggling churches of Assyria—a purely educational one—has been very seriously hindered by the political protection promised, and often afforded, by Roman Catholic powers on the one hand, and by adherents of the Orthodox Russian church on the other. [NESTORIAN CHURCH.]
The revival of the persecution of the Nestorian churches still existing in the Eastern empire in the reign of Justinian (527–565) must be briefly mentioned. The empress Theodora favoured Monophysitism; the emperor inclined to the doctrines of Origen. The two parties, after having been in conflict for some years, agreed to put an end to their mutual hostility, and to turn their efforts against the remnant of the Nestorians. In 544 Justinian issued an edict against what were called the Three Chapters, a series of extracts from the writings of Theodore, Theodoret, and Ibas. This step led to a prolonged controversy, which in 547 brought Vigilius, bp. of Rome, to Constantinople. Justinian ordered him to take an oath condemning the Three Chapters. He consented to do this, but afterwards retracted his consent. In 551 the relations between Vigilius and the emperor had become so strained that the former, who had for some time been detained in Constantinople, was compelled to take sanctuary in a church. A council, known as the fifth oecumenical council, was summoned at Constantinople, in which the Three Chapters were condemned. Vigilius refused to submit to the decision on the grounds (1) that Theodore had died in full communion with the church, and (2) that the doctrines of Theodoret and Ibas had been approved by the council of Chalcedon. He afterwards yielded to pressure, submitted to the decrees of the council, and was released from captivity, but died on his way back to Rome. This was the last attack on Nestorianism on the part of members of the Christian church. As in the original controversy, a strong reaction followed, and Monotheletism, an offshoot of MONOPHYSITISM, was condemned at another council held at Constantinople, and Nestorianism henceforth ceased to attract the attention of the rulers of the Catholic church.
Bibliography.—Of contemporary writers the historians Socrates and Evagrius
may be mentioned. The former is thoughtful, impartial, and generally accurate, and
his History was published while Nestorius was still living. Evagrius published
his History in the 12th year of the reign of the emperor
[Since these words were written, the Editor has called the attention of the writer to a work by Mr. Bethune-Baker, entitled Nestorius and his Teaching, pub. in 1908. It is strange that the discovery which it has made public has not elicited the enthusiasm which greeted the previous discoveries of the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles and the Apology of Aristides. It is nothing less than a resurrection of Nestorius from the dead to plead his cause before a fairer tribunal than that which pronounced upon him when living. A treatise has lately come to light called the Bazaar (or more properly Emporium or Store, i.e. a collection of merchandize) of Heracleides. This treatise appears to have been written in Greek, and translated into Syriac. It is this Syrian translation which has recently been recovered. The work is evidently that of the patriarch Nestorius himself, and its somewhat strange title is explained by the fact that all copies of the works of Nestorius were ordered to be seized and destroyed. The treatise has a peculiar interest for us, because it shews, as Mr. Bethune-Baker puts it, and as has been suggested in the above article, that "Nestorius was not a Nestorian." Thus the doctrinal decision reached at Ephesus is vindicated, while its personal application to the patriarch himself is shewn to be unfair. In his preface Mr. Bethune-Baker expresses the same respect for the decisions of the four great oecumenical councils which has been expressed by the writer in his summary of their general doctrinal bearing at the end of the art. MONOPHYSITISM—namely, that they were "more likely to give us a true theory of the relation between God and man than are the reflexions of any individual thinker or school of theologians." They do this because they" express the communis sensus fide licun," and "their decisions need to be confirmed by subsequent acceptance by the church as a whole."]
Nicarete (Νικαρέτη), a lady of one of the noblest and richest families of Nicomedia, who devoted herself to perpetual virginity in connexion with the church of Constantinople. She was warmly attached to Chrysostom and was punished for her devotion to his cause by the confiscation of most of her property in the troubles that followed his expulsion. She was then advanced in life and had a large household dependent on her, but managed her lessened resources with such economy that she had enough for their wants and her own, and also to give largely to the poor. Skilled in the compounding of medicines, she often succeeded in curing where physicians failed. Her humility and self-distrust would never allow her to become a deaconess, and she declined the office of lady superior of the consecrated virgins when Chrysostom earnestly pressed it on her. She retired from Constantinople to avoid the persecution in 404 (Soz. H. E. viii. 23).
Nicetas (3) (Niceta, Nicaeas, Niceas, Nicias), bp. of Romaciana (Remesiana) in Dacia. Our knowledge of him is derived from the epistles and poems (Nos. 17 and 24) of Paulinus of Nola, whom he visited, A.D. 398 and 402. He was probably a native of. Dacia. He evangelized the Scythae, Getae, Daci, Bessi, and Riphaei, but settled specially among the Daci, reducing the wild manners of the barbarians to meekness and honesty. He was noted for eloquence and learning, honoured by the Romans when he visited them, and specially beloved by Paulinus at Nola, but we cannot define the extent of his see or the dates of his episcopate. Boll. Acta SS. Jan. i. 365, and Jun. iv. 243; Tillem. H. E. x. 263 seq.; Fleury, H. E. xxi. c. 31; Ceill. Aut. Sacr. v. 458; viii. 84. For the latest view of the subject of this art. see Burn, Niceta of Remesiana, his Life and Works (Camb. Univ. Press).
Nicetius (3) (Nicet, Nicesse), St., 25th archbp. of Trèves,
c. 527–566. In his day the bishop was already beginning to pass into the baron,
and Nicetius was a territorial lord (Freeman, Augusta Treverorum, Histor. Essays,
3rd ser. p. 111). Our principal knowledge of him is from Gregory of Tours, who received
his information from St. Aredius, an abbat of Limoges, Nicetius's disciple (Vitae
Patrum, c. xvii.). At Trèves his position was a difficult one. The Franks around
him were little else than barbarians, rioting in licence, and scarcely more than
nominal converts to Christianity. Their respect Nicetius won by personal asceticism,
an inflexible temper and fearless demeanour in the face of the strong, activity
in good works, and uncompromising orthodoxy (ib.). He used excommunication
freely against princes and nobles in cases of oppression or flagrant immorality
(cf. Rettberg, Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands, i. 462–464). His orthodoxy
is illustrated by two extant letters: one from him to Clodosinda, the wife of Alboin
the Lombard, urging her to turn her husband to Catholicism; the other to the emperor
Justinian, whose lapse in his latter days into a form of Eutychianism, Nicetius
declares, is lamented by all Italy,
Nicolaitanes. The mention of this name in the Apocalypse (see Murray's
Illus. B. D. s.v.) has caused it to appear in almost all lists of heresies;
but there is no trustworthy evidence of the continuance of a sect so called after
the death of St. John. Irenaeus in writing his great work used a treatise against
heresies by Justin Martyr; and that Justin's list began with Simon Magus and made
no mention of Nicolaitanes may be conjectured from the order in which Irenaeus discusses
the heresies, viz. Simon, Menander, Saturninus, Basilides, Carpocrates, Cerinthus,
the Ebionites, the Nicolaitanes. So late a place is inconsistent with chronological
order, and the most plausible explanation is that Irenaeus followed the order of
an older list, and added the Nicolaitanes to it. About them he has nothing to say
(I. xxvi. 3) but what he found in the Apocalypse; for the words "qui indiscrete vivunt,"
which alone have the appearance of an addition, seem only an inference from
Stephen Gobar (cf. Phot. Bibl. 232) says that Hippolytus and Epiphanius
make Nicolas the deacon of
Nicolaus (1), bp. of Myra in Lycia at the time of Diocletian's persecution, and one of the most popular saints both in the East and West. His Acts, which may embody some historical elements, are filled with well-known legends and miracles. He is said to have been present at the council of Nice, where he waxed so indignant with Arius that he inflicted a box on the heretic's ear. Dean Stanley (Eastern. Church, pp. 110, 132) represents Nicolaus as occupying the central place in all traditional pictures of the council. Tozer in his notes to Finlay's Hist. of Greece, t. i. p. 124, observes that Nicolaus has taken the place of Poseidon in Oriental Christianity. Thus, in the island of Eleüssa, a temple of Poseidon has been changed into the church of St. Nicolaus. In England 376 churches are dedicated to him. His feast-day was formerly connected in Salisbury Cathedral, Eton, and elsewhere with the curious ceremonial of choosing a boy-bishop, who presided till the following Innocents' Day over his fellow-choristers, arrayed in full episcopal attire (cf. Antiq. of Cath. Church of Salisbury, A.D. 1723, pp. 72–80, where the ritual of the feast is given). We can trace his fame back to the 6th cent., when Justinian built a church in his honour at Constantinople (Procop. de Aedif. i. 6). His relics were translated in the middle ages to Barri in Italy, whence he is often styled Nicolaus of Barri. His Acts are given at length in Surii, Hist. Sanct., and his legends and treatment in art in Jameson's Sacred Art, t. ii. p. 450. The figure of St. Nicolaus is a leading one in the celebrated Blenheim Raphael in the National Gallery.
Nilus (3), a famous ascetic of Sinai, probably born in Galatia, as he
speaks of St. Plato martyr of Ancyra as his countryman. He became prefect at Constantinople,
married, and had two children, when he determined c. 390 to retire to Sinai
with his son Theodulus. His epistles are very curious, detailing assaults by demons,
and replying to various queries, doctrinal, disciplinary, and even political. Gainas,
the Gothic general, discussed with him the Arian controversy, but without changing
his opinions (Epp. lib. i. 70, 79, 114). Nilus boldly took the side of St.
Chrysostom when banished from Constantinople in 404. The story of his ordination
is a curious one. The Saracens invaded the desert of Sinai and captured some of
the solitaries, including Nilus and Theodulus. They dismissed Nilus and the older
men but retained the young men, intending to offer them next day as sacrifices to
the Morning Star. They overslept themselves, however, and then, as the propitious
time was past, sold Theodulus, who fell into the hands of a neighbouring bishop.
There he was found by his father. The piety of both so struck the bishop that he
compelled them to accept ordination. They returned to Sinai, and distinguished themselves
by a yet severer piety. Nilus died c.
[G.T.S.]
Ninian, British missionary bishop. The general facts of his life and work present comparatively few points for dispute, there being but one tradition, and that not materially departed from.
The primary authority is Bede (H. E. iii. 4), who, however, only incidentally alludes to St. Ninian in connexion with St. Columba, yet touches therein the chief points embodied in the later Life—his converting the southern Picts a long time before St. Columba's day, his being "de natione Brittonum," but instructed in the Christian faith and mysteries at Rome; his friendship with St. Martin of Tours, in whose honour he dedicated his episcopal see and church at Candida Casa in the province of the Bernicii, and his building the church there of stone "insolito Brittonibus more" (M. H. B. 176). This is repeated in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle a.d. 565 (ib. 303). Ailred's Vita S. Niniani seems little more than an expansion of these details, but whether he, in the 12th cent., had authentic evidence of an earlier date to assist him we do not know, except that he specially refers to Bede's information and also to a "liber de vita et miraculis ejus, barbario [barbarice] scriptus," of the value of which we are ignorant. The chief Life is Vita Niniani Pictorum Australium apostoli, auctore Ailredo Reivallensi, first printed by Pinkerton (Vit. Ant. SS. 1 seq. ed. 1789) and reprinted with trans. and notes, by Bp. Forbes (Historians of Scotland, vol. v. 1874). (See also Hardy, Descript. Cat. i. 44 seq. 853; Bp. Forbes, Lives of SS. Kent. and Nin. Introd.; Grub, Eccl. Hist. Scot. i. c. 2 et al.; Skene, Celt. Scot. ii. 3, 444; Haddan and Stubbs, Counc. i. 14, 35; Pinkerton, Enquiry, ii. 263 seq.; Pryce, Anc. Brit. Ch. 104 seq.)
Ailred's Life is of the usual unhistoric character, fuller of moralizings than of facts. and having only one fixed point to suggest a date. St. Ninian was of royal birth and belonged to the valley of the Solway; his father was probably a regulus in the Cumbrian kingdom, and, being a Christian, had his son baptized. The youth soon manifested a desire to visit Rome, and appears to have reached it in the time of pope Damasus (a.d. 366–384), perhaps in 370. After devoting several years there to the Scriptures and holy learning, he was raised to the episcopate, a.d. 394, by the pope himself, probably Siricius (a.d. 385–399) and sent as bp. to the W. of Britain, where the Gospel was unknown, corrupted, or misrepresented by the teachers. Calling on St. Martin at Tours and receiving from him masons to build churches according to the Roman method, he returned to his native shores and built his church at Witerna, now Whithern in Wigtonshire, but whether near the site of the later abbey or on the island near the shore is uncertain. While building the church the news reached him of St. Martin's death (a.d. 397), in whose honour he dedicated it; this at the latest must have been in the spring of 398. We have no other landmark for ascertaining his dates. The chief field of his missionary labours was in the central district of the E. of Scotland among those barbarians who had defied the Roman power in the days of Agricola and who were separated from the Roman province of Valentia by the rampart of Antoninus; but the veneration attached to his name is shown by his dedications being found over all Scotland. (See Bp. Forbes, Kals. 424.)
His monastic school, known variously as Magnum Monasterium, Monasterium Rosnatense, Alba, and Candida Casa, was famous through Cumbria and Ireland, and was one of the chief seats of early Christian learning to which Welsh and Irish saints resorted, till both school and see were destroyed by the irruptions of the Britons and Saxons. The see was revived for a time in the 8th cent., under Saxon influence from York (Haddan and Stubbs, Counc. ii. pt. i. 7, 8, 56 seq.; Stubbs, Reg. Sac. Ang. 184 et al.), to be again restored in the 12th cent. by King David I. of Scotland. The date usually assigned for his death, though on no definite data, is Sept. 16, 432, and Bede (H. E. iii. c. 4) says he was buried in his church at Candida Casa, which in the middle ages became much frequented by pilgrims.
Noetus, a native of Smyrna according to
Nomus, a leading personage at Constantinople in the latter years of Theodosius II., with whom he was all-powerful— τὰ τῆς οἰκουμένης ἐν χερσὶν ἔχων πράγματα (Labbe, Concil. iv. 407). Nomus filled in succession all the highest offices in the state. In 443 he was "magister officiorum" (Cod. Theod. Nov. p. 14, 1); consul in 445; patrician in 449, the year of the infamous "Latrocinium." He was the confidential friend of Chrysaphius the eunuch and shared with him the government of the emperor and the empire. Through them Dioscorus of Alexandria and the Eutychian doctrines he supported were brought into favour at court. Through Nomus the feeble Theodosius was induced to publish a decree in 448 confining Theodoret to his own diocese. The interesting series of letters, to the principal men of the empire, in which Theodoret, while observing the mandate, protested against its arbitrary character, contains several addressed to Nomus. With the death of Theodosius and the accession of Marcian and Pulcheria, Nomus's power sensibly waned. He took, however, a leading position as a high state official at the council of Chalcedon (Labbe, iv. 77, 475, etc.), where a libel or petition against him was presented by a nephew of Cyril, Athanasius by name, a presbyter of Alexandria, accusing him of violence and extortion which had reduced Athanasius and his relatives to beggary and caused his brother to die of distress (ib. 407–410).
Nonna (1), mother of Gregory Nazianzen; a lady of good birth, the child of Christian parents, Philtatius and Gorgonia, brought up in the practice of the Christian virtues, of which she was so admirable an example. Her son describes in glowing terms the holiness of her life and the beautiful conformity of all her actions to the highest standards of Christian excellence. To her example, aided by her prayers, he ascribes the conversion of his father from the strange medley of paganism and Christianity which formed the tenets of the Hypsistarian sect, to which by birth he belonged (Greg. Naz. Or. ii, 19; Carm. 1, 2). We know of two other children of the marriage, a sister named Gorgonia, probably older than Gregory, and a brother named Caesarius. Nonna's death probably occurred on Aug. 5 (on which day she is commemorated both by the Greek and Latin churches) in 374 (Orat. 19, p. 315; Carm. 1, p. 9). Tillem. Mém. eccl. t. ix. pp. 309–311, 317, 318, 322, 385, 397.
Nonnus (2) of Panopolis. The name is very common, being properly an Egyptian title equivalent to Saint. Consequently confusion has arisen between this writer and others of the same name. He has been identified, with some probability, with a Nonnus whose son is mentioned by Synesius (Ep. ad Anastas. 42, ad Pyl. 102); and, with very little probability, with the deacon Nonnus, secretary at the council of Chalcedon, a.d. 452; with Nonnus, the bp. of Edessa, elected at the synod of Ephesus, a.d. 449; and with Nonnus the commentator on Gregory Nazianzen (vide Bentley, Phalaris, ad in.).
Life.— He was a native of Panopolis in Egypt; cf. Eudoxia, s.v.
Agathias, iv. p. 128; and an epigram in Anth. Graeca, i. p. 140. He is classed
by Agathias among οἱ νέοι ποιηταί, and this,
supported by a comparison of his poems with other late epic writers, makes it probable
that he wrote at the end of the 4th and beginning of the 5th cents. a.d. Beyond
this nothing is known for certain. His Dionysiaca shews frequently a knowledge
of astronomy (cf. vi. 60; xxv.; xxxviii. 4), and a special interest in Berytus (xli.),
Tyre (xl.), and Athens (xlvii.), but whether from a personal acquaintance with these
towns is uncertain.
Works.— Of his literary position it is possible to speak with more certainty. He was the centre, if not the founder, of the literary Egyptian school, which gave to Greek epic poetry a new though short-lived brilliancy, and to which belonged Quintus of Smyrna, John of Gaza, Coluthus, Tryphiodorus, and Musaeus. This school revived the historical and mythological epic, treating it in a peculiar style of which Nonnus is the best representative. While frequently proclaiming himself an imitator of Homer, and shewing traces of the influence of Callimachus and later writers, he yet created new metrical rules, which gave an entirely new effect to the general rhythm of the poem—that of an easy but rather monotonous flow, always pleasant, but never rising or falling with the tone of the narrative. The style is very florid, marked by a luxuriance of epithets and original compounds (often of very arbitrary formation), elaborate periphrasis, and metaphors often piled together in hopeless confusion; and many unusual forms are invented.
The Dionysiaca attributed to Nonnus by Agathias (u.s.) is a history of the birth, conquests and apotheosis of Dionysus, spun out at great length. The poem has been regarded "as an allegory of the march of civilization across the ancient world"; but it would be simpler, and we hope truer, to describe it as "the gradual establishment of the cultivation of the vine and the power of the Wine-god."
The chief modern editions of the Dionysiaca are Graefe (1819–1826); Passow (1834); Le Comte de Marcellus, with interesting introduction, French. trans. and notes, in Didot's Bibl. Graeca (1856); Köchly with apparatus criticus (1857), cf. Ouwarow (1817); Köhler, Ueber die Dion. des Nonnus (1853).
The Paraphrase (Μεταβολή) of St. John's Gospel, attributed to Nonnus by Eudocia (Viol. 311) , is a fairly faithful paraphrase of the whole of the Gospel. The text of the Gospel that lies behind the paraphrase has been reproduced by R. Jannsen (Texte und Untersuchungen, N. F. viii. 4, 1903). The text is faithfully treated. The omissions, except when he has MSS. authority (e.g. v. 1, 4, vii. 53 sqq.), are rare (v. 1, 29, iv. 27, 41, 42, vi. 41, 53, viii. 38, xviii 16, 18). The additions are chiefly those of poetical expansion. Homeric epithets form a strange medley with the Palestinian surroundings, and in many cases the illustrations are drawn out into insipid details (cf. iv. 26, vii. 21, xviii. 3, xx. 7). At other times we have interpretations suggested, in most of which he agrees with the Alexandrine tradition as represented by Cyril and Origen cf. i. 16, 24, 42 (Peter's name); vi. 71 (the motive of Judas); vii. 19 (the reference to the sixth commandment); viii. 40 (the hospitality of Abraham); xii. 6, 10; xviii. 15 (ἰχθυβόλου παρὰ τέχνης); xix. 7. In some he seems obviously wrong, e.g. ii. 12 (δυωδεκάριθμος); ii. 20, x. 12 (the reference to Solomon); vii. 28 (ὐψῶν); xi. 44, σουδάριον explained as a Syrian word; while in ii. 4, τί μοι γύναι ἠὲ καὶ αὐτῇ looks like an attempt to avoid a slight to her who is constantly called Θεοτόκος. He shews, too, a looseness in using theological terms (cf. i. 3, μύθος; 1, 50, xi. 27, λόγος) which, with the luxuriance of periphrasis, forms a striking contrast to the simplicity and accuracy of St. John. The chief modern editions are Passow (1834); Le Comte de Marcellus, with French trans. and notes (1860); A. Scheindler (1881), with text of the Gospel and criticus apparatus; Migne, vol. xliii. (with the notes of Heinsius and of Le Comte de Marcellus); Mansi, Bibl. Patr. vi. (ed. 1618), ix. (ed. 1677). See also a series of arts. in Wiener Studien for 1880–1881 and Theolog. Literaturzeitung, 1891, where the authorship is attributed to Apollinaris.
Novatianus and Novatianism (Novatianus; Cyprian, Ep.
xliv.; Νοουάτος, Eus. H. E. vi. 43;
Ναυάτος, Socr. H. E. iv. 28. Lardner
(Credibility, c. 47, note) seeks to prove that Eusebius and the Greeks in
general were correct in calling the Roman presbyter Novatus, not Novatianus. He
attributes the origin of the latter name to Cyprian, who called the Roman presbyter
Novatianus, as being a follower of his own rebellious priest, Novatus of Carthage.
Novatian, the founder of Novatianism, is said by Philostorgius to have been a Phrygian
by birth, a notion which may have originated in the popularity of his system in
Phrygia and its neighbourhood (Lightfoot's Colossians, p. 98). He was, before
his conversion, a philosopher, but of what sect we cannot certainly determine, though
from a comparison of the language of Cyprian in Ep. lv. § 13, ad Antonian.,
with the Novatianist system itself, we should be inclined to say the Stoic. The
circumstances of his conversion and baptism are stated by pope Cornelius in his
letter to Fabius of Antioch (Eus. l.c.), but we must accept his statements
with much caution. His narration is evidently coloured by his feelings. The facts
of the case appear to be these. He was converted after he had come to manhood, and
received clinical baptism, but was never confirmed, which furnishes Cornelius with
one of his principal accusations. He was, nevertheless, admitted to the clerical
order. His talents, especially his eloquence, to which even Cyprian witnesses (Ep.
lx. 3), rapidly brought him to the front, and he became the most influential presbyter
of the Roman church. In this character, the see being vacant, he wrote Ep.
xxx. to the Carthaginan church, touching the treatment of the lapsed, while the
anonymous author of the treatise against Novatian, written a.d. 155 and included
by Erasmus among Cyprian's
Novatianism.— The members of this sect called themselves Καθαροί (Eus. H. E. vi. 43). They were called by others Novatiani (Pacian. Ep. i. § 1).
Novatianism was the first great schism in the church on a pure question of discipline. In Montanism questions of discipline were involved as side issues, but did not constitute its essential difference. All sects previous to Novatianism had erred on the doctrine of the Trinity. The Novatianists alone were orthodox thereupon. The church therefore baptized even Montanists, but admitted Novatianists by imposition of hands (Conc. Laodic. can. vii. viii.; Hefele, Councils, ed. Clark, t. ii. 303, 332 ; Conc. CP. can. vii. in Hefele, l.c.; Pitra, Jur. Eccles. Graec. Hist. i. 430, 576).
The principles which Novatian formulated into a system, and to which he gave
a name, existed and flourished long before him. The origin of the Novatianist schism
must be sought in the struggle which, originating with the Shepherd of Hermas
(Baur, Church Hist. trans. Menzies, 1879, t. ii. p. 50 note; cf. Ritschl,
Entstehung der Altkath. Kirche, 2nd ed. p. 529), had been raging at Rome
for 70 years, at first with the Montanists and the followers of Tertullian, and
then between Hippolytus and Callistus. Every one of the distinctive principles of
Novatianism will be found advocated by some or all of them (Baur, l.c. p.
270, note). The Montanists rejected the lapsed, and in fact all guilty of mortal
sins, Tertullian rejected second marriages, as also did the strict discipline of
the 2nd cent. (Ambr. de Viduis, c. ii.; Lumper, Hist. SS. PP. iii.
95; de S. Athenag.; Aug. Ep. ad Julian. de Viduit.). Hippolytus
held, in a great degree, the same stern views. This identity in principle between
Montanism and
The principal extant controversial works against the sect beside those of Cyprian
are the epistles of St. Pacian of Barcelona, the de Poenitentia of St. Ambrose,
and the Quaestiones in Nov. Testam. No. cii. wrongly attributed to St. Augustine
and found in the Parisian Ben. ed. t. iii. pars. ii. 2942–2958, assigned by the
editor to Hilary the deacon who lived under pope Damasus. The work of Pacian contains
many interesting historical notices of the sect. From it we find they refused to
the Catholics the name of a church, calling them Apostaticum, Capitolinum,
or Synedrium, and, on their own behalf, rejected the name Novatianists and
styled themselves simply Christians (Ep. ii. § 3). The following were some
of the texts relied on by them, to the consideration of which the writers on the
Catholic side applied themselves:
Novatus (1), presbyter of Carthage, seems to have been an original opponent of Cyprian's election, but is first mentioned by him in Ep. xiv. § 5, with three other presbyters—Donatus, Fortunatus, and Gordius—as having written about some question to Cyprian then in retirement. This was, doubtless, touching the request of the confessors, to have peace granted to certain of the lapsed which, in Ep. 1., Cyprian refuses until he has consulted the presbyters and faithful laity. Cyprian reproves certain presbyters, evidently Novatus and his companions, who, "considering neither the fear of God nor the honour of the bishop," had already granted peace to the lapsed. In Ep. xliii, writing to the church of Carthage, he compares Novatus and his associates to the five chief commissioners entrusted with the conduct of the persecution, and, as it seems, intimates that they threatened to raise a riot upon his appearance from his place of retirement. In Ep. lii. 3 Cyprian, writing to Cornelius, gives a very bad character of Novatus. Cyprian's feelings may have here coloured his judgment, as such a bishop as he was could scarcely have tolerated such a bad man in the presbyterate. Cyprian describes Novatus as having made his follower Felicissimus a deacon, and then "at Rome committing greater and more grievous crimes. He who at Carthage made a deacon against the church, there made a bishop," i.e. that he brought about the ordination of both the deacon and bishop. Ep. xliii. 2 proves that Cyprian's wrath was, however, specially stirred by some anti-episcopal innovations of Novatus and his party. After the consecration of Novatian, Novatus was sent by him to organize his party in Africa (Cyp. Ep. 1.). After this he disappears from sight. Cf. Dr. Pusey's note upon him, appended to Cyprian, Ep. lii. in Oxf. Lib. of Fathers. Milman, Lat. Christ. t. i. pp. 60–62 (ed. Lond. 1867).
O
Oceanus, a Roman of noble birth, connected with Fabiola and the Julian family; a friend of Jerome, Augustine, and Pammachius. He probably became known to Jerome during his stay in Rome in 383–385. He first appears as making a public protest against Carterius, a Spanish bp. who, having married before his baptism and lost his wife, had, as a Christian, married a second wife. Jerome points out that there is no law condemning such marriages and urges silence; c. 397. Either in 397 or 396 Oceanus, with Fabiola, visited Jerome at Bethlehem, whence they were driven by fear of Hunnish invasion. While there, he apparently met Rufinus, who, according to Jerome's insinuation (adv. Ruf. iii. 4), had an Origenistic document placed in Oceanus's room in Fabiola's house, hoping to identify him with that tendency. Rufinus having gone to Rome (397) and having published shortly afterwards his edition of Origen's Περὶ Ἀρχῶν, Oceanus and Pammachius watched his actions with critical eyes, and, on the appearance of the work, wrote to Jerome (Hieron. Ep. 83) asking him to deny the insinuation of Rufinus that he was only completing a work begun by Jerome, and to furnish them with a true translation of Origen's work. Oceanus, no doubt, took part in the subsequent proceedings which led to the condemnation of Origenism at Rome. On the death of Fabiola, c. 399, Jerome wrote to Oceanus her Epitaphium (Ep. 77), accompanied by his exposition, which had been intended for her, of the 42 resting-places of the Israelites in the desert. In 411 Oceanus, who had maintained his correspondence with Jerome, and possessed his books against Rufinus and other of his works, interested himself specially in the Pelagian controversy on the origin of souls. Jerome writes to Marcellinus and Anapsychius (Ep. 126) who had consulted him on this, referring them to Oceanus as one thoroughly "learned in the law of the Lord" and capable of instructing them. Augustine writes to Oceanus in 416 on the same subject, and on the reproof of St. Peter by St. Paul at Antioch.
Olympias (2), the younger, widow; a celebrated
deaconess of the church of Constantinople,
When still under 30 years of age Olympias was appointed by Nectarius deaconess of the church of Constantinople. The courtly old prelate consulted her on ecclesiastical matters, in which he was a novice, and was guided by her advice (Pallad. p. 166; Soz. H. E. viii. 9). She retained this position under Chrysostom and became his chief counsellor and active agent in all works of piety and charity, not only in Constantinople, but in distant provinces of the church.
On the arrival of the Nitrian monks known
as the Tall Brothers in Constantinople in 401,
Olympias received them hospitably (Pallad.
p. 153), careless of the indignant remonstrances
of Theophilus (ib. p. 155). On Chrysostom's
final expulsion from Constantinople,
June 20, 404, Olympias was the chief of the
band of courageous women who assembled in
the baptistery of the church to take a last
farewell of their deeply loved bishop and
friend, and to receive his parting benediction
and commands (ib. 89, 90). Suspicion of
having caused the fire in the cathedral which
immediately followed the departure of Chrysostom
from its walls fell on Olympias and
the other ladies. Olympias was brought
before the prefect Optatus, who bluntly demanded
why she had set the church on fire.
He proposed that on condition of her entering
into communion with Arsacius, as some other
ladies had done, the investigation should be
dropped and she freed from further annoyance.
Olympias's proud spirit indignantly
rejected the base compromise. A false charge
had been publicly brought against her, of
which her whole manner of life, which the
prefect could not be ignorant of, was a sufficient
refutation. The trouble brought on
Olympias a severe and almost fatal illness.
On recovering her health, in the spring of 405,
she left Constantinople. Sozomen seems to
speak of a voluntary retirement to Cyzicus.
But the language of Chrysostom (Ep. 16,
p. 603 C) leads us to believe that she was
never allowed to remain long in one spot, her
persecutors hoping that thus her spirit might
be broken and she induced to yield. This
hope being frustrated, Olympias was once
again summoned before Optatus, who, on her
renewed refusal to communicate with Arsacius,
imposed a heavy fine of 200 pounds of gold
(Soz. H. E. viii. 24; Pallad. p. 28). This was
readily paid, and the news of Olympias's
heroic disregard of all worldly losses and
sufferings for truth's sake gave intense joy
to Chrysostom in his banishment. He wrote
congratulating her on her victory, calling
upon her to glorify God Who had enabled her
to acquire such great spiritual gain (Chrys.
Ep. 16, p. 604 A). We know nothing very
definitely of the remainder of her life. Our
only trustworthy information is from Chrysostom's
17 letters to her, some of which are
long religious tracts, the composition of which
relieved the tedium of his exile and made him
almost forget his miseries. We gather from
them that Olympias was subject to frequent
and severe attacks of sickness, and that the
Optatus (6), bp. of Milevis, or Mileum (Milah), in Numidia, 25 m. N.W. of Cirta (Shaw, Trav. p. 63), a vigorous opponent of the Donatists. He himself says that he wrote about 60 years, or rather more, after the persecution under Diocletian. St. Jerome speaks of him as having written during the reigns of Valentinian and Valens, a.d. 365–378. But in bk. ii. of his treatise Siricius is mentioned as bp. of Rome, "qui est noster socius." As Siricius did not succeed Damasus until 384, he may have outlived the period mentioned by St. Jerome and himself inserted these words later. The date of his death, however, is unknown. St. Augustine mentions him once in the same sentence as St. Ambrose, and elsewhere as a church-writer of high authority, even among Donatists. (Opt. c. Don. i. 13, ii. 3; Hieron. Vir. Illustr. c. 110, vol. ii. p. 706 ; Aug. c. Don. ep. (de Unit. Eccl.) 19, 50; c. Parm. i. 3, 5; Brevic. Coll. 20, 38; Doctr. Christ. ii. 40, 61; Baronius, Ann. vol. iv. p. 243; Morcelli, Afr. Chr. ii. 275; Dupin, Optatus Praef. 1.)
His treatise against the Donatists is in the form of a letter to Parmenian, Donatist bp. of Carthage, in six books, with a seventh of doubtful authenticity.
Bk. i. opens with a eulogy of peace, which he complains that the Donatists set at nought by reviling the Catholics. He adds some compliments to Parmenian, as the only one of his party with whom he can communicate freely, and regrets being compelled to do so by letter because they refuse to meet for conference. Five points put forward by Parmenian call for discussion, to which Optatus adds a sixth. (1) In accusing Catholics of "tradition," particulars ought to be specified of time and place. (2) The true church ought to be defined. (3) Which side was really responsible for calling in the aid of the soldiers. (4) What Parmenian means by "sinners" whose "oil and sacrifice" God rejects. (5) The question of baptism. (6) The riotous and rash acts of the Donatists. Optatus finds fault with Parmenian for his inconsiderate language about our Lord's baptism, to the effect that His flesh required to be "drowned in the flood" of Jordan to remove its impurity. If the baptism of Christ's body were intended to suffice for the baptism of each single person, there might be some truth in this, but we are baptized, in virtue not of the flesh of Christ, but of His name, and moreover we cannot believe that even His flesh contracted sin, for it was more pure than Jordan itself. The purpose of Optatus is to shew that it was not the church which cast off the Donatists, but they who separated from the church, following the example of Korah and his company. When they disclaim the right of princes to interfere in the affairs of the church they contradict their forefathers, who, in the matter of Caecilian, petitioned Constantine to grant them judges from Gaul instead of from Africa.
In bk. ii. Optatus discusses what the church,
the dove and bride of Christ, is (
In bk. iii., after going over some of the
former ground, laying the blame of the schism
on the Donatists, Optatus applies to them
several passages of Scripture, esp.
In bk. iv., disclaiming all unfriendly feeling
and appealing to the common possessions of
both parties, Optatus charges them with infraction
of unity by appointment of bishops,
proselytism, forbidding social intercourse, and
perversely applying to Catholics Scripture
passages directed against obstinate heretics,
as
In bk. v. Optatus returns to the oft-repeated
subject of rebaptism. The repetition
of baptism, he says, is an insult to the Trinity,
worse than the doctrines of Praxeas and the
Patripassians. Three elements are requisite:
(1) the Trinity, (2) the minister, (3) the faithful receiver;
but of these the Donatists exalt
the second above the other two. They use
as a quotation words not found in Scripture,
"How can a man give what he has not received?"
(see
In bk. vi. he repeats some previous charges,
and adds others, how they destroyed altars,
the "seats of Christ's Body and Blood," at
which they themselves must have offered.
They have broken up chalices and sold them
to women and even to pagans, yet they quote
Bk. vii., which is not mentioned by St. Jerome, but which may on good MS. grounds be ascribed to Optatus, is supplementary and answers a fresh Donatist complaint, that if they are the children of "traditors," as Optatus says, they ought to be let alone, and no attempt made to "reconcile" them; but, says Optatus, though their fathers deserved to be excluded, there is no reason why they should be so, for the church repels no baptized persons. Christ allows two sorts of seed to grow in His field, and no bishop has power to do what the apostles could not, viz. separate them. They might have refused to communicate with Peter because he denied his Lord, yet he retained the keys given him by Christ.
The work of Optatus is more important historically than doctrinally. As a theological treatise it is often loose and rambling, with frequent repetition; but it exposes with clearness and force the inconsistency of the Donatists, and of all who, like them, fix their attention exclusively on the ethical side of religion, estimated by an arbitrary standard of opinion, to the disregard of other conditions of the greatest importance in the constitution of a church. How perversely and inconsistently the Donatists applied this principle in the matter of rebaptism Optatus again and again demonstrates. That there was a doctrine of rebaptism in the African church, to which Cyprian had lent the weight of his authority, there can be no doubt; but with him it was directed against heretics, on the principle that the followers of Marcion, Praxeas, and the like, were in fact not truly Christians and thus their baptism was valueless. But Optatus is never weary of urging that though by their own act Donatists had incurred the charge of schism, the church did not regard them as heretics, and that they ought not to treat as heretical their brethren. Dupin's ed. (1702, fol.) is the groundwork of all subsequent editions. It has been reprinted in vol. xi. of Migne's Patr. Lat., but the map is smaller and less clear than in Dupin's folio, and all documents previous to 362 are in vol. viii. of the Patr. Lat. An account of Optatus and his writings will be found in Ceillier, vol. v. The latest ed. is by Ziwsa (1893), in Corpus Scr. Eccl. Lat. xxvi. (Vienna). See Sparrow Simpson's St. Aug. and Afr. Ch. Divisions (1910), pp. 42 ff.
Origenes. Sources.—The main authority for the details of Origen's Life is Eusebius (H. E. vi.), who collected upwards of 100 letters of Origen (ib. 36). These, together with official documents (ib. 23, 33) and information from those acquainted with Origen (ib. 2, 33), formed the basis of his narrative. His account of the most critical period of Origen's life, his retirement from Alexandria, was given in bk. ii. of his Apology, which he composed with the help of Pamphilus (ib. 23). This unhappily has not been preserved.
Origen's own writings give but few details of his life. But the loss of his letters is irreparable. They would have given a fuller picture of the man, even if they gave little additional information on the outward circumstances of his life.
Of modern authorities, see Tillemont,
Mémoires; Lardner, Credibility; Ceillier,
His life and doctrine have been discussed, with special reference to his historical position in the development of Christian thought, by Guericke, de Schola Alex. Catech. (1825); Neander, Kirch. Gesch.; Thomasius, Origenes (1837); Redepenning, Origenes (1841–1846); Moehler, Patrol. (1840); Huber, Philos d. Kirchenväter (1859); Schaff, Church Hist. (1867); De Pressensé, Hist. des trois premiers siècles (1858–1877); Boehringer, Kirchengesch. in Biogr. Klemens u. Origenes (1869, 2te Aufl.).
Life.—Origen was probably born at Alexandria (Eus. H. E. vi. 1), but whether of Egyptian, Greek, or mixed descent is not known. The loose phrase of Porphyry, that he "was a Greek and reared in Greek studies" (ib. 19), is in itself of little value, but the name of his father (Leonides) points in the same direction. His mother's name has not been preserved. May she have been of Jewish descent? He is said to have learnt Hebrew so well that in singing the psalms "he vied with his mother" (Hieron. Ep. 39 [22], § 1).
Origen's full name was Origenes Adamantius. Origenes was the name of one contemporary philosopher of distinction, and occurs elsewhere. Adamantius has commonly been regarded as an epithet describing Origen's unconquerable endurance, or for the invincible force of his arguments. But the language of Eusebius (H. E. vi. 14) and of Jerome (de Vir. Ill. 54, "Origenes qui et Adamantius") shews that it was a second name, and not a mere adjunct. His father, Leonides, suffered martyrdom in the persecution of the 10th year of Severus (202), and Origen had not then completed his 17th year (Eus. H. E. vi. 2). He must have been born therefore a.d. 185–186, a date consistent with the statement (ib. vii. 1) that he died in his 69th year, in the reign of Gallus (a.d. 251–254). In Origen we have the first record of a Christian boyhood, and he was "great from the cradle." His education was superintended by his father, who especially directed him to the study of Scripture. The child's eager inquiries into the deeper meaning of the words he committed to memory caused perplexity to his father, who, while openly checking his son's premature curiosity, silently thanked God for the promise he gave for the future. Origen became the pupil of Pantaenus (after his return from India) and Clement, in whose school he met Alexander, afterwards bp. of Jerusalem (ib. vi. 14), with whom he then laid the foundation of that life-long friendship which supported him in his sorest trials.
When Leonides was thrown into prison,
Origen wished to share his fate, but was
hindered by his mother. He addressed a
letter to his father—his first recorded writing,
still extant in the time of Eusebius—in which
he prayed him to allow no thought for his
family to shake his resolution. This shews
the position of influence which Origen already
enjoyed in his family. Leonides was put to
death and his property confiscated. Upon
this the young Origen seems to have fulfilled
the promise his words implied. Partly by the
assistance of a pious and wealthy lady, and
partly by teaching, he supported himself and
(as may be concluded) his mother and brothers.
Already he collected a library. At first he
gave lessons in literature; but as the Christian
school was without a teacher, all having been
scattered by the persecution, he was induced
to give instruction in the faith. Thus in his
18th year he was, at first informally, the head
of the Christian school in Alexandria in a
season of exceptional danger. He was so
successful that Demetrius, bp. of Alexandria,
soon definitely committed to him the office.
The charge decided the tenor of his life.
Origen henceforth devoted himself exclusively
to the office of a Christian teacher, and to
ensure his independence sold his collection of
classical writers for an annuity of four oboli
(sixpence) a day, on which he lived for many
years, refusing the voluntary contributions
his friends offered him (ib. 3). His position is
a remarkable illustration of the freedom of the
early church. He was a layman and yet
recognized as a leading teacher. His work
was not confined to any district. Numbers of
men and women flocked to his lectures,
attracted partly by his stern simplicity of life,
which was a guarantee of his sincerity. For
he resolved to fulfil without reserve the precepts
of the Gospel. For many years he went
barefoot, wore only a single robe (
For 12 or 13 years he was engaged in these
happy and successful labours; and it was
probably during this period that he formed
and partly executed his plan of a comparative
view of the LXX with other Greek versions
of O.T. and with the original Hebrew text,
though the work was slowly elaborated as
fresh materials came to his hands (Eus.
H. E. vi. 16). A short visit to Rome in the
time of Zephyrinus, to see "the most ancient
church of the Romans" (ib. 14), and an
authoritative call to Arabia (ib. 19) alone
seem to have interrupted his labours. Persecution
tested the fruit of his teaching. He
had the joy of seeing martyrs trained in his
school; and his own escapes from the violence
of the people were held to be due to the special
protection of Providence (ib. 4, f. 3). During
the same period he devoted himself with renewed
vigour to the study of non-Christian
thought, and attended the lectures of Ammonius
Saccas (cf. Porphyry, ap. Eus. H. E.
vi. 19; Theod. Graec. Affect. Cur. vi. p. 96).
Heretics and Gentiles attended his lectures,
and he felt bound to endeavour to understand
their opinions thoroughly that he might the
better correct them (cf. c. Cels. vi. 24). This
excited ill-will, but he was able to defend
himself, as he did in a letter written at a later
time (Ep. ap. Eus. H. E. vi. 19), by the
example of his predecessors and the support
of his friends. His work grew beyond his
At length, c. 215, a tumult of unusual violence (ib. 19; Clinton, Fasti Romani, i. 224 f.) forced Origen to withdraw from Egypt to Caesarea in Palestine. Here his reputation brought him into a prominence which occasioned his later troubles. His fellow-pupil Alexander bp. of Jerusalem, and Theoctistus (Theotecnus; Photius, Cod. 118) bp. of Caesarea, begged him to expound the Scriptures in the public services of the church, though he had not been ordained. Demetrius of Alexandria expressed strong disapprobation of a proceeding he described as unprecedented. Alexander and Theoctistus produced precedents. Demetrius replied by recalling Origen to Alexandria, and hastened his return by special envoys, deacons of the church (Eus. H. E. vi. 19). Origen's stay in Palestine was of some length, and it was probably during this time he made his famous visit to Mamaea, the mother of the emperor Alexander (ib. 21), herself a native of Syria.
Some time after his return to Alexandria (c. 219), Origen began his written expositions of Scripture, largely through the influence of Ambrose, whom he had rescued not long before from the heresy of Valentinus, or as Jerome says of Marcion (Hieron. de Vir. Ill. 56). Ambrose provided him with more than seven shorthand writers (ταχυγράφοι) to take down his comments and other scribes to make fair copies (Eus. H. E. vi. 23).
These literary occupations threw Origen's work in the catechetical school yet more upon Heraclas. At the same time the first parts of Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of St. John marked him out more decisively than before as a teacher in the church even more than in the school. But the exhibition of this new power was accompanied by other signs of a bold originality which might well startle those unfamiliar with the questionings of philosophy. The books On First Principles, which seem to have been written spontaneously, made an epoch in Christian speculation, as the Comm. on St. John did in Christian interpretation. Under such circumstances it is not surprising that Demetrius yielded, in the words of Eusebius, to the infirmity of human nature (ib. 8) and wished to check the boldness and influence of the layman. It became clear that Origen must seek elsewhere than in Alexandria free scope for his Scriptural studies. After he had laboured there for more than 25 years, the occasion came in an invitation to visit Achaia for the purpose, as it seems, of combating some false opinions which had arisen there (Hieron. de Vir. Ill. 54). The exact date is uncertain, but probably between 226 and 230. On the way Origen visited Caesarea, and sought counsel from his oldest friends as to his future course. No record remains of their deliberations, but Origen was ordained presbyter "by the bishops there" (Eus. H. E. vi. 23), Theoctistus of Caesarea and Alexander of Jerusalem (Hieron. de Vir. Ill. 54; Phot. Cod. 118). Origen then visited Ephesus (Ep. Fragm. ap. Ruf. Apol., Delarue, i. p. 6) and stayed some time at Athens. During this stay he probably heard some of the teachers of philosophy there (Epiph. Haer. lxiv. 1). At length, having completed his mission, he returned to Alexandria, where he could not have been unprepared for the reception which awaited him from Demetrius. Demetrius had probably shewn clear unwillingness to admit him to the priesthood. At any rate, the fact that Origen received orders from Palestinian bishops without his consent might be construed as a direct challenge of his authority. Origen at once perceived that he must retire before the rising storm. The preface to bk. vi. of the Comm. on St. John shews how deeply he felt the severance of old ties and the hostility of former colleagues. In 231 he left Alexandria never to return; and his influence to the last is shewn by the fact that he "left the charge of the catechetical school" to his coadjutor Heraclas (Eus. H. E. vi. 26). It is difficult to trace the different stages in the condemnation which followed. Photius (Cod. 118), following the Apology of Pamphilus and Eusebius, gives the most intelligible and consistent account. According to him Demetrius, completely alienated from Origen by his ordination, collected a synod of "bishops and a few presbyters," which decided that Origen should not be allowed to stay or teach at Alexandria. Demetrius afterwards excommunicated Origen. Jerome describes with greater severity the spirit of Demetrius's proceedings, and adds that "he wrote on the subject to the whole world" (de Vir. Ill. 54) and obtained a judgment against Origen from Rome (Ep. 33 [29], § 4). So far the facts are tolerably clear, but in the absence of trustworthy evidence it is impossible to tell on what points the condemnation really turned. Demetrius unquestionably laid great stress on formal irregularities (Eus. H. E. vi. 8), and the sentence against him may have been based on these. Origen's opinions were probably displeasing to many, and no attempt was made to reverse the judgment after the death of Demetrius, which followed very shortly, and perhaps within three years, when Heraclas, the pupil and colleague of Origen, succeeded to the episcopate. Nor again was anything done by Dionysius, the successor of Heraclas, another devoted scholar of Origen, who still continued his intercourse with his former master (ib. 46). Whatever the grounds of Origen's condemnation, the judgment of the Egyptian synod was treated with absolute disregard by the bishops of Palestine, Arabia, Phoenicia, and Achaea (Hieron. Ep. 33), and Origen defended himself warmly (Hieron. Apol. adv. Ruf. ii. 18). He soon afterwards settled at Caesarea, which became for more than 20 years, up to his death, the centre of his labours. It had indeed not a few of the advantages of Alexandria, as a great seaport, the civil capital, and the ecclesiastical metropolis of its district.
Here Origen found ungrudging sympathy
and help for his manifold labours. Alexander
These labours were interrupted by the persecution of Maximin (235–237). Ambrose and Protectetus, a presbyter of Caesarea, were among the victims. Origen addressed to them in prison his Exhortation to Martyrdom. He himself escaped (Eus. H. E. vi. 28). During part of the time of persecution he was apparently with Firmilian in Cappadocia, and is said to have there enjoyed the hospitality of a Christian lady Juliana, who had some books of Symmachus, the translator of O.T. (cf. Hieron. l.c.; Pallad. Hist. Laus. 147).
In 238, or perhaps 237, Origen was again at Caesarea, and Gregory (Thaumaturgus) delivered the Farewell Address, which is the most vivid picture left of the method and influence of the great Christian master. The scholar recounts, with touching devotion, the course along which he had been guided by the man to whom he felt he owed his spiritual life. He had come to Syria to study Roman law in the school of Berytus, but on his way met with Origen, and at once felt he had found in him the wisdom he was seeking. The day of that meeting was to him, in his own words, the dawn of a new being: his soul clave to the master whom he recognized and he surrendered himself gladly to his guidance. As Origen spoke, he kindled within the young advocate's breast a love for the Holy Word, and for himself the Word's herald. "This love," Gregory adds, "induced me to give up country and friends, the aims which I had proposed to myself, the study of law of which I was proud. I had but one passion, philosophy, and the godlike man who directed me in the pursuit of it" (c. 6).
Origen's first care, Gregory says, was to make the character of a pupil his special study. In this he followed the example of Clement (Clem. Strom. i. 1, 8, p. 320 P.). He ascertained, with delicate and patient attention, the capacities, faults, and tendencies of those he had to teach. Rank growths of opinion were cleared away; weaknesses were laid open; every effort was used to develop endurance, firmness, patience, thoroughness. "In true Socratic fashion he sometimes overthrew us by argument," Gregory writes, "if he saw us restive and starting out of the course. . . . The process was at first disagreeable to us and painful; but so he purified us . . . and . . . prepared us for the reception of the words of truth . . . by probing us and questioning us, and offering problems for our solution" (c. 7). Thus Origen taught his scholars to regard language as designed, not to furnish material for display, but to express truth with exact accuracy; and logic as powerful, not to secure a plausible success, but to test beliefs with the strictest rigour. Origen then led his pupils to the "lofty and divine and most lovely" study of external nature. He made geometry the sure and immovable foundation of his teaching, and rose step by step to the heights of heaven and the most sublime mysteries of the universe (c. 8). Gregory's language implies that Origen was himself a student of physics; as, in some degree, the true theologian must be. The lessons of others, he writes, or his own observation, enabled him to explain the connexion, the differences, the changes of the objects of sense. Such investigations served to shew man in his true relation to the world. A rational feeling for the vast grandeur of the external order, "the sacred economy of the universe," as Gregory calls it, was substituted for the ignorant and senseless wonder with which it is commonly regarded.
But physics were naturally treated by Origen as a preparation and not as an end. Moral science came next; and here he laid the greatest stress upon the method of experiment. His aim was not merely to analyse and to define and to classify feelings and motives, though he did this, but to form a character. For him ethics were a life, and not only a theory. The four cardinal virtues of Plato, practical wisdom, self-control, righteousness, courage, seemed to him to require for their maturing diligent introspection and culture. Herein he gave a commentary upon his teaching. His discipline lay even more in action than in precept. His own conduct was, in his scholar's minds, a more influential persuasive than his arguments.
So, Gregory continues, Origen was the first teacher who really led me to the pursuit of Greek philosophy, by bringing speculation into a vital union with practice. In him I saw the inspiring example of one at once wise and holy. The noble phrase of older masters gained a distinct meaning for the Christian disciple. In failure and weakness he was able to see that the end of all was "to become like to God with a pure mind, and to draw near to Him and to abide in Him" (c. 12).
Guarded and guided by this conviction,
Origen encouraged his scholars in theology
to look for help in all the works of human
genius. They were to examine the writings
of philosophers and poets of every nation, the
atheists alone excepted, with faithful candour
and wise catholicity. For them there was to
be no sect, no party. In their arduous work
they had ever at hand, in their master, a
friend who knew their difficulties. If they
were bewildered in the tangled mazes of conflicting
The hierarchy of sciences was not completed till theology with her own proper gifts crowned the succession followed hitherto, logic, physic, ethics. Origen found in the Holy Scriptures and the teaching of the Spirit the final and absolute spring of Divine Truth. In this region Gregory felt his master's power to be supreme. Origen's sovereign command of the mysteries of "the oracles of God" gave him perfect boldness in dealing with all other writings. "Therefore," Gregory adds, "there was no subject forbidden to us, nothing hidden or inaccessible. We were allowed to become acquainted with every doctrine, barbarian or Greek, on things spiritual or civil, divine and human; traversing with all freedom, and investigating the whole circuit of knowledge, and satisfying ourselves with the full enjoyment of all the pleasures of the soul" (c. 15). Such was, Gregory tells us, Origen's method. He describes what he knew and what his hearers knew. There is no parallel to the picture in ancient times. With every allowance for the partiality of a pupil, the view it offers of a system of Christian training actually realized exhibits a type we cannot hope to surpass. The ideals of Christian education and of Christian philosophy were fashioned together. Under that comprehensive and loving discipline Gregory, already trained in heathen schools, first learnt, step by step, according to his own testimony, what the pursuit of philosophy truly was, and came to know the solemn duty of forming opinions not as the amusement of a moment, but as solid foundations of life-long work.
From Caesarea Origen visited different
parts of Palestine: Jerusalem, Jericho, the
valley of the Jordan (t. vi. in Joh. § 24);
Sidon, where he made some stay (Hom. in
Josh. xvi. § 2), partly at least to investigate
"the footsteps of Jesus, and of His disciples,
and of the prophets" (in
His energy now rose to its full power. Till he was 60 (a.d. 246) he had forbidden his unwritten discourses to be taken down. Experience at length enabled him to withdraw the prohibition, and most of his homilies are due to reports made afterwards. The Books against Celsus and the Commentaries on St. Matthew, belonging to the same period, shew, in different directions, the maturity of his vigour. Thus his varied activity continued till the persecution of Decius in 250. The preceding reign of Philip had favoured the growth of Christianity; and there is no sufficient reason to question the fact of Origen's correspondence with the emperor and his wife Severa (ib. 36). Such intercourse marked Origen out for attack to Philip's conqueror and successor. His friend Alexander of Jerusalem died in prison. He himself suffered a variety of tortures, probably at Tyre—chains, the iron collar, and the rack; but his constancy baffled all the efforts of his enemies (ib. 39). He was threatened with the stake, and a report gained currency in later times that his sufferings were crowned by death (Phot. Cod. 118, p. 159). During this sharp trial his former pupil Dionysius, now bp. of Alexandria, addressed him a letter on martyrdom (Eus. H. E. vi. 46), shewing the old affection still alive, in spite of long separation. Origen described his sufferings and consolations in letters which Eusebius characterizes "as full of help to those who need encouragement" (ib. 39). The death of Decius (251, Clinton, F.R. i. 270), after a reign of two years, set Origen free. But his health was broken by his hardships. He died at Tyre in 253, "having completed seventy years save one" (Eus. H. E. vii. 1; Hieron. Ep. 65 ad Pammach.). He was buried there (William of Tyre, c. 1180, Hist. xiii. 1: "haec [Tyrus] et Origenis corpus occultat sicut oculata fide etiam hodie licet inspicere"), and his tomb was honoured as long as the city survived.
Of the later fortunes of his teaching it is enough to say here that his fate after death was like his fate during life: he continued to witness not in vain to noble truths. His influence was sufficiently proved by the persistent bitterness of his antagonists, and there are few sadder pages in church history than the record of the Origenistic controversies. But in spite of errors easy to condemn, his characteristic thoughts survived in the works of Hilary and Ambrose and Jerome, and in his own homilies, to stir later students in the West. His homilies had a very wide circulation in the middle ages in a Latin translation; and it would be interesting to trace their effect upon medieval commentators down to Erasmus, who wrote to Colet in 1504: "Origenis operum bonam partem evolvi; quo praeceptore mihi videor non-nullum fecisse operae pretium; aperit enim fontes quosdam et rationes indicat artis theologicae."
WRITINGS.—Epiphanius says (Haer. lxiv. 63) that in popular reports no less than 6,000 works were ascribed to Origen. Jerome denies this (Ep. lxxxii. 7) and brings down the number to a third (adv. Ruf. ii. c. 22; cf. c. 13). His works will be noticed in the following order: Exegetical, Dogmatical, Apologetic, Practical, Letters, Philocalia.
A. EXEGETICAL WRITINGS.—Epiphanius states that Origen undertook to comment on all the books of Scripture (Haer. lxiv. 3) and though his sole statement might be of very little value, independent and exact evidence goes far to confirm it.
His exegetical writings are of three kinds: detached Notes (Σχόλια, σημειώσεις, in the narrower sense, excerpta, commaticum interpretandi genus), Homilies addressed to popular audiences (Ὁμιλίαι. Tractatus), and complete and elaborate Commentaries (Τόμοι, σημειώσεις in the wider sense, volumina). Cf. Hieron. in Ezech. Prol.; Praef. Comm. in Matt.; Rufin. Praef. in Num.
i. THE PENTATEUCH.
GENESIS.—Origen, according
to Eusebius, wrote twelve books of
Commentaries (Τόμοι)
on Genesis, besides Homilies. Of these writings
there remain: Greek: (1) On
One of the fragments of the Commentary on
Genesis contains a remarkable discussion of
the theory of fate in connexion with
EXODUS and
LEVITICUS.—Of the Books,
Homilies, and Notes he wrote on these books,
no detailed account remains. (Cf. in Rom.
ix. § 1, p. 283 L.; Ruf. Apol. ii. 20;
Hieron. Ep. 33.) The following remain:
EXODUS.—Greek: (1)
On
The main fragment of the Commentary on
Exodus (Philoc. 27 [26]) deals with
interpretation of the "hardening of Pharaoh's
heart"
(
LEVITICUS.—Greek: (1) Fragm. of Hom. 2 (5). (2) Notes from Catenae. (3) Additional notes. (4) A fragment (cf. Hom. in Lev. viii. 6), Mai, Class. Auct. t. x. p. 600. Latin: 16 Homilies (trans. by Rufinus).
In the interpretation of Leviticus Origen
naturally dwells on the obvious moral and
spiritual antitypes of the Mosaic ordinances.
Not infrequently the use he makes of them is
impressive and ingenious, e.g. his view of
man's soul and body as the deposit which he
owes to God
(
NUMBERS.—No mention is made of "Books" on Numbers. Of Notes and Homilies (cf. Hom. in Jer. xii. § 3) the following remain: Greek: (1) Notes from Catenae. Small Fragment of Hom. xiii. (2) Additional notes. Latin: 28 Homilies, trans. by Rufinus, which follow the whole course of the narrative.
One main idea is prominent throughout. The struggles of the Israelites on the way to Canaan are the image of the struggles of the Christian. The entrance on the Promised Land foreshadows the entrance on the heavenly realm (Hom. vii. 5). The future world will even, in Origen's judgment, offer differences of race and position corresponding to those of the tribes of Israel and the nations among whom they moved (ib. i. 3, ii. 1, xi. 5, xxviii. 4). The interpretation of the record of the stations (ib. xxvii.) is a very good example of the way he finds a meaning in the minutest details of the history. Of wider interest are his remarks on man's spiritual conflict (ib. vii. 6), the wounds of sin (ib. viii. 1), advance in wisdom (ib. xvii. 4), the festivals of heaven (ib. xxiii. ii), self-dedication (ib. xxiv. 2), and the stains of battle (ib. xxv. 6).
DEUTERONOMY.—Cassiodorus (de Instit. 1) mentions four Homilies of Origen on Deut. ("in quibus est minuta nimis et subtilis expositio"), and doubtless it was these (oratiunculae) Rufinus proposed to translate if his health had been restored. The scanty remains are: (1) Notes from Catenae. (2) Additional notes. One interesting note at least among (1) appears to be a fragment of a homily (in Deut. viii. 7).
It is probable (Hieron. Ep. 84, 7) that considerable fragments of Origen's comments on the Pentateuch are contained in Ambrose's treatise on the Hexaemeron, but the treatise has not yet been critically examined.
JOSHUA—II. KINGS.—Origen appears to have treated these historical books in homilies only, or perhaps in detached notes also. There remain of the several books: JOSHUA—Greek: (1) Fragm. of Hom. xx. (2) Notes from Catenae. (3) Additional notes. Latin 26 Homilies, trans. by Rufinus.
The homilies on Joshua, belonging to the
latest period of Origen's life, perhaps offer the
most attractive specimen of his popular interpretation.
The parallel between the leader
of the old church and the Leader of the new
is drawn with great ingenuity and care. The
spiritual interpretation of the conquest of
Canaan, as an image of the Christian life, never
flags. Fact after fact is made contributory
to the fulness of the idea; and the reader is
Among passages of special interest are those on the help we gain from the old fathers (ib. iii. 1); the broad parallel between the Christian life and the history of the Exodus (ib. iv. 1); the Christian realizing Christ's victory (ib. vii. 2); growing wisdom (ib. iii. 2).
JUDGES.—Greek: (1) Notes from Catenae. (2) Additional notes. Latin: 9 Homilies, trans. by Rufinus.
RUTH.—Greek: A note on i. 4.
The Homilies on Judges are of much less interest than those on Joshua. A passage on martyrdom—the baptism of blood—is worthy of notice (Hom. vii. 2). In Hom. ix. 1 Origen seems to refer to the persecution of Maximin, which was but lately ended.
I. and II. SAMUEL, I. and II.
KINGS (I.–IV. Kings). Greek:
(1) Hom. on I. Sam. xxviii. (2) Notes from
Catenae and Fragments. (3) Additional notes.
Latin: Homily on
THE HAGIOGRAPHA. JOB.—Origen composed many homilies on Job (Eustath. Antioch, de Engastr. 391), which were rendered freely into Latin by Hilary of Poictiers (Hier. de Vir. Ill. 100; Ep. adv. Vigil. 61, 2). The scattered Notes which remain are not sufficient to enable us to estimate their value. There remain: Greek: (1) Notes from Catenae. (2) Additional notes. Latin: Fragment quoted from a homily of Hilary by August. Lib. ii. c. Jul. § 27, and assumed to be translated from Origen.
THE PSALMS engaged Origen's attention before he left Alexandria. At that time he had written commentaries on Pss. i–xxv. (Eus. H. E. vi. 24). He completed the book afterwards. Jerome expressly states that he "left an explanation of all the Psalms in many volumes" (Ep. cxii. § 20); and his extant books contain numerous references to his commentaries on psalms (cf. Hier. Ep. xxxiv. § 1).
Besides these detailed commentaries, he illustrated the Psalter by short Notes ("a handbook": "enchiridion ille vocabat," Auct. ap. Hier. Tom. vii. App.), and by Homilies.
The Homilies which are preserved in Rufinus's
Latin trans. belong to the latest period
of Origen's life, c. 241–247 (Hom.
1 in Ps. xxxvi. § 2; Hom. 1 in
PROVERBS.—There remain: Greek: (1) Fragments. (2) Notes from Catenae. Latin: Fragments.
ECCLESIASTES.—Notes on
LAMENTATIONS.—Origen wrote commentaries on the Lamentations before 231, of which five books had come down to the time of Eusebius (H. E. vi. 24). The Greek notes are probably derived from these.
CANTICLES.—Jerome speaks of the work on Canticles with enthusiasm: "In his other books Origen," he says, "surpassed every one else, in this he surpassed himself" (Prol. in Hom. in Cant.). There remain: Greek: (1) Fragments of his early work. (2) Extracts by Procopius. Latin: Two Homilies (trans. by Jerome). Prologue and four books on Canticles, trans. by Rufinus.
THE PROPHETS. ISAIAH.—Origen interpreted Isaiah in each of the three forms which he used; in Books (τόμοι), in Notes, and in Homilies. Thirty books of his Commentaries remained when Eusebius wrote his History extending to c. xxx. 6 (Eus. H. E. vi. 32). Some of these had perished in the time of Jerome, who speaks of the work as abounding in allegories and interpretation of names (Prol. in Lib. v. in Es). There remain: Latin: Two fragments of the "Books." Nine Homilies. The Homilies were addressed to a popular audience, including catechumens, but they lack the ease of the latest discourses and follow no exact order. Subjects: The call of the prophet; The virgin's son; The seven women; The vision of God; The mission of the prophet; The prophet and his children. In a passage of characteristic excellence (Hom. vi. 4) Origen describes the "greater works" of Christ's disciples.
JEREMIAH.—Cassiodorus enumerates 45 homilies of Origen on Jeremiah "in Attic style" (de Instit. Div. Litt. § 3). They were written in a period of tranquillity, and therefore probably after the close of the persecution of Maximin, c. 245 (Hom. iv. 3). There remain: Greek: (1) 19 Homilies (with Jerome's version of 12). Fragment of Hom. xxxix. (2) Notes from Catenae. Latin: Two Homilies, trans. by Jerome.
The Homilies generally give a full interpretation
of the text, accommodating the
language of the prophet to the circumstances
of the Christian church. But Origen's total
want of historical feeling makes itself felt
perhaps more in his treatment of this book
than elsewhere, for the teaching of Jeremiah
is practically unintelligible without a true
sense of the tragic crisis in which he was
placed. There are, however, many separate
passages of the Homilies of considerable
EZEKIEL.—There remain: Greek: (1) Fragments. (2) Notes from Catenae. Latin: 14 Homilies. The Homilies only cover a small portion of the book, and do not offer many features of interest. The passages on the responsibility of teachers (Hom. v. 5, vii. 3) are perhaps the most striking.
DANIEL.—Origen commented upon the histories of Susanna and of Bel (Dan. Apocr. xiii. xiv.) in bk. x. of his Miscellanies (Στρωματεῖς), and Jerome has preserved a brief abstract of his notes as an appendix to his commentary on Daniel (Delarue, i. 49 f.; Lommatzsch, xvii. 70 ff.).
THE MINOR
PROPHETS.—Origen wrote
extensive commentaries on the twelve minor
prophets, of which 25 books remained in the
time of Eusebius (H. E. vi. 36). The
fragment on
WRITINGS ON THE NEW TESTAMENT.—Eusebius states that Origen wrote 25 Books τόμοι on St. Matthew (H. E. vi. 36). The commentaries seem to have been written c. 245–246. [25 Books; 25 Homilies.—H.C.]
Bk. x. gives a continuous exposition of
Bk. xi . (c. xiv. 15–xv. 32) contains several pieces of considerable interest on the discipline of temptation (c. 6), Corban (c. 9), the conception of things unclean (c. 12), the healing spirit in the Church (c. 18), and perhaps, above all, that on the Eucharist (c. 14), which is of primary importance for understanding Origen's view.
The most important passages in bk. xii., which gives the commentary on c. xvi. 1–xvii. 9, are those treating of the confession and blessing of St. Peter (cc. 10 ff.) and the Transfiguration (cc. 37 ff.). He regards St. Peter as the type of the true believer. All believers, as they are Christians, are Peter's also (c. 11: παρώνυμοι πέτρας πάντες οἱ μιμηταὶ Χριστοῦ . . . Χριστοῦ μέλη ὄντες παρώνυμοι ἐχρημάτισαν Χριστιανοί, πέτρας δὲ πέτροι). His ignorance of the Hebrew idiom leads him, like other early commentators, to refer the "binding and loosing" to sins (c. 14).
Bk. xiii. (c. xvii. 10–xviii. 18) opens with an argument against transmigration, and contains an interesting discussion of the influence of planets upon men (c. 6). Other characteristic passages deal with the circumstances under which the Lord healed the sick (c. 3), the rule for avoiding offences (c. 24), and esp. the doctrine of guardian angels (cc. 26 f.).
Bk. xiv. (c. xviii. 19–xix. 11) contains a
characteristic examination of the senses in
which the "two or three" in
Bk. xv. (xix. 12–xx. 16) has several pieces of
more than usual interest: the investigation of
the meaning of
Bk. xvi. (xx. 17–xxi. 22) gives some striking pictures of the darker side of Christian society, the growing pride of the hierarchy, the faults of church officers, the separation between clergy and laity (cc. 8, 22, 25). In discussing the healing of Bartimaeus Origen holds that a choice must be made between supposing that the three evangelists have related three incidents, if the literal record is to be maintained, or that they relate one and the same spiritual fact in different words (c. 12).
Bk. xvii. (xxi. 23–xxii. 33) contains interpretations of the parables of the two sons (c. 4), the vineyard (6 ff.), and the marriage feast (15 ff.), which are good examples of Origen's method; and his explanations of the questions of the Herodians (cc. 26 ff.) and the Sadducees (c. 33) are of interest.
The old Latin translation continues the
commentary to
ST. MARK.—A Latin commentary attributed to Victor of Antioch, pub. at Ingoldstadt in 1580, is said to contain quotations from Origen on cc. i. xiv. (Ceillier, p. 635). These, if the reference is correct, may have been taken from other parts of his writings. [15 Books; 39 Homilies.—H.C.]
ST. LUKE.—There
remain: Greek: (1) Fragments. (2) Notes from
a Venice MS. (xxviii.). (3) Additional notes, Mai,
Class. Auct. t. x. pp. 474 ff. (4) Additional notes
from Cod. Coislin. xxiii. Latin: 39
Homilies.
ST. JOHN—[32
Books; some Notes.—H.C.]
The remains of the Commentary on St. John
are in many respects the most important of
Origen's exegetical writings. There are left:
Τόμοι i. ii.
(iv. v. small fragments), vi. x. xiii. xix. (nearly
entire), xx. xxviii. xxxii. These remains extend
over the following portions of the Gospel: T. i.
(
The Commentary on St. John was undertaken at the request of Ambrose (in. Joh. t. i. §§ 3, 6), and was "the first-fruits of his labours at Alexandria" (ib. § 4). It marks an epoch in theological literature and thought. Perhaps the earlier work of HERACLEON may have suggested the idea, but Origen implies that the Gospel, by its essential character, claimed his first efforts as an interpreter.
Bk. i. deals mainly with the fundamental conceptions of "the Gospel" (§§ 1–15), "the beginning" (§§ 16–22), and "the Logos" (§§ 19–42). The Gospels are the first-fruits (ἀπαρχή) of the Scripture, the Gospel of St. John is the first-fruits of the Gospels (§ 6). As the Law had a shadow of the future, so too has the Gospel: spiritual truths underlie historical truths (§ 9). The Gospel in the widest sense is "for the whole world," not for our earth only, but for the universal system of the heavens and earth (§ 15). The discussion of the title Logos marks a critical stage in the history of Christian thought. In what sense, it is asked, is the Saviour called the Logos? It had come to be a common opinion "that Christ was as it were only a 'word' of God" (§ 23). To meet this view Origen refers to other titles, Light, Resurrection, Way, Truth, etc. (§§ 24–41), and by analogy comes to the conclusion that as we are illuminated by Christ as the Light, and quickened by Him as the Resurrection, so we are made divinely rational by Him as the Logos, i.e. Reason (§ 42). He thus preserves the personality of the Lord under the title of Logos, which expresses one aspect of His being and not His being itself (as a word); but recognizes that Christ may also be called the Logos (Word) of God as giving expression to His will.
In bk. ii. he continues his discussion of the
meaning of the Logos, distinguishing, in a
remarkable passage (§ 2), God and Reason
taken absolutely (ὁ θεός, ὁ λόγος) from God and Reason
used as predicates (θεός, λόγος). "The Father is the foundation of
Deity, the Son of Reason" (§ 3). Afterwards he
discusses the sense of the words "came into being
through Him (δἰ αὐτοῦ),"
and the relation of the Holy Spirit to the Son (§ 6);
and further, what "all things," and what that
is which is called "nothing" (i.e. evil)
which became without Him but is not (§ 7).
The conceptions of life and light, of darkness
and death, are then examined (§§ ii ff.). In treating of
the mission of John (§§ 24 ff.) Origen questions
whether he may not have been an angel who
sought to minister on earth to his Lord (§ 25);
and characteristically remarks that he was
"the voice" preceding "the Word" (§ 26).
Perhaps it is not less characteristic that he
blames those who, like Heracleon (t. vi. § 2),
hold that
In bk. vi., after describing with calm dignity
the circumstances which had interrupted his
work, he examines in detail
Bk. x. deals with the history of the first cleansing of the temple and its immediate results (ii. 12–25). Origen thinks the discrepancy between the evangelists as to the sojourn at Capernaum (v. 12) is such that its solution can be found only in the spiritual sense (§ 2), to which every minute point contributes, though in itself outwardly trivial and unworthy of record (§§ 2 ff.). The phrase "the passover of the Jews" leads to an exposition of Christ as the true Passover (§§ 11 ff). The cleansing of the temple is shewn to have an abiding significance in life (§ 16); and Origen thinks that the sign Christ offered is fulfilled in the raising of the Christian church, built of living stones, out of trials and death, "after three days"—the first of present suffering, the second of the consummation, the third of the new order (§ 20).
Bk. xiii. is occupied with the interpretation
of part of the history of the Samaritan
woman and the healing of the nobleman's son
Of bk. xix., which is imperfect at the beginning
and end, a considerable fragment
remains
(
Bk. xx.
(
The most remarkable passage in bk. xxviii.
(
Bk. xxxii.
(
Origen's Commentary is for us the beginning of a new type of literature. It has great faults of style, is diffusive, disproportioned, full of repetitions, obscure and heavy in form of expression, wholly deficient in historical insight, and continually passing into fantastic speculations. But it contains not a few "jewels five words long," abounds in noble thoughts and subtle criticisms, grapples with great difficulties, unfolds great ideas, and, above all, retains a firm hold on the human life of the Lord.
ACTS.—[17 Homilies.—H.C.]
Greek: (1) A single fragment from "the
fourth homily on the Acts "is preserved in the
Philocalia. (2) A few notes are given in
Cramer's Catena, col. iii. 184, on
ROMANS.—[15 Books.—H.C.] Greek: (1) Fragments from the first
and ninth books contained in the Philocalia.
(2) A number of important notes are contained
in Cramer's Catena, t. iv. (1844), on the
following passages:
The Commentary on Romans gives a
continuous discussion of the text, often
discursive, but still full of acute and noble
conceptions. Origen's treatment of
I.–Il. CORINTHIANS.—[11 Homilies on II.
Cor.—H.C.] Greek: Jerome
mentions (Ep. ad Pammach. xlix. § 3) that
Origen commented on this epistle at length;
and Origen himself refers to what he had said on
GALATIANS.—[15 Books; 7 Homilies.—H.C.] Jerome, in the Prologue to his Commentary on Galatians, mentions that Origen wrote five Books on this epistle, as well as various Homilies and Notes (tractatus et excerpta), and that he interpreted it with brief annotations (commatico sermone) in his Stromateis, bk. x. (Proem. in Comm. ad Gal.; Ep. ad August. cxi. §§ 4, 6). Three fragments of the Commentary are contained in the Latin translation of Pamphilus's Apology.
EPHESIANS.—[3 Books.—H.C.]
Origen's Commentary on the Ephesians may
still be practically recovered. Jerome, in the
Prologue to his own Commentary,
says that "his readers should know that
Origen wrote three books on the epistle,
which he had partly
followed." The extent of his debt could only
be estimated by conjecture, till the publication
of the Paris Catena (Cramer, 1842). This
contains very large extracts from Origen's
commentary, sometimes with his name and
sometimes anonymous, and in nearly all cases
Jerome has corresponding words or thoughts.
A careful comparison of the Greek fragments
with Jerome's Latin would make it possible
to reconstruct a very large part of Origen's
work. The corresponding notes on the
description of the Christian warfare
(
PHILIPPIANS,
COLOSSIANS,
TITUS,
PHILEMON—[1 Book on Philippians;
2 on Colossians; 1 on Titus; 1 on Philemon;
1 Homily
I. THESSALONIANS. [3 Books;
2 Homilies.—H.C.] A considerable
fragment from the third book of the Commentary
on I. Thess. is preserved in Jerome's trans.: Ep.
ad Minerv. et Alex. 9
(
HEBREWS.—[18 Homilies.—H.C.] Origen wrote Homilies and Commentaries on Hebrews. Two fragments of the Homilies are preserved by Eusebius (H. E. vi. 25), in which Origen gives his opinion on the composition of the epistle. Some inconsiderable fragments from the "Books" are found in the trans. of Pamphilus's Apology.
CATHOLIC
EPISTLES.—The quotations
from Origen, given in Cramer's Catena on the
Catholic epistles, are apparently taken from
other treatises, and not from commentaries on
the books themselves:
APOCALYPSE.—Origen purposed to comment upon the Apocalypse (Comm. Ser. in Matt. § 49), but it is uncertain whether he carried out his design.
B. DOGMATIC WRITINGS.—Origen's writings On the Resurrection were violently assailed by Methodius, and considered by Jerome to abound in errors (Ep. lxxxiv. 7). Probably they excited opposition by assailing the gross literalism of the popular view of the future life. The extant fragments are consistent with the true faith and express it with a wise caution, affirming the permanence through death of the whole man and not of the soul only. Thus Origen dwells rightly on St. Paul's image of the seed (Fragm. 2), maintains a perfect correspondence between the present and the future, and speaks very happily of the "ratio substantiae corporalis" as that which is permanent.
The book On First Principles is the most complete and characteristic expression of Origen's opinions. It was written while at Alexandria, when he was probably not much more than 30 years old and still a layman, but there is no reason to think that he modified, in any important respects, the views he unfolds in it. It was not written for simple believers but for scholars—for those who were familiar with the teaching of Gnosticism and Platonism; and with a view to questions which then first became urgent when men have risen to a wide view of nature and life. Non-Christian philosophers moved in a region of subtle abstractions, "ideas": Origen felt that Christianity converted these abstractions into realities, persons, facts of a complete life; and he strove to express what he felt in the modes of thought and language of his own age. He aimed at presenting the highest knowledge (γνῶσις) as an objective system. But in doing this he had no intention of fashioning two Christianities, a Christianity for the learned and a Christianity for the simple. The faith was one, one essentially and unalterably, but infinite in fulness, so that the trained eye could see its harmonies the most. Fresh wants made fresh truths visible. He who found much had nothing over: he who found little had no lack.
The book is the earliest attempt to form a system of Christian doctrine, or rather a philosophy of the Christian faith, and thus marks an epoch in Christian thought, but no change in the contents of the Christian creed. The elements of the dogmatic basis are assumed on the authority of the church. The author's object is, he says, to shew how they can be arranged as a whole, by the help either of the statements of Scripture or of the methods of exact reasoning. However strange or startling the teaching of Origen may seem to us, we must bear in mind that this is his own account of it. He takes for granted that all he brings forward is in harmony with received teaching. He professes to accept as final the same authorities as ourselves.
The treatise consists of four books. Digressions and repetitions interfere with the symmetry of the plan. But to speak generally, bk. i. deals with God and creation (religious statics); bks. ii. and iii. with creation and providence, man and redemption (religious dynamics); and bk. iv. with Holy Scripture. The first three books contain the exposition of a Christian philosophy, gathered round the three ideas of God, the world, and the rational soul, and the last gives the basis of it. Even in the repetitions (as on "the restoration of things") each successive treatment corresponds with a new point of sight.
In bk. i. Origen sets out the final elements of all religious philosophy, God, the world, rational creatures. After dwelling on the essential nature of God as incorporeal, invisible, incomprehensible, and on the characteristic relations of the Persons of the Holy Trinity to man, as the authors of being, and reason, and holiness, he gives a summary view of the end of human life, for the elements of a problem cannot be really understood until we have comprehended its scope. The end of life, then, according to Origen, is the progressive assimilation of man to God by the voluntary appropriation of His gifts. Gentile philosophers had proposed to themselves the idea of assimilation to God, but Origen adds the means. By the unceasing action of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit towards us, renewed at each successive stage of our advance, we shall be able, he says, with difficulty perchance, at some future time, to look on the holy and blessed life; and when once we have been enabled to reach that, after many struggles, we ought so to continue in it that no weariness may take hold on us. Each fresh enjoyment of that bliss ought to deepen our desire for it; while we are ever receiving, with more ardent love and larger grasp, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit (i. 3, 8).
But it will be said that this condition of progress,
effort, assimilation, involves the possibility of
declension, indolence, the obliteration
of the divine image. If man can go forward
he can go backward. Origen accepts the
consequence, and finds in it an explanation
of the actual state of men and angels. The
present position of each rational being
corresponds, in his judgment, with the use
he has
The progress of this discussion is interrupted by one singular episode characteristic of the time. How, Origen asks, are we to regard the heavenly bodies—the sun and moon and stars? Are they the temporary abodes of souls which shall hereafter be released from them? Are they finally to be brought into the great unity, when "God shall be all in all"? The questions, he admits, are bold; but he answers both in the affirmative, on what he held to be the authority of Scripture (i. 7; cf. c. Cels. v. 10 f.).
In bk. ii. Origen pursues, at greater length, his view of the visible world, as a place of discipline and preparation. He follows out as a movement what he had before regarded as a condition. The endless variety in the situations of men, the inequality of their material and moral circumstances, their critical spiritual differences, all tend to shew, he argues, that the position of each has been determined in accordance with previous conduct. God, in His ineffable wisdom, has united all together with absolute justice, so that all these creatures most diverse in themselves, combine to work out His purpose, while "their very variety tends to the one end of perfection." All things were made for the sake of man and rational beings. Through man, therefore this world, as God's work, becomes complete and perfect (cf. c. Cels. iv. 99). The individual is never isolated, though never irresponsible. At every moment he is acting and acted upon adding something to the sum of the moral forces of the world, furnishing that out of which God is fulfilling His purpose. The difficulties of life, as Origen regards the given scope for heroic effort and loving service. The fruits of a moral victory become more permanent as they are gained through harder toil. Obstacles and hindrances are incentives to exertion. Man's body is not a "prison," in the sense of a place of punishment only: it is a beneficent provision for discipline, furnishing such salutary restraints as are best fitted to further moral growth.
This view of the dependence of the present
on the past—to use the forms of human
speech—seemed to Origen to remove a difficulty
which weighed heavily upon thoughtful
men then as now. Very many said then that
the sufferings and disparities of life, the contrasts
of law and gospel, point to the action of
rival spiritual powers, or to a Creator limited
by something external to Himself (ii. 9, 5).
Not so, was Origen's reply; they simply reveal
that what we see is a fragment of a vast
system in which we can only trace tendencies,
consequences, signs, and rest upon the historic
fact of the Incarnation. In this respect he
ventured to regard the entire range of being
as "one thought" answering to the absolutely
perfect will of God, while "we that are but
parts can see but part, now this, now that."
This seems to be the true meaning of his
famous assertion, that the power of God in
creation was finite and not infinite. It would,
that is, be inconsistent with our ideas of perfect
order, and therefore with our idea of the
Divine Being, that the sum of first existences
should not form one whole. "God made all
things in number and measure." The omnipotence
of God is defined (as we are forced to
conceive) by the absolute perfections of His
nature. "He cannot deny Himself" (ii. 9,
1, iv. 35). It may be objected that our difficulties
do not lie only in our present circumstances;
the issues of the present, so far as
we can see them, bring difficulties no less overwhelming;
even if we allow this world to be
a fit place of discipline for fallen beings capable
of recovery, it is only too evident that
the discipline does not always work amendment.
Origen admits the fact, and draws
the conclusion that other systems of penal
purification and moral advance follow. World
grows out of world, so to speak, till the consummation
is reached. The nature, position,
or constitution of the worlds to come he does
not attempt to define. It is enough to believe
that, from first to last, the will of Him Who is
most righteous and most loving is fulfilled;
and that each loftier region gamed is the
entrance to some still more glorious abode
above, so that all being becomes, as it were, in
the highest sense a journey of the saints from
mansion to mansion up to the very throne of
God. To make this view clear Origen follows
out, in imagination, the normal course of the
progressive training, purifying, and illumination
of men in the future. He pictures them
passing from sphere to sphere, and resting in
each so as to receive such revelations of the
providence of God as they can grasp; lower
phenomena are successively explained to them,
and higher phenomena are indicated. As they
look backward old mysteries are illuminated;
as they look forward unimagined mysteries
stir their souls with divine desire. Everywhere
their Lord is with them, and they
advance from strength to strength through the
perpetual supply of spiritual food. This food,
he says, is the contemplation and understanding
In bk. iii. Origen discusses the moral basis of his system. This lies in the recognition of free will as the inalienable endowment of rational beings. But this free will does not carry with it the power of independent action, but only the power of receiving the help which is extended to each according to his capacity and needs and therefore justly implying responsibility for the consequences of action. Such free will offers a sufficient explanation, in Origen's judgment, for what we see and gives a stable foundation for what we hope. It places sin definitely within the man himself, not without him. It preserves the possibility of restoration, while it enforces the penalty of failure. "'God said,' so he writes, 'let us make man in our image after our likeness.' Then the sacred writer adds, 'and God made man: in the image of God made He him.' This therefore that he says, 'in the image of God made He him,' while he is silent as to the likeness, has no other meaning than this, that man received the dignity of the image at his first creation: while the perfection of the likeness is kept in the consummation (of all things); that is, that he should himself gain it by the efforts of his own endeavour, since the possibility of perfection had been given him at the first . . ." (iii. 6, 1). Such a doctrine, he shews, gives a deep solemnity to the moral conflicts of life. We cannot, even to the last, plead that we are the victims of circumstances or of evil spirits. The decision in each case rests with ourselves, yet so that all we have and are truly is the gift of God. Each soul obtains from the object of its love the power to fulfil His will. "It draws and takes to itself," he says in another place, "the Word of God in proportion to its capacity and faith. And when souls have drawn to themselves the Word of God, and have let Him penetrate their senses and their understandings, and have perceived the sweetness of His fragrance . . . filled with vigour and cheerfulness they speed after him" (in Cant. i.). Such a doctrine, so far from tending to Pelagianism, is the very refutation of it. It lays down that the essence of freedom is absolute self-surrender; that the power of right action is nothing but the power of God. Every act of man is the act of a free being, but not an exercise of freedom; if done without dependence upon God, it is done in despite of freedom, responsibly indeed, but under adverse constraint. The decision from moment to moment rests with us, but not the end. That is determined from the first, though the conduct of creatures can delay, through untold ages, the consummation of all things. The gift of being, once given, abides for ever. The rational creature is capable of change, of better and worse, but it can never cease to be. What mysteries lie behind; what is the nature of the spiritual body in which we shall be clothed; whether all that is finite shall be gathered up in some unspeakable way into the absolute,—that Origen holds is beyond our minds to conceive.
Bk. iv. deals with the dogmatic basis of Origen's system. For this to follow the moral basis is unusual and yet intelligible. It moves from the universal to the special; from the most abstract to the most concrete; from the heights of speculation to the rule of authority. "In investigating such great subjects as these," Origen writes, "we are not content with common ideas and the clear evidence of what we see, but we take testimonies to prove what we state, even those which are drawn from the Scriptures which we believe to be divine" (iv. 1). Therefore, in conclusion, he examines with a reverence, insight, humility, and grandeur of feeling never surpassed, the questions of the inspiration and interpretation of the Bible. The intellectual value of the work may best be characterized by one fact. A single sentence from it was quoted by Butler as containing the germ of his Analogy.
Before he left Alexandria Origen wrote ten
books of Miscellanies
(Στρωματεῖς: cf. Eus.
H.E. vi. 18). In these he apparently discussed
various topics in the light of ancient philosophy
and Scripture (Hieron. Ep. ad Magn.
lxx. 4). The three fragments which remain,
in a Latin translation, give no sufficient idea
of their contents. The first, from bk. vi.,
touches on the permissibility of deflection
from literal truth, following out a remark of
Plato (Hieron. adv. Ruf. i. § 18: cf.
Hom. xix. in Jer. § 7; Hom. in Lev. iii. § 4). The
second, from bk. x., contains brief notes on the
history of Susanna and Bel (
The Letter to Julius Africanus on the History
of Susanna (
C. THE EIGHT BOOKS AGAINST CELSUS.—The earlier apologists had been called upon to defend Christianity against the outbursts of popular prejudice, as a system compatible with civil and social order. Origen, in this work, entered a far wider field. It was his object to defend the faith against a comprehensive attack, conducted by critical, historical, and philosophical, as well as by political, arguments. He undertook the work very unwillingly, at the urgent request of Ambrose, but, once undertaken, he threw into it the whole energy of his genius. CELSUS was a worthy opponent, and Origen allows him to state his case in his own words, and follows him step by step in the great controversy. At first Origen proposed to deal with the attack of Celsus in a general form; but after i. 27 he quotes the objections of Celsus, in the order of their occurrence, and deals with them one by one, so that it is possible to reconstruct the work of Celsus, in great part, from Origen's quotations. It would be difficult to overrate the importance both of attack and defence in the history of religious opinion in the 2nd and 3rd cents. The form of objections changes; but every essential type of objection to Christianity finds its representative in Celsus's statements, and Origen suggests in reply thoughts, often disguised in strange dresses, which may yet be fruitful. No outline can convey a true idea of the fullness and variety of the contents of the treatise. Speaking broadly, the work falls into three parts—the controversy on the history of Christianity (bks. i. ii.), the controversy on the general character and idea of Christianity (bks. iii.–v.), the controversy on the relations of Christianity to philosophy, popular religion, and national life (bks. vi.–viii.). There are necessarily many repetitions, but in the main this appears to represent the course of the argument. The lines were laid down by Celsus: Origen simply followed him.
After some introductory chapters (i. 1–27),
dealing with a large number of miscellaneous
objections to Christianity as illegal, secret, of
barbarous origin, inspired by a demoniac
power, an offshoot of Judaism, Origen meets Celsus's first serious attack, directed against
the Christian interpretation of the gospel
history. In this case Celsus places his arguments
in the mouth of a Jew. The character,
as Origen points out, is not consistently maintained,
but the original conception is ingenious.
A Jew might reasonably be supposed to
be the best critic of a system which sprang
from his own people. The chief aim of the objector
is to shew that the miraculous narratives
of the Gospels are untrustworthy, inconclusive
in themselves, and that the details of
the Lord's life, so far as they can be ascertained,
furnish no adequate support to the Christian
theory of His person. The criticism is wholly
external and unsympathetic. Can we suppose,
Celsus asks, that He Who was God would
be afraid and flee to Egypt (i., 66) ? could
have had a body like other men (i. 69, ii. 36)?
would have lived a sordid, wandering life,
with a few mean followers (i. 62)? have borne
insults without exacting vengeance (ii. 35)?
have been met with incredulity (ii. 75)? have
died upon the cross (ii. 68)? have shewn
Himself only to friends if He rose again (ii.
63)? He repeats the Jewish story of the
shameful birth of Christ, and of His education
in Egypt, where Celsus supposes that He
learned magical arts by which He imposed
upon His countrymen. These illustrations sufficiently
shew the fatal weakness of Celsus's
position. He has no eye for the facts of the
inner life. He makes no effort to apprehend
the gospel offered in what Christ did and was,
as a revelation of spiritual power; and Origen
rises immeasurably superior to him in his vindication
of the majesty of Christ's humiliation
and sufferings (i. 29 ff.). He shews that Christ
did "dawn as a sun" upon the world (ii. 30),
when judged by a moral and not by an external
standard (ii. 40); that He left His disciples
the abiding power of doing "greater
works" than He Himself did in His earthly
life (ii. 48); that the actual energy of Christianity
in regenerating men,
Bks. iv. and v. are in many respects the
most interesting of all. In these Origen meets
In the last three books Origen enters again upon surer ground. He examines Celsus's parallels to the teaching of Scripture on the knowledge of God and the kingdom of heaven, drawn from Gentile sources (vi. 1–23); and after a digression on a mystical diagnosis of some heretical sect, which Celsus had brought forward as a specimen of Christian teaching (vi. 24–40), he passes to the true teaching on Satan and the Son of God and creation (vi. 41–65), and unfolds more in detail the doctrine of a spiritual revelation through Christ (vi. 66–81). This leads to a vindication of the O.T. prophecies of Christ (vii. 1–17), the compatibility of the two dispensations (vii. 18–26), and the Christian idea of the future life (vii. 27–40). Celsus proposed to point Christians to some better way, but Origen shews that he has failed: the purity of Christians puts to shame the lives of other men (vii. 41–61).
The remainder of the treatise is occupied with arguments as to the relations of Christianity to popular worship and civil duties. Celsus urged that the "demons," the gods of polytheism, might justly claim some worship, as having been entrusted with certain offices in the world (vii. 62–viii. 32); that the circumstances of life demand reasonable conformity to the established worship, which includes what is true in the Christian faith (viii. 33–68); that civil obedience is paramount (viii. 69–75). Origen replies in detail; and specially he shews that the worship of one God is the essence of true worship (viii. 12 f.); that Christianity has a consistent certainty of belief, with which no strange opinions can be put into comparison (viii. 53 ff.); that Christians do, in the noblest sense, support the civil powers by their lives, by their prayers, by their organization (viii. 75).
The spirit of the arguments on both sides is essentially modern; in the mode of treatment much is characteristic of the age in which the writers lived. Two points of very different nature will especially strike the student. First, the peculiar stress which Origen, in common with other early writers, lays upon isolated passages of the prophets and the O.T. generally; secondly, the unquestioning belief which he, in common with Celsus, accords to the claims of magic and augury (i. 6, 67, iv. 92 f., vii. 67, viii. 58). But when every deduction has been made, it would not be easy to point to a discussion of the claims of Christianity more comprehensive or more rich in pregnant thought. Among early apologies it has no rival. The constant presence of a real antagonist gives unflagging vigour to the debate; and the conscious power of Origen lies in the appeal which he could make to the Christian life as the one unanswerable proof of the Christian faith (cf. Praef. 2; i. 27, 67).
There are many other passages of great interest and worthy of study apart from the context. Such are Origen's remarks on the spirit of controversy (vii. 46); the moral power of Christianity, its universality, and its fitness for man (ii. 64, iii. 28, 40, 54, 62, iv. 26, vii. 17, 35, 42, 59); foreknowledge (ii. 19 ff.); the anthropomorphism of Scripture (vi. 60 ff.); the beauty of the ideal hope of the Christian (iii. 81); the ideal of worship (viii. 17 f., vii. 44); the divisions of Christians (iii. 12 f., v. 61); spiritual fellowship (viii. 64); and future unity (viii. 72).
D. PRACTICAL WORKS.—Origen's essay On Prayer was addressed to Ambrose and Tatiana (φιλομαθέστατοι καὶ γνησιώτατιο ἐν θεοσεβείᾳ ἀδελφοί, c. 33), in answer to their inquiries as to the efficacy, manner, subject, and circumstances of prayer. No writing of Origen is more free from his characteristic faults or more full of beautiful thoughts. He examines first the meaning and use of εὐχή (§ 3), and the objections urged against the efficacy of prayer, that God foreknows the future, and that all things take place according to His will (§ 5). Divine foreknowledge does not, he points out, take away man's responsibility: the moral attitude of prayer is in itself a sufficient blessing upon it (§§ 6 ff.). Prayer establishes an active communion between Christ and the angels in heaven (§§ 10 f.) ; and the duty of prayer is enforced by the example of Christ and the saints (§§ 13 f.). Prayer must be addressed to God only, "our Father in heaven," and not to Christ the Son as apart from the Father, but to the Father through Him (§ 15).
The Exhortation to Martyrdom.—In the
persecution of Maximin (235–237), Ambrose
and Theoctetus, a presbyter of Caesarea, were
thrown into prison. Origen addressed them
E. CRITICAL WRITINGS. [HEXAPLA.]
F. LETTERS.—Eusebius, as already stated, had made a collection of more than 100 of Origen's letters (H. F. vi. 36, 2). Of these two only remain entire, those to Julius Africanus (already noticed) and Gregory of Neocaesarea, and of the remainder the fragments and notices are most meagre. In one fragment (Delarue, i. p. 3, from Suidas, s.v.) he gives a lively picture of the incessant labour which the zeal of Ambrose imposed upon him. Another fragment of great interest, preserved by Eusebius, contains a defence of his study of heathen philosophy (H. E. vi. 19). An important passage of a letter to friends at Alexandria, complaining of the misrepresentations of those who professed to recount controversies they had held with him, has been preserved in a Latin trans. by Jerome and Rufinus (Delarue, i. p. 5).
Gregory was as yet undecided as to his profession when the letter to him was written (c. 236–237: cf. pp. 101 f.). Origen expresses his earnest desire that his "son" will devote all his knowledge of general literature and the fruits of wide discipline to Christianity (c. 1). He illustrates this use of secular learning by the "spoiling of the Egyptians" (c. 2); and concludes his appeal by a striking exhortation to Gregory to study Scripture.
G. THE PHILOCALIA.—To this admirable collection of extracts from Origen's writings the preservation of many fragments of the Greek text is due. A revised text with critical intro. by Dr. J. A. Robinson is pub. by the Camb. Univ. Press. The collection was made, it appears, by Gregory of Nazianzus and Basil. The former sent it to Theodosius, bp. of Tyana, c. 382, with a letter (Greg. Naz. Ep. cxv.) in which he says: "That you may have some memorial from us, and at the same time from the holy Basil, we have sent you a small volume of the 'choice thoughts' of Origen (πυκτίον τῆς Ὠριγένους Φιλοκαλίας), containing extracts of passages serviceable for scholars (τοῖς φιλολόγοις). Be pleased to accept it, and to give us some proof of its usefulness with the aid of industry and the Spirit." The Philocalia is of great interest, not only from the intrinsic excellence of passages in it, but as shewing what Catholic saints held to be characteristic thoughts in Origen's teaching.
The book consists of xxvii. chaps., treating
of the following subjects: (1) The Inspiration
of divine Scripture. How Scripture should
be read and understood. (2) That divine
Scripture is closed and sealed. (3) Why the
Inspired Books [of O.T.] are 22. (4) The
solecism and poor style of Scripture. (5) What
is "much-speaking," and what are "many
books"; and that inspired Scripture is one
Book. (6) That divine Scripture is one instrument
of God, perfect and fitted (for its
work). (7) The special character
(τοῦ ἰδιώματος)
of the persons of divine Scripture. (8) The
duty of not endeavouring to correct the inaccurate
(σολοικοειδῆ)
phrases of Scripture and those not capable of being understood
according to the letter, seeing that they contain
deep propriety of thought for those who
can understand. (9) What is the reason that
divine Scripture often uses the same term in
different significations, and (that) in the same
place. (10) Passages in divine Scripture which
seem to involve difficulties. (11) That we
must seek the nourishment supplied by all
inspired Scripture, and not turn from, the passages
(ῥητά)
troubled by heretics with ill-advised difficulties
(δυσφήμοις ἐπαπορήσεσιν),
nor slight them, but make use of them also,
being kept from the confusion which attaches
to unbelief. (12) That he should not faint in
the reading of divine Scripture who does not
understand its dark riddles and parables.
(13) When and to whom the lessons of philosophy
are serviceable to the explanation of the
sacred Scriptures, with Scripture testimony.
(14) That it is most necessary for those who
wish not to fail of the truth in understanding
the divine Scriptures to know the logical principles
or preparatory discipline
(μαθήματα ἤτοι προπαιδεύματα)
which apply to their use. (15)
A reply to the Greek philosophers who disparage
the poverty of the style of the divine
Scriptures and maintain that the noble truths
in Christianity have been better expressed
among the Greeks. (16) Of those who malign
Christianity on account of the heresies in the
church. (17) A reply to those philosophers
who say that it makes no difference if we call
Him Who is God over all by the name Zeus,
current among the Greeks, or by that used
by Indians or Egyptians. (18) A reply to the
Greek philosophers who profess universal
knowledge, and blame the simple faith
τὸ ἀνεξέταστον τῆς πίστεως
of the mass of Christians, and charge them with preferring
folly to wisdom in life; and who say that no
wise or educated man has become a disciple
of Jesus. (19) That our faith in the Lord has
nothing in common with the irrational, superstitious
faith of the Gentiles. . . . And in reply
to those who say, How do we think that Jesus
is God when He had a mortal body? (20) A
reply to those who say that the whole world
VIEW OF CHRISTIAN LIFE.—The picture of Christian life in Origen's writings is less complete and vivid than we might expect. It represents a society already sufficiently large, powerful, and wealthy to offer examples of popular vices. Origen contrasts the Christians of his own with those of an earlier time, and pronounces them unworthy to bear the name of "faithful" (Hom. in Jer. iv. 3; cf. in Matt. xvii. 24). Some Christians by birth were unduly proud of their descent (in Matt. xv. § 26). Others retained their devotion to pagan superstitions—astrology, auguries, necromancy (in Josh. v. 6, vii. 4; cf. in. Matt. xiii. § 6) and secular amusements (Hom. in Lev. ix. 9, xi. 1). There were many spiritual "Gibeonites," men who gave liberal offerings to the churches but not their lives (in Josh. x. 1, 3). The attendance at church services was infrequent (in Josh. i. 7; Hom. in Gen. x. 1, 3). The worshippers were inattentive (Hom. in Ex. xiii. 2) and impatient (Hom. in Jud. vi. 1). Commercial dishonesty (in Matt. xv. 13) and hardness (Sel. in Job. p. 341 L) had to be reproved. Such faults call out the preacher's denunciations in all ages. An evil more characteristic of his age is the growing ambition of the clergy. High places in the hierarchy were sought by favour and by gifts (Hom. in Num. xxii. 4; cf. in Matt. xvl. 22; Comm. Ser. §§ 9, 10, 12). Prelates endeavoured to nominate their kinsmen as their successors (ib. xxii. 4); and shrank from boldly rebuking vice lest they should lose the favour of the people (in josh. vii. 6), using the powers of discipline from passion rather than with judgment (in Matt. Comm. Ser. § 14), so that their conduct already caused open scandal (Hom. in Num. ii. 17). They too often forgot humility at their ordination (Hom. in Ezech. ix. 2). They despised the counsel of men of lower rank, "not to speak of that of a layman or a Gentile" (Hom. in Ex. xi. 6). Origen in particular denounces the pride of the leading men in the Christian society, which already exceeded that of Gentile tyrants, especially in the more important cities (in Matt. xvi. 8).
Traces still remained in his time of the miraculous endowments of the apostolic church, which he had himself seen (c. Cels. ii. 8, iii. 24; in Joh. t. xx. 28, ἴχνη καὶ λείμματα; cf. c. Cels. i. 2). Exorcism was habitually practised (Hom. in Jos. xxiv. 1). Demons were expelled, many cures wrought, future events foreseen by Christians through the help of the Spirit (c. Cels. i. 46; cf. i. 25, iii. 36, viii. 58); and he says that the "name of Jesus" was sometimes powerful against demons, even when named by bad men (c. Cell. i. 6; cf. v. 45). But this testimony must be taken in conjunction with the belief in magic which he shared with his contemporaries. He appeals unhesitatingly to the efficacy of incantations with the use of sacred names (c. Cels. i. 22, iv. 33 ff.; cf. in Matt. Comm. Ser. § 110), and otherwise according to secret rules (c. Cels. i. 24; Hom. in Num. xiii. 4; in Jos. xx. fragm. ap. Philoc. c. xii.).
Origen says little of the relations of Christians to other bodies in the state. The interpenetration of common life by paganism necessarily excluded believers from most public ceremonies and from much social intercourse. It also made them ill-disposed towards art, which was devoted to the old religion (c. Cels. iii. 56; de Orat. 17), and had not yet found any place in connexion with Christian worship (c. Cels. vii. 63 ff.). It is remarkable that while Origen was pre-eminently distinguished for his vindication of the claims of reason (ib. i. 13) and of Gentile philosophy, as being the ripest fruit of man's natural powers (cf. Hom. in Gen. xiv. 3; in Ex. xi. 6) and not their corruption (Tertullian), he still very rarely refers to the literature of secular wisdom in his general writings as ancillary to revelation. He even in some cases refers its origin to "the princes of this world" (de Princ. iii. 3, 2); and, in an interesting outline of the course of Gentile education, remarks that it may only accumulate a wealth of sins (Hom. iii. in Ps. xxxvi. 6). But his directions for dealing with unbelievers are marked by the truest courtesy (Hom. in Ex. iv. 9). In spite of his own courageous enthusiasm, he counselled prudence in times of persecution (in Matt. x. 23). Occasions for such self-restraint arose continually. For Origen notices the popular judgment, active from the time of Tertullian to that of Augustine, which referred "wars, famines, and pestilences" to the spread of the faith (in Matt. Comm. Ser. § 39); especially he dwells upon the animosity of the Jews, who "would rather see a criminal acquitted than convicted by the evidence of a Christian" (ib. § 16). Of the extension of Christianity he speaks in general terms, rhetorically rather than exactly. It was not preached among all the Ethiopians, especially "those beyond the river," or among the Chinese. "What," he continues, "shall we say of the Britons or Germans by the Ocean, Dacians, Sarmatians, Scythians, very many of whom have not yet heard the word?" (ib. § 39). But some inhabitants of Britain and Mauritania held the faith (Hom. in Luc. vi.). Christians generally declined public offices, not from lack of loyalty, but feeling that they could serve their country better through their own society (c. Cels. viii. 73, 75).
The church, according to Origen, is the
whole body of believers animated by Christ,
Who, as the Divine Logos, stirs each member,
so that without Him it does nothing (ib.
vi. 48).
In the widest sense it has existed even from
the Creation (in Cant. ii. p. 418 L.).
Such a view, which makes the church coextensive
Origen lays great stress upon the importance of right belief (in Matt. t. xii. 23; Comm. Ser. in Matt. § 33; de Orat. 29). As a young man he refused every concession to a misbeliever in the house of his benefactress (Eus. H. E. vi. 2). In later years he laboured successfully to win back those who had fallen into error. But his sense of the infinite greatness of the truth made him tolerant (c. Cels. v. 63). Varieties of belief arose from the very vastness of its object (ib. iii. 12); and his discussion of the question, Who is a heretic? is full of interest (Fragm. in Ep. ad Tit.).
Casual notices in Origen's writings give a fairly complete view of the current religious observances. He speaks generally of stated times of daily prayer, "not less than three" (de Orat. 12), of the days they kept—"the Lord's days (cf. Hom. in Ex. vii. 5; in Num. xxiii. 4), Fridays, Easter, Pentecost" (c. Cels. viii. 22; cf. Hom. in Is. vi. § 2)—and of the Lenten, Wednesday, and Friday fasts (Hom. in Lev. x. 2). Some still added Jewish rites to the celebration of Easter (Hom. in Jer. xii. 13) and other traces remained of Judaizing practices (ib. x. § 2). Jewish converts, Origen says without reserve, "have not left their national law" (c. Cels. ii. 1, cf. § 3); though he lays down that Christ forbade His disciples to be circumcised (ib. i. 22; cf. v. 48). Christians, however, still abstained from "things strangled " (ib. viii. 30) and from meat offered to idols (ib. 24). Outward forms had already made progress; and the religion of some consisted in "bowing their head to priests, and in bringing offerings to adorn the altar of the church" (Hom. in Jos. x. 3).
Baptism was administered to infants, "in accordance with apostolic tradition" (in Rom. v. § 9, p. 397 L.; Hom. in Lev. viii. § 3; in Luc. xiv.), in the name of the Holy Trinity (in Rom. v. § 8, p. 383 L.; cf. in Joh. t vi. 17), with the solemn renunciations "of the devil and of his pomps, works, and pleasures" (Hom. in Num. xii. 4). The unction (confirmation) does not appear to have been separated from it (in Rom. v. § 8, p. 381: "omnes baptizati in aquis istis visibilibus et in chrismate visibili"). The gift of the Holy Spirit comes only from Christ, and Origen held that it was given according to His righteous will: "Not all who are bathed in water are forthwith bathed in the Holy Spirit" (Hom. in Num. iii. 1). Cf. also Sel. in Gen. ii. 15; Hom. in Luc. xxi.; de Princ. i. 2; and for the two sacraments, Hom. in Num. vii. 2. Adult converts were divided into different classes and trained with great care (c. Cels. iii. 51).
Of the Holy Communion Origen speaks not
infrequently, but with some reserve
(Hom. in Lev. x. 10; in Jos. iv.
1). The passages which give his views most
fully are in Joh. xxxii. § 16; in
Matt. xi. § 14; in Matt. Comm.
Ser. §§ 85 f.; Hom. in Gen. xvii.
8; in Ex. xiii. § 3; in Lev. ix. 10;
in Num. xvi. 9. Cf. c. Cels. viii.
33, 57; Hom. in Jud. vi. 2; Hom.
ii. in Ps. xxxvii. 6; Sel. in Ps. p.
365 L. The ruling thought of his interpretation
is suggested by
The treatise On Prayer gives a vivid picture of the mode and attitude of prayer. It was usual to turn to the east (de Orat. 31; Hom. in Num. v. § 1). Standing and kneeling are both recognized (de Orat. l.c.; Hom. in Num. xi. § 9; cf. in Sam. Hom. i. § 9). Forms of prayer were used (Hom. in Jer. xiv. § 14) and prayers made in the vernacular language of each country (c. Cels. viii. 31).
Origen frequently refers to confession as made to men and not to God only (Hom. in Luc. xvii.; de Orat. 28; Hom. ii, in Ps. xxxvii. § 6); and reckons penitence completed by such confession to a "priest of the Lord" as one of the modes for forgiveness of sins (Hom. ii. in Lev. § 4). He speaks of public confession (ἐξομολόγησις) to God as efficacious (Hom. i. in Ps. xxxvi. § 5), a form of penitence to be adopted after wise advice (ib. xxxvii. § 6); and he supposes that the efficacy of "the power of the keys" depends upon the character of those who exercise it (in Matt. t. xii. § 14). Discipline was enforced by exclusion from common prayer (in Matt. Comm. Ser. § 89); and for more serious offences penitence was admitted once only (Hom. in Lev. xv. § 2). Cf. also what is said on "sin unto death" (ib. xi. 2). Those who had offended grievously after baptism were looked upon as incapable of holding office (c. Cels. iii. 51).
The threefold ministry is treated as universally
recognized; and Origen speaks of
presbyters as priests, and deacons as Levites
(Hom. in Jer. xii. 3). The people were to be
present at the ordination of priests (Hom. in
Lev. vii. 3) and he recognizes emphatically the
priesthood of all Christians who "have been
anointed with the sacred chrism" (ib. ix. 9;
cf. Hom. in Num. v. 3; in Jos. vii. 2;
cf. Exh. ad Martyr. 30). Widows are spoken of as
As yet no absolute rule existed as to
the celibacy of the clergy. Origen himself
was inclined to support it by his own
judgment (Hom. in Lev. vi. § 6).
"No bishop, however, or presbyter or deacon
or widow could marry a
second time" (Hom. in Luc. xvii.):
such Origen held to be in a second class,
not "of the church without spot" (l.c.;
but cf. note on
The reverence of Christian burial is noticed (Hom. in Lev. iii. § 3; c. Cels. viii. 30). Military service Origen thinks unlawful for Christians (c. Cels. v. 33, viii. 73), though he seems to admit exceptions (ib. iv. 82).
ORIGEN AS CRITIC AND INTERPRETER.—Origen regarded the Bible as the source and rule of truth (Hom. in Jer. i. § 7). Christ is "the Truth," and they who are sure of this seek spiritual knowledge from His very words and teaching alone, given not only during His earthly presence, but through Moses and the prophets (de Princ. Praef. 1). The necessary points of doctrine were, Origen held, comprised by the apostles in a simple creed handed down by tradition (ib. ii.), but the fuller exhibition of the mysteries of the gospel was to be sought from the Scriptures. He made no sharp division between O. and N. T. They must be treated as one body, and we must be careful not to mar the unity of the spirit which exists throughout (in Joh. x. 13; cf. de Princ. ii. 4). The divinity of the O.T. is indeed first seen through Christ (de Princ. iv. 1, 6).
(1) The Canon of Scripture.—In fixing the
contents of the collection of sacred books
Origen shews some indecision. In regard to
O.T. he found a serious difference between
the Hebrew canon and the books commonly
found in the Alexandrine Greek Bible. In
his Comm. on Ps. i. he gives a list of the
canonical books
(αἱ ἐνδιάθηκοι βίβλοι)
according to the tradition of the Hebrews, 22
in number (ap. Eus. H. E. vi. 25).
In the
enumeration the Book of the Twelve (minor)
Prophets is omitted by the error of Eusebius
or of his transcriber, for it is necessary to make
up the number; and the "Letter" (
How far Origen was from any clear view of the history of O.T. may be inferred from the importance he assigns to the tradition of Ezra's restoration of their text from memory after the Babylonian captivity (Sel. in Jer. xi. p. 5 L.; Sel. in Ps. id. p. 371).
His testimony to the contents of N.T. is
more decided. He notices the books which
were generally acknowledged as possessing
unquestionable authority: the Four Gospels
[the Acts
Origen quotes frequently and with the
greatest respect the Shepherd of Hermas
(e.g. de Princ. i. 3, 3, iv. 11; in
Matt. t. xiv. § 21; in Rom. x. 31, p.
437 L.).
Sayings attributed to the Lord are given in
Matt. t. xiii. § 2, xvi. § 28 (Sel. in Ps.
p. 432 L and de Orat.
§§ 2, 14, 16; cf.
Anonymous quotations occur, Hom. in Luc. xxxv.; Comm. Ser. in Matt. § 61; Hom. in Ezech. i. 5; in Rom. ix. § 2.
(2) The Text.—Origen had very little of the critical spirit, in the modern acceptation of the phrase. This is especially seen in his treatment of Biblical texts. His importance for textual criticism is that of a witness and not of a judge. He gives invaluable evidence as to what he found, but his few endeavours to determine what is right, in a conflict of authorities, are for the most part unsuccessful both in method and result. Generally, however, he makes no attempt to decide on the one right reading. He would accept all the conflicting readings as contributing to edification. Even his great labours on the Greek translations of O.T. were not directed rigorously to the definite end of determining the authentic text, but mainly to recording the extent and character of the variations. He then left his readers to use their own judgment.
This want of a definite critical aim is more
decisively shewn in his treatment of N.T.
Few variations are more remarkable than
those in
His importance as a witness to the true
text of N.T. is, nevertheless, invaluable.
Notwithstanding the late date and scantiness
of the MSS. in which his Greek writings have
been preserved, and the general untrustworthiness
of the Latin translations in points
of textual detail, it would be possible to determine
a pure text of a great part of N.T. from
his writings alone (cf. Griesbach, Symb.
Crit. t. ii.). In some respects his want of a
critical spirit makes his testimony of greater
value than if he had followed consistently an
independent judgment. He reproduces the
characteristic readings which he found, and
thus his testimony is carried back to an
earlier date. At different times he used copies
exhibiting different complexions of text; so
that his writings reflect the variations faithfully.
But great care is required in using
the evidence which Origen's quotations
furnish. He frequently quotes from memory;
combines texts; and sometimes gives repeatedly
a reading which he can hardly have
found in any MS. (e.g.
(3) Interpretation.—Origen has been spoken of as the founder of a new form of literature in Biblical interpretation, and justly; though others, conspicuously Heracleon, preceded him in expositions of Scripture more or less continuous. Origen constantly refers to previous interpretors, esp. to Heracleon.
Origen's method of interpreting Scripture was a practical deduction from his view of the inspiration of Scripture. This he developed in the treatise On First Principles, bk. iv. He regarded every "jot and tittle" as having its proper work (Hom. in Jer. xxxix. fr. ep. Philoc. c. x.). All is precious; not even the least particle is void of force (in Matt. t. xvi. 12). Cf. Ep. ad Greg. § 3; in Joh. t. i. § 4. Minute details of order and number veil and yet suggest great thoughts (e.g. Sel. in Pss. xi. 370, 377 L). It follows that in interpretation there is need of great exactness and care (in Gen. t. iii. p. 46 L.; Philoc. xiv.) and scrupulous study of details (in Joh. xx. 29). Origen illustrates his principles by countless subtle observations of great interest. His skill in combining passages from different parts of Scripture in illustration of some particular phrase or detail is specially noticeable. Each term calls up far-reaching associations; and all Scripture is made to contribute to the fullness of the thought to be expressed.
Though Origen's critical knowledge of Hebrew was slight, he evidently learnt much from Hebrew interpreters and not unfrequently quotes Hebrew traditions and "Midrash." He gives also an interpretation of "Corban" (in Matt. t. xi. 9) and of "Iscariot" (in Matt. Comm. Ser. 78) from Jewish sources.
To obviate the moral and historical difficulties of O.T. he systematized the theory of a "spiritual sense," which was generally if vaguely admitted by the church (de Princ. 1, Praef. 8). There is, he taught, generally, a threefold meaning in the text of the Bible, literal (historical), moral, mystical, corresponding to the three elements in man's constitution, body, soul, and spirit (de Princ. iv. 11; Hom. in Lev. v. §§ 1, 5). Thus Scripture has a different force for different ages and different readers, according to their circumstances and capacities (in Rom. ii. § 14, p. 150 L.). But all find in it what they need.
This threefold sense is to be sought both
in O. and N. T. The literal interpretation
brings out the simple precept or fact; the
moral meets the individual want of each
It is easy to point out serious errors in detail
in his interpretation of Scripture. On these
there is no need to dwell. His main defect
and the real source of his minor faults was his
lack of true historic feeling. For him prophecy
ceased to have any vital connexion with
the trials and struggles of a people of God;
and psalms (e.g.
While this grave defect is distinctly acknowledged, it must be remembered that Origen had a special work to do, and did it. In his time powerful schools of Christian speculation disparaged the O.T. or rejected it. Christian masters had not yet been able to vindicate it from the Jews and for themselves. This task Origen accomplished. From his day the O.T. has been a part of our Christian heritage, and he fixed rightly the general spirit in which it is to be received. The O.T., he says, is always new to Christians who understand and expound it spiritually and in an evangelic sense, new not in time but in interpretation (Hom. in Num. ix. § 4; cf. c. Cels. ii. 4). If in pressing this he was led to exaggeration, the error may be pardoned in regard to the greatness of the service.
His method was fixed and consistent. He systematized what was before tentative and inconstant (cf. Redepenning, de Princ. pp. 56 f.). He laid down, once for all, broad outlines of interpretation; and mystical meanings were not arbitrarily devised to meet particular emergencies. The influence of his views is a sufficient testimony to their power. It is not too much to say that the medieval interpretation of Scripture in the West was inspired by Origen; and through secondary channels these medieval comments have passed into our own literature.
He was indeed right in principle. "He felt that there was something more than a mere form in the Bible; he felt that 'the words of God' must have an eternal significance, for all that comes into relation with God is eternal; he felt that there is a true development and a real growth in the elements of divine revelation, if not in divine communication, yet in human apprehension; he felt the power and the glory of the spirit of Scripture bursting forth from every part." No labour was too great to bestow upon the text in which priceless treasures were enshrined; no hope too lofty for the interpreter to cherish.
ORIGEN AS A THEOLOGIAN.—Origen was essentially the theologian of an age of transition. His writings present principles, ruling ideas, tendencies, but are not fitted to supply materials for a system of formulated dogmas, after the type of later confessions. Every endeavour to arrange his opinions according to the schemes of the 16th cent. can only issue in a misunderstanding of their general scope and proportion. The whole structure of his treatise On First Principles, e.g., presents a connected view of his intellectual apprehension of Christianity, widely different from medieval and modern expositions of the faith. Starting from a clear and deeply interesting exposition of what were acknowledged to be the doctrines held generally by the church, corresponding in the main with the Apostles' Creed (de Princ. Praef.), Origen endeavours to determine, by the help of Scripture and reason, subjects yet unexplored. But his inquiries and results cannot be judged fairly when taken out of their connexion with contemporary thought. The book contains very little technical teaching. It is silent as to the sacraments; it gives no theory of the atonement, no discussion of justification; yet deals with problems of thought and life which lie behind these subjects.
Origen found himself face to face with powerful schools which, within and without the church, maintained antagonistic views on man, the world, and God, in their extremest forms. There was the false realism, which found expression in Montanism; the false idealism, which spread widely in the many forms of Gnosticism. Here the Creator was degraded into a secondary place; there God Himself was lost in His works. Some represented men as inherently good or bad from their birth; others swept away moral distinctions of action. Origen sought to maintain two great truths: the unity of all creation, as answering to the thought of a Creator infinitely good and infinitely just; and the power of moral determination in rational beings. The treatment and apprehension of these truths are modified by the actual fact of sin. The power of moral determination has issued in present disorder; the divine unity of creation has to be realized hereafter.
(1) Finite Beings, Creation, Man,
Spirits.—Origen endeavours to pass
from the outward
to the inward, from the temporal to the
eternal. He thinks that we shall best realize
the fact of creation, according to our present
powers, by supposing a vast succession of
orders, one springing out of another (de
Princ. ii. 1, 3). The present order, which began
and will end in time, must be one only in the
succession of corresponding orders (ib.
iii. 5, 3).
"In the beginning," then, he writes, "when
God created what He was pleased to create,
that is rational natures, He had no other
cause of creation beside Himself, that is His
own goodness" (ib. ii. 9, 6; cf. iv. 35). This
Evil, it follows, is negative—the loss of good which was attainable, the shadow which marks the absence or rather the exclusion of light. But as God made creatures for an end, so He provided that they should, through whatever discipline of sorrow, attain it. He made matter also, which might serve as a fitting expression for their character, and become, in the most manifold form, a medium for their training. So it was that, by various declensions, "spirit" (πνεῦμα) lost its proper fire and was chilled into a "soul" (ψυξή), and "souls" were embodied in our earthly frames in this world of sense. Such an embodiment was a provision of divine wisdom which enabled them, in accord with the necessities of the fact, to move towards the accomplishment of their destiny (ib. i. 7, 4).
Under this aspect man is a microcosm. (Hom. in Gen. i. 11; in Lev. v. 2: intellige te et alium mundum esse parvum et intra te esse solem, esse lunam, etiam stellas.) He stands in the closest connexion with the seen and the unseen; and is himself the witness of the correspondences which exist between visible and invisible orders (Hom. in Num. xi. 4, xvii. 4, xxiv. 1, xxviii. 2; Hom. i. in Ps. xxxvii. 1; in Joh. t. xix. 5, xxiii. 4; de Princ. iv. fragm. Gr. p. 184 R.). He is made for the spiritual and cannot find rest elsewhere.
As a necessary consequence of his deep view
of man's divine kinsmanship, Origen labours
to give distinctness to the unseen world. He
appears already to live and move in it. He
finds there the realities of which the phenomena
of earth are shadows (cf. in Rom. x. § 39).
External objects, peoples, cities, are to him
veils and symbols of invisible things; and
not only is there the closest correspondence
between the constitution of different orders of
being, but also even now a continuation of
unobserved intercourse between them (cf. de
Princ. ii. 9, 3). Angels (ib. i. 8, iii. 2,
passim) preside over the working of
elemental forces, over plants and beasts (in
Num. Hom. xiv. 2; in Jer. Hom. x. 6;
c. Cels. viii. 31; de Princ. iii. 3, 3),
and it is suggested that nature is affected
by their moral condition (in Ezech. Hom.
iv. 2). More particularly men were, in Origen's
opinion, committed to the care of spiritual
"rulers," and deeply influenced by changes in
their feeling and character (in Joh. xiii. §
58; cf. de Princ. i. 8, 1). Thus he recognized
guardian angels of cities, provinces and nations
(Hom. in Luc. xii.; de Princ. iii. 3, 2),
a belief which he supported habitually by the LXX
version of
On the other hand, there are spiritual hosts
of evil corresponding to the angelic forces and
in conflict with them (in Matt. t. xvii. 2;
in Matt. Comm. Ser. § 102; Hom.
in Jos. xv. 5) He even speaks of a Trinity
of evil (in Matt. xi. § 6, xii. § 20). An
evil power strives with the good for the sway
of individuals (in Rom. i. § 18); thus
all life is made a struggle of unseen powers
(e.g. notes on
One aspect of this belief had a constant and powerful influence on daily life. Origen, like most of his contemporaries, supposed that evil spiritual beings were the objects of heathen worship (c. Cels. vii. 5). There was, for him, a terrible reality in their agency. Within certain limits they could work so as to bind their servants to them.
Origen believed also that the dead, too, influenced the living. The actions of men on earth last, in their effects, after the actors have departed (in Rom. ii. 4, p. 80 L.). Disembodied (or unembodied) souls are not idle (in Matt. xv. 35). So the "soul" of Christ preached to "souls" (c. Cels. iii. 43); and the saints sympathize with man still struggling on earth with a sympathy larger than that of those who are clogged by conditions of mortality (de Orat. xi.; in Matt. t. xxvii. 30; in Joh. t. xiii. 57; iii. in Cant. 7).
Without extenuating the effects of man's sin, Origen maintained a lofty view of the nobility of his nature and destiny (c. Cels. iv. 25, 30); held that the world had been made by divine wisdom a fitting place for the purification of a being such as man (de Princ. ii. 1, 1; 2, 2: 3, 1; c. Cels. vi. 44; cf. in Rom. viii. 10, p. 261); and that everything has been so ordered by Providence from the first as to contribute to this end (de Princ. ii. 1, 2). Man can, if he will, read the lesson of his life: he has a spiritual faculty, by which he can form conclusions on spiritual things, even as he is made to form conclusions on impressions of sense. The body, so to speak, reflects the soul; the "outer man" expresses the "inner man" (in Rom. ii. 13, p. 142 L.). There is imposed upon us the duty of service (in Matt. Comm. Ser. § 66), and the offices are many (in Joh. t. x. 23), room being made even for the meanest (Hom. in Num. xiv. 2, p. 162 L.).
The visible creation thus bears, in all its parts, the impress of a divine purpose; and the Incarnation was the crowning of the creation, by which the purpose was made fully known, and provision made for its accomplishment (de Princ. iii. 5, 6).
(2) The Incarnation. The Person of Christ.
The Holy Trinity. The Work of Christ.—On
no subject is Origen more full or suggestive
(de Princ. i. 2; ii. 6; iv. 31). No one perhaps
has done so much to vindicate and harmonize
the fullest acknowledgment of the perfect
humanity of the Lord and of His perfect
divinity in one Person. His famous image of
His doctrine of the Incarnation of the God-Word rests in part upon his doctrine of the Godhead. "All," he held, "who are born again unto salvation have need of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and would not obtain salvation unless the Trinity were entire" (ib. i. 3, 5). Hence he speaks of baptism as "the beginning and fountain of divine gifts to him who offers himself to the divinity of the power of the invocations of the adorable Trinity" (τῶν τῆς προσκυνητῆς τριάδος ἐπικλήσεων) (in Joh. vi. 17). But there is, in his judgment, a difference in the extent of the action of the Persons in the Holy Trinity. The Father, "holding all things together, reaches (φθάνει) to each being, imparting being to each from that which is His own, for He is absolutely (ὢν γὰρ ἔστιν). The Son is less than the Father (ἐλάττων παρὰ τ. π.), reaching only to rational beings, for He is second to the Father; and, further, the Holy Spirit is less (ἧττοϖ), and extends (διικνούμενον) to the saints only. So that in this respect (κατὰ τοῦτο) the power of the Father is greater in comparison with (παρά) the Son and the Holy Spirit; and that of the Son more in comparison with the Holy Spirit; and, again, the power of the Holy Spirit more exceeding (διαφέρουσα μᾶλλον) in comparison with all other holy beings." To rightly understand this passage it is necessary to observe that Origen is not speaking of the essence of the Persons of the Godhead, but of their manifestation to creatures (cf. de Princ. i. 3, 7). Essentially the three Persons are of one Godhead, and eternal. The subordination which Origen teaches is not of essence but of person and office. His aim is to realize the Father as the one Fountain of Godhead, while vindicating true deity for the Son and the Holy Spirit. In this respect he worked out first the thought of "the eternal generation" of the Son, which was accepted from him by the Catholic church as the truest human expression of one side of the mystery of the essential Trinity.
The peculiar connexion which Origen recognizes between the Son (the God-Word) and rational beings establishes (so to speak the fitness of the Incarnation. The Son stood in a certain affinity with rational souls; and the human soul with which He was united in the Incarnation had alone remained absolutely pure, by the exercise of free choice, in its pre-existence (ib. ii. 6, 5). Through this union all human nature was capable of being glorified, without violating its characteristic limitations (cf. c. Cels. iii. 41 f.). The body of Christ was perfect no less than His soul (ib. i. 32 f.).
The work of Christ was, Origen emphatically maintained, for all men and for the whole of man (cf. ib. iii. 17; iv. 3 f.). It was therefore so revealed that it could be apprehended according to the several powers and wants of believers (in Matt. t. xii. 36, 41, xv. 241, xvii. 19; c. Cels. iv. 15, vi. 68; in Joh. ii. 12). Christ became, in a transcendent sense, "all things to all men" (de Princ. iv. 31; in Joh. t. xix. 1, xx. 28; Cf. c. Cels. iii. 79).
Origen thus insists on the efficacy of Christ's work for the consummation of humanity and of the individual, as a victory over every power of evil. He dwells no less earnestly upon the value of the life and death of Christ as a vicarious sacrifice for sin. He seeks illustrations of the general idea of the power of vicarious sufferings in Gentile stories of self-sacrifice (c. Cels. i. 31), and extends it to the case of martyrs (Exh. ad Mart. c. 42; Cf. in Joh. t. vi. 36; xxviii. 14). Though he does not attempt to explain how the sacrifice of Christ was efficacious, he frequently presents it as a ransom given to redeem man from Satan, to whom sin had made man a debtor. Christ, in His own person, freely paid the debt, by bearing the utmost punishment of sin, and so set man free, "giving His soul (ψυχή) as a ransom for him" (in Matt. t. xvi. 8; in Rom. ii. 13, p. 140 L.; Comm. Ser. in Matt. § 135). At other times he regards it as a propitiation for the divine remission of sins (Hom. in Num. xxiv. 1; in Lev. i. 3; cf. c. Cels. vii. 17).
Origen held that the death of Christ was of avail for heavenly beings, if not for the expiation of sin yet for advancement in blessedness (Hom. in Lev. i. 3, ii. 3; in Rom. v. s. f., p. 409 L.; ib. i. 4; Hom. in Luc. x.). Thus in a true sense angels themselves were disciples of Christ (in Matt. t. xv. 7). At times indeed Origen speaks as if he supposed that the Word was actually manifested to other orders of being in a manner corresponding to their nature, even as He was revealed as soul to the souls in Hades (Sel. in Ps. iii. 5, xi. p. 420 L.). In this sense also he thinks that "He became all things to all," an angel to angels (in Joh. t. i. 34); and he does not shrink from allowing that His passion may be made available, perhaps in some other shape, in the spiritual world (de Princ. iv. frag. Gr. 2; Cf. iv. 25, L.).
The work of the Holy Spirit, according to Origen, is fulfilled in believers. His office is specially to guide to the fuller truth, which is the inspiration of nobler life. Through Him revelation comes home to men. He lays open the deeper meanings of the word. Through Him, "Who proceeds from the Father," all things are sanctified (de Princ. iii. 5, 8). Through Him every divine gift, wrought by the Father and ministered by the Son, gains its individual efficiency (in Joh. t. ii. 6). Thus there is a unity in the divine operations, which tends to establish a unity in created beings. (For the doctrine of the Holy Spirit generally see de Princ. i. 3, iii. 7; in Joh. t. ii. 6.)
(3) The Consummation of Being.—These
characteristic lines of speculation lead to
Origen's view of the consummation of things. All
human thought must fail in the endeavour to
give distinctness to a conception which ought
to embrace the ideas of perfect rest and perfect
On the other hand, since the future state is
the direct fruit of this, there are, so Origen
held, varieties of blessedness in heaven
(in Rom. iv. 12), corresponding to
the life of saints (ib. ix. 3, p. 303),
and foreshadowed by the divisions of Israel
(Hom. in Num. i. 3; xxviii. 2; Hom.
in
CHARACTERISTICS.—It cannot be surprising that Origen failed to give a consistent and harmonious embodiment to his speculations. His writings represent an aspiration rather than a system, principles of research and hope rather than determined formulas; and his enthusiasm continually mars the proportion of his work. His theorizing needs the discipline of active life, without which there can be no real appreciation of history or of the historical development of truth. Yet even in regard to the practical apprehension of the divine education of the world it is only necessary to compare him on one side with Philo and on the other with Augustine, to feel how his grasp of the significance of the Incarnation gave him a sovereign power to understand the meaning and destiny of life.
While ready to fully acknowledge the claims of reason (cf. Hom. in Luc. i. p. 88 L.), Origen lays stress on the new data given by revelation to the solution of the problems of philosophy (de Princ. i. 5, 4). He points out repeatedly the insufficiency of reason, of the independent faculties of man, to attain that towards which it is turned. Reason enables man to recognize God when He makes Himself known, to receive a revelation from Him in virtue of his affinity with the Divine Word, but it does not enable the creature to derive from within the longed-for knowledge. The capacity for knowing God belongs to man as man, and not to man as a philosopher. Origen therefore acknowledges the nobility of Plato's saying that "it is a hard matter to find out the Maker and Father of the Universe, and impossible for one who has found Him to declare Him to all men." But he adds that Plato affirms too much and too little (c. Cels. vii. 43). As Christians "we declare that human nature is not in itself competent in any way to seek God and find Him purely without the help of Him Who is sought, of Him Who is found by those who confess after they have done all in their power that they have yet need of Him. . ." (cf. Clem. Al. Cohort. § 6).
In the endeavour to fashion a Philosophy of
Christianity Origen did not practically recognize
the limits and imperfection of the human
mind which he constantly points out. His
Such thoughts bring Origen himself before us. Of the traits of his personal character little need be said. He bore unmerited sufferings without a murmur. He lived only to work. He combined in a signal degree sympathy with zeal. As a controversialist he sought to win his adversary, not simply to silence him (cf. Eus. H. E. vi. 33). He had the boldest confidence in the truth he held and the tenderest humility as to his own weakness (in Joh. t. xxxii. 18; in Matt. t. xvi. 13). When he ventures freely in the field of interpretations, he asks the support of the prayers of his hearers. His faith was catholic, and therefore he welcomed every kind of knowledge as tributary to its fullness. It was living, and therefore he knew that no age could seal any one expression of it as complete. This open-hearted trust kept unchilled to the last the passionate devotion of his youth. He was therefore enabled to leave to the church the conviction, attested by a life of martyrdom, that all things are its heritage because all things are Christ's.
EDITIONS.—Through the labours of the great Benedictines of St. Maur the first two vols. of a complete edition of Origen (Origenis opera omnia quae Graece vel Latine tantum extant et ejus nomine circumferuntur) appeared at Paris in 1733, under the editorship of Charles Delarue, a priest of that society. Vol. iii. appeared at Paris in 1740, a few months after the death of the editor (Oct. 1739), who left, however, vol. iv. to the care of his nephew C. V. Delarue, who was not able to issue it till 1759. The service the two Delarues rendered was great; but their edition is very far from satisfying the requirements of scholarship. The collations of MSS. are fragmentary and even inaccurate; the text is only partially revised; the notes are inadequate. Later edd., particularly that of Lommatsch, have added little. This is the more to be regretted, as large additions have been, and are being, made to the Origenian fragments. These materials have been either wholly neglected or only partially used in the latest edd.; and practically nothing has been done to improve or illustrate the text. Migne's reprint of Delarue, in his Patr. Gk. t. xi.–xvii. (Paris, 1857), has the additions from Galland, most of those from Mai, and one fragment from Cramer as a supplement. An ed. of the Philosophumena (e codice Parisino), ed. by E. Miller, is pub. by the Clar. Press. A new ed. of Origen's works is now being pub. in the Berlin collection of early eccl. Gk. writers; Origen's Werke, i.–ii. von P. Koetshau (Leipz. 1899), vol. iii. ed. by Klostermann, and vol. iv. ed. by Preuschen (Berlin, 1903). A trans. of the de Principiis, the books against Celsus and the letters, with a life of Origen, is in 2 vols. of the Ante-Nicene Lib. of the Fathers.
Orosius, Paulus, was a native of
Tarragona in Spain, as he himself says
(Hist. vii. 22),
though an expression in a letter of Avitus may
be thought to connect him with Braga (Ep.
Aviti, Aug. Opp. vol. vii. p. 806;
Baronius, vol. v. p. 435, A.D.
415). When the Alani and Vandals were
introduced into Spain, A.D.
409, Orosius, though his language is somewhat
rhetorical, appears narrowly to have escaped their
violence (Hist. iii. 20; v.2; vii. 40). But a
danger, more serious in his opinion, soon
threatened to disturb the church in Spain,
viz. the heresies of the Priscillianists and of
the book by Origen,
περὶ ἀρχῶν,
lately translated by St. Jerome and brought from
Jerusalem by Avitus, presbyter of Braga in
Portugal, at the same time as a book by
Victorinus was brought by another Avitus from
Rome. Both books condemned the doctrines
of Priscillian, but contained errors of their own.
That by Victorinus attracted little notice, but
Origen's was widely read, both in Spain and
elsewhere; and Orosius, in his zeal against
error proceeded, not commissioned by the
church of Spain but on his own account, to
Africa, to consult St. Augustine as to how
best to refute these heretical doctrines,
A.D.
415. Augustine speaks of him as young in
years, but a presbyter in rank, zealous, alert
in intellect, ready of speech, and fitted to be
useful in the work of the Lord. He gave a
partial reply to this appeal in his treatise
contra Priscillianistas et Origenistas,
saying
but little on the subject which forms its title.
He referred Orosius to his books against
Manicheism, and recommended him to go to
Palestine, the seat of the errors in question, to
consult St. Jerome.
[PELAGIUS.]
Orosius was kindly received by St. Jerome at
Bethlehem; but being summoned by the clergy,
he attended a synod at Jerusalem on July 28,
in which he took his seat under the direction
of John the bishop, and informed the assembly
that Coelestius had been condemned by a council
P
Pachomius (1), St., founder of the famous monasteries of Tabenna in Upper
Egypt; one of the first to collect solitary ascetics together under a rule. Beyond
a brief mention in Sozomen, who praises his gentleness and suavity (H. E.
iii. 14), the materials for his biography are of questionable authenticity. Athanasius,
during his visit to Rome, made the name Pachomius familiar to the church there through
Marcella and others, to whom he held up Pachomius and his Tabennensian monks as
a bright example (Hieron. Ep. 127, ad Principium). Rosweyd gives a
narrative of his life in Latin, being a translation by Dionysius Exiguus, in the
6th cent., of a biography said to be written by a contemporary monk of Tabenna (Vit.
Patr. in Pat. Lat. lxxiii. 227). If we may trust this writer, Pachomius
was born of wealthy pagan parents in Lower Egypt, before the council of Nicaea.
He served in his youth under Constantine in the campaign against Maxentius, which
placed Constantine alone on the throne. The kindness shewn by Christians to him
and his comrades in distress led him to become a Christian. He attached himself
to a hermit, celebrated for his sanctity and austerities. He and Palaemon supported
themselves by weaving the shaggy tunics (cilicia), the favourite dress of
Egyptian monks. He became a monk, and many prodigies are related of his power over
demons, and in resisting the craving for sleep and food (Vit. cc. 40, 44,
45, 47, 48, etc., ap. Rosw. V. P.). His reputation for holiness soon drew
to him many who desired to embrace the monastic life, and without, apparently, collecting
them into one monastery, he provided for their organization. The bishop of a neighbouring
diocese sent for him to regulate the monks there. Pachomius seems also to have done
some missionary work in his own neighbourhood. Athanasius, visiting Tabenna, was
eagerly welcomed by Pachomius, who, in that zeal for orthodoxy which was a characteristic
of monks generally, is said to have flung one of Origen's writings into the water,
exclaiming that he would have cast it into the fire, but that it contained the name
of God. He lived to a good old age (Niceph. H. E. ix. 14). The Bollandists (Acta
Palladius (7), bp. of Helenopolis, the trusted friend of Chrysostom, whose
misfortunes he fully shared, was born c. 367, perhaps in Galatia. He embraced
an ascetic life in his 20th year, c. 386. The ascetic career of Palladius
can only be conjecturally traced from scattered notices in the Lausiac History
(but see infra). He never remained long in one place, but sought the acquaintance
of the leading solitaries and ascetics of his day to learn all that could be gathered
of their manner of life and miraculous deeds. Tillemont thinks his earliest place
of sojourn was with the abbat Elpidius of Cappadocia in the cavernous recesses of
the mountains near Jericho (Hist. Laus. c. 106), and that he, c. 387,
visited Bethlehem, where he received a very unfavourable impression of Jerome from
the solitary Posidonius (ib. c. 78), and passing thence to Jerusalem formed
the acquaintance of Melania the elder and Rufinus, the latter of whom he highly
commends (ib. c. 5; c. 118). In 388 Palladius paid his first visit to Alexandria
(ib. c. 1). Having visited several monasteries near Alexandria, and the famous
Didymus, he retired (c. 390) to the Nitrian desert, whence, after a year,
he plunged still deeper into the district known, as the Cells,
τὰ κελλία, where he mostly remained for 9 years
(ib.). Here, for 3 years, he enjoyed the intercourse of Macarius the younger
and subsequently of Evagrius of Pontus. Palladius appears during this period to
have traversed the whole of Upper Egypt as far as Tabenna and Syene, and to have
visited all its leading solitaries. Ill-health led him to return to the purer air
of Palestine, whence he soon passed to Bithynia, where he was called to the episcopate
(ib. c. 43). Palladius tells us neither when nor where he became bishop.
If it is right to identify the author of the Lausiac History with the adherent
of Chrysostom, his see was Helenopolis, formerly called Drepanum, in Bithynia. He
was consecrated by Chrysostom, and the Origenistic opinions he was charged with
having imbibed from Evagrius became a handle of accusation against his consecrator
(Phot. Cod. 59, p. 57). This accusation of Origenism is brought against Palladius
by Epiphanius (Ep. ad Joann. Jesus. Hieron., Op. i.
Palladius was one of the first to suffer from the persecution which after 404
fell upon the adherents of Chrysostom. The magistrates having decreed that the house
of any who harboured bishop, priest, or layman who communicated with Chrysostom
should be confiscated, Palladius, with many other ecclesiastics, fled to Rome, arriving
about the middle of 405, with a copy of the infamous decree which had driven him
from Constantinople (ib. pp. 26, 27). The refugees were hospitably entertained
by one Pinianus and his wife and by some noble ladies of Rome, a kindness which
Palladius gratefully mentions (Hist. Laus. c. 121), and for which Chrysostom
wrote letters of thanks from Cucusus. He was honourably received by pope Innocent,
and his testimony gave the pope full knowledge of the transaction (Soz. H. E.
viii. 26). On the departure of the Italian deputation sent by Honorius to his brother
Arcadius, requesting that the whole matter should be subjected to a general council,
Palladius and the other refugees accompanied them (Pallad. Dial. p. 31).
On their arrival the whole party were forbidden to land at Constantinople. Palladius
and his companions were shut up in separate chambers in the fortress of Athyre on
the coast, and loaded with the utmost contumely, in the hope of breaking their spirit
and compelling them to renounce communion with Chrysostom, and recognize Atticus
(ib. p. 32). All threats and violence proving vain, the bishops were banished
to distant and opposite quarters of the empire; Palladius to Syene, on the extreme
border of Egypt (ib. pp. 194, 199). Tillemont considers that on the death
of Theophilus in 412 Palladius was permitted to leave his place of exile, but not
to return to his see. Between 412 and 420 Tillemont places his residence of four
years near Antinoopolis in the Thebaid, of which district and its numerous ascetics
the Hist. Laus. gives copious details (cc. 96–100; cc. 137, 138), as well
as of the three years which the writer spent on the Mount of Olives with Innocent,
the presbyter of the church there. During this time he may also have visited Mesopotamia,
Syria, and the other portions of the eastern world which he speaks of having traversed.
The peace of the church being re-established in 417, Palladius was perhaps restored
to his see of Helenopolis. If so, he did not remain there long, for Socrates informs
us that he was translated from that see to Aspuna in Galatia Prima (Socr. H.
E. vii. 36). He had, however, ceased to be bp. of Aspuna in 431, when Eusebius
attended the council of Ephesus as bp. of that see (Labbe, Concil. iii. 450).
The Historic Lausiaca was composed c. 420. It is now, however, generally
considered (vide works by Preuschen and Butler, u. inf.) that the author
of this History is not to be identified with the bp. of Helenopolis, his contemporary.
The work takes its name from one Lausus or Lauson, chief chamberlain
The question whether the Dialogue with Theodore the Deacon is correctly assigned to Palladius of Helenopolis has been much debated. It is essentially a literary composition, the characters and framework being alike fictitious. It was undoubtedly written by one who took an active part in the events he describes. No one corresponds so closely in all respects to the ideal presented by the narration as Palladius of Helenopolis, nor is there any really weighty objection to his authorship. For the closing days of Chrysostom's episcopate it is, with all its faults, simply priceless. Tillem. Mém. Eccl. t. xi. pp. 500–530, pp. 638–646; Cave, Hist. Lit. t. i. p. 376; Du Pin, Auteurs eccl. t. iii. p. 296; Cotelerius, Eccl. Graec. Monum. t. iii. p. 563.
Palladius (11), July 6, the first bp. sent to Ireland and the immediate predecessor of St. Patrick. Facts known about him are few, though legends are numerous. His birthplace is placed by some in England, by others in Gaul or Italy; some even make him a Greek (see Ussher, Eccles. Britann. Antiq. t. vi. c. xvi. of Elrington's ed.). His ecclesiastical position has also been disputed. He seems to have been an influential man in the earlier part of the 5th cent., as Prosper of Aquitaine, a contemporary, mentions him twice, affording the only real record. of his life which we possess. Under 429 Prosper writes in his Chronicle: "By the instrumentality of the deacon Palladius, pope Celestinus sends Germanus, bp. of Auxerre, in his own stead, to displace the heretics and direct the Britons to the Catholic faith." Prosper's words under 431 are, "Ad Scotos in Christum credentes ordinatur a Papa Celestino Palladius et primus Episcopus mittitur." This mission of Palladius is referred to in the Book of Armagh, where Tirechan (Analect. Boll. t. ii. p. 67), or more probably some writer towards a.d. 900, calls him Patricius as his second name. Rev. J. F. Shearman, in his Loco Patriciana, p. 25 (Dubl. 1879), has discussed with vast resources of legendary lore the different localities in Wicklow and Kildare where Palladius is said to have preached and built churches, but his authorities have little historical value, being specially the Four Masters and Jocelyn. His work contains, however, much interesting matter for students of Irish ecclesiastical history and antiquities, its accuracy being guaranteed by his extensive knowledge of the localities.
Pammachius, a Roman senator of the Furian family (Hieron. Ep. lxvi. 6, ed. Vall.), cousin to Marcella (ib. xlix. 4), and said by Palladius (Hist. Laus. c. 122) to have been related to Melania. He was a friend of Jerome, Paulinus, and afterwards Augustine. He was a fellow-student of Jerome at Rome (Ep. xlviii. 1), but apparently not specially connected with church affairs in early life. During Jerome's stay in Rome in 382–385 they probably met, since in 385 Pammachius married Paulina, the daughter of Paula who went with Jerome to Palestine. Pammachius was learned, able, and eloquent (Ep. lxxvii. 1; xlix. 3). After his marriage, he seems to have occupied himself much with scriptural studies and church life. The controversy relating to Jovinian interested him, and he is thought to have been one of those who procured the condemnation of Jovinian from pope Siricius (Tillem. x. 568). But Jerome's books against Jovinian (pub. in 392) appeared to Pammachius to be too violent. He bought up the copies and wrote to Jerome asking him to moderate his language. Jerome refused, but thanked Pammachius for his interest, hailed him as a well-wisher and defender, and promised to keep him informed of his future writings (Epp. xlviii., xlix.). Thenceforth their intercourse was constant.
Pammachius is said by Jerome (xlix. 4) to have been designated for the sacerdotium at this time by the whole city of Rome and the pontiff. But he was never ordained. His growing convictions and those of his wife, the fact that all his children died at birth and that his wife died in childbirth (a.d. 397, see Hieron. Ep. lxvi., addressed to him 2 years later), led him to take monastic vows. He, however, still appeared among the senators in their purple in the dark dress of a monk (ib. lxvi. 6). He showed his change of life by munificent gifts and a great entertainment to the poor (Paulinus, Ep. xiii. 11; see also Pall. Hist. Laus. 122). With Fabiola he erected a hospital at Portus, which became world-famous (Hieron. Ep. lxvi. 11).
At the commencement of the Origenistic controversy, Jerome wrote (in 35) to Pammachius
his letter de Opt. Genere Interpretandi (Ep. lvii. ed. Vall.). On
Rufinus coming to Rome Pammachius, with Oceanus and Marcella, watched his actions
in Jerome's interest, and on his publication of a translation of Origen's
Περὶ Ἀρχῶν wrote to Jerome to request a full
translation of the work (Epp. lxxxiii., lxxxiv). These friends also procured
the condemnation of Origenism by pope Anastasius in 401, and to them Jerome's apology
against Rufinus was addressed, and the book cont. Joannem Hierosol. During
the Donatist schism in Africa Pammachius, who had
Pamphilus (1), presbyter of Caesarea, the intimate friend (Hieron. de Script. Eccl. 75) and literary guide of Eusebius the church historian, who adopted his name as a surname, calling himself Εὐσέβιος Παμφίλου. Eusebius composed his friend's biography in three books. The work is entirely lost, and our only knowledge of this chief among the Biblical scholars of his age is derived from a few scattered notices in the existing writings of Eusebius, Jerome, and Photius. Pamphilus was a native of Phoenicia, and, if we accept the doubtful authority of Metaphrastes, born at Berytus, of a wealthy and honourable family. Having received his earlier education in his native city, he passed to Alexandria, where he devoted himself to theological studies under Pierius, the head of its catechetical school (Routh, Rel. Sacr. iii. 430; Phot. Cod. 118). Pamphilus afterwards settled at Caesarea, of which church he became a presbyter, probably during the episcopate of Agapius. Here he commenced the work of his life, hunting for books illustrative of Holy Scripture from all parts of the world. The library thus formed was subsequently repaired, after its injuries during the persecution of Diocletian, by Acacius and Euzoïus, the successors of Eusebius in the see of Caesarea (Hieron. Ep. xxxiv. vol. i. p. 155). Eusebius had catalogued it (H. E. vi. 32). It was especially rich in codices of the Scriptures, many transcribed or corrected by Pamphilus's own hand. In this Eusebius was a zealous coadjutor (Hieron. de Script. Eccl. c. 81). Jerome speaks of Palestinian manuscripts of the LXX current in the Syrian church, which, having been carefully prepared by Origen, were published by the two friends (Hieron. Praef. in Paralip.; adv. Rufin. ii. 27, t. ii. p. 522). Among other priceless literary treasures now lost was a copy of the so-called Hebrew text of the Gospel of St. Matthew (Hieron. de Script. Eccl. c. 3) and the Tetrapla and Hexapla of Origen in the original copy (Hieron. in Tit. iii. 9, t. vii. p. 734). In the catechetical school of Alexandria Pamphilus had conceived a most ardent admiration for Origen, with whose works he made it his special object to enrich his library, copying the greater part himself (Hieron. de Script. Eccl. c. 75). Jerome gloried in the possession of Origen's commentaries on the Minor Prophets in 25 volumes in Pamphilus's autograph. Pamphilus proved his affection for the memory and fame of Origen by devoting the last two years of his life to composing, in prison, with the assistance of Eusebius, an Apology, or Defence of Origen, addressed to the "Confessors condemned to the mines in Palestine." Five books were completed before his death, the sixth being added by Eusebius (Photius, Cod. 118). Photius gives a brief summary of the work, of which we have bk. i. alone in the inaccurate Latin version of Rufinus (Routh, Rel. Sac. iv. pp. 339, 392). What Pamphilus knew and had acquired he regarded as the common property of those who desired to share it. Eusebius describes him as ever ready to help all in need, either in the matters of the body, the mind, or the soul. The copies of the Scriptures he caused to be made by his students he distributed gratuitously, while he liberally supplied the temporal wants of those in distress (Eus. de Martyr. Palaest. c. 11; Hieron. adv. Rufin. i. 9, t. ii. p. 465).
In 307 Pamphilus was committed to prison by Urbanus, the persecuting governor of the city, and for two years was closely confined, cheered by the companionship of his second self, Eusebius (Hieron. ad Pammach. et Ocean. Ep. 84). Pamphilus sealed his life-long confession of his Master with his blood—"the centre of a brave company, among whom he shone out as the sun among the stars"—in 309, when Firmilianus had succeeded Urbanus as governor. The library he collected was destroyed when Caesarea was taken by the Arabs in the 7th cent.
Pancratius (1), (St. Pancras), martyr at Rome on the Via Aurelia, a.d. 304; a Phrygian by birth, but baptized at Rome by the pope himself. He suffered when only 14 years of age with his uncle Dionysius. His martyrdom was very celebrated in the early ages. His church still gives a title to a cardinal, and to a well-known parish church in London. Gregory of Tours (de Glor. Martt. i. 39) tells us that his tomb outside the walls of Rome was so sacred that the devil at once seized those who swore falsely before it. Gregory the Great mentions the martyr in his Epp. (iv. 18 and vi. 49), and in Homily (xxvii.) on St. John (Ceill. iii. 29; Tillem. Mém. v. 260; AA. SS. Boll. Mai. ii. 17; Ruinart. AA. Sinc. p. 407; Mart. Rom. Vet., Usuard.).
Pantaenus, chief of the catechetical school of Alexandria, in the latter
part of the 2nd cent. and perhaps the early years of the 3rd. Of his previous life
little is known with certainty. We are not informed whether he was originally a
Christian or became one by conversion. Our authorities agree, however, that he was
trained in the Greek philosophy, and owed to this training much of his eminence
as a teacher. Origen, in a passage preserved by Eusebius (H. E. vi. 19),
names him as an example—the earliest, apparently, that he can adduce—of a Christian
doctor who availed himself of his heathen learning. Eusebius tells us (ib.
v. 10) that in his zeal for the faith he undertook the work of an evangelist in
the East, and penetrated as far as India; where he found that St. Bartholomew had
already preached the Word and had left there a copy of St. Matthew's Gospel in Hebrew
characters, which was still treasured by the Christians there. Jerome (de Vir.
Ill. 36) adds (but
There is a like conflict of authority concerning the relation of Pantaenus to Clement of Alexandria. Eusebius (v. 11) unhesitatingly assumes that Pantaenus is the unnamed master whom Clement in his Stromateis (i. p. 322, Potter) places above all the great men by whose teaching he was profited, "last met, but first in power," in whom he "found rest." To this authority we may add that of Pamphilus, who was principal author of their joint Apology for Origen; for Photius (Bibl. cxviii.) states on the authority of that work (now lost) that Clement "was the hearer of Pantaenus and his successor in the school." This information Pamphilus no doubt had from his master Pierius, himself head of the same school, a follower of Origen and probably less than 50 years his junior. Maximus the Confessor (Scholia in S. Greg. Naz.) styles Pantaenus "the master" (καθηγητὴν) of Clement. But Philip of Side (c. 427) in his Hist. Christiana, as we learn from a fragment first pub. by Dodwell, made "Clement the disciple of Athenagoras, and Pantaenus of Clement." We unhesitatingly prefer the witness of Eusebius. Dodwell's attempts to discredit it are ineffectual. This contradiction, however, and the difficulty as to the chronology of Pantaenus, may be solved, or at least accounted for, if we suppose that Pantaenus was head of the school both before and after his sojourn in India, and Clement in his absence. Origen afterwards thus quitted and resumed the same office. If Pantaenus was the senior, Clement was the more brilliant; and at the close of the 2nd cent. it may well have seemed a question which was master and which disciple. This hypothesis agrees with the probable date of Clement's headship; and likewise with the note in the Chronicon of Eusebius, under year of Pertinax, or 2nd of Severus (c. 193), where we read that Clement was then in Alexandria, "a most excellent teacher (διδάσκαλος) and shining light (διέλαμπε) of Christian philosophy," and Pantaenus "was distinguished as an expositor of the Word of God." Thus also Alexander, bp. of Jerusalem (ap. Eus. H. E. vi. 14), in a letter to Origen, couples the names of Pantaenus and Clement (placing, however, Pantaenus first), as "fathers," and speaks of both as recently deceased. This letter shows, further, that this Alexander and the illustrious Origen himself were almost certainly pupils of Pantaenus.
We do not know the date of his death, but the Chronicon (vid. sup.) confirms Jerome in prolonging his activity into the reign of Severus (193–211), and not improbably, as Jerome states, he lived into the following reign—a statement repeated in the (later) Roman Martyrology. Photius is thus wrong in believing that Pantaenus was a hearer not only "of those who had seen the apostles" (which he may well have been), but also "of some of the apostles themselves." A man alive after 193 and not the senior of Clement by more than a generation could not possibly have been born so early as to have been a hearer even of St. John. Photius was probably misled by a too literal construction of Clement's statement (Strom. u.s.)—that his teachers "had received the true tradition of the blessed doctrine straight from the holy apostles Peter, James, John, and Paul."
Eusebius tells us that Pantaenus "interpreted the treasures of the divine dogmas"; Jerome, that he left "many commentaries on the Scriptures." Both however indicate that the church owed more to his spoken utterances than to his writings. The two extant fragments (see Routh, Rel. Sac. i. p. 378) appear to be relics of his oral teaching. One bears the character of a verbal reply to a question; it is preserved by Maximus the Confessor (Scholia in S. Greg. Naz.), who, in illustration of the teaching of Dionysius the Areopagite concerning the divine will, tells us that Pantaenus when asked by certain philosophers, "in what manner Christians suppose God to know things that are?" replied, "Neither by sense things sensible, nor by intellect things intelligible. For it is not possible that He Who is above the things that are, should apprehend the things that are according to the things that are. But we say that He knows the things that are, as acts of His own will (ὡς ἴδια θελήματα); and we give good reason for so saying; for if by act of His will He hath made all things (which reason will not gainsay), and if it is ever both pious and right to say that God knows His own will, and He of His will hath made each thing that hath come to be; therefore God knows the things that are as acts of His own will, inasmuch as He of His will hath made the things that are." The other, contained in the Eclogae e Propheticis appended to the works of Clement, is introduced by "Our Pantaenus used to say" (ἔλεγε), and lays down as a principle in interpreting prophecy that it "for the most part utters its sayings indefinitely [as to time], using the present sometimes for the future and sometimes for the past." Anastasius of Sinai (7th cent.), in his Contemplations on the Hexaemeron (quoted by Routh, i. p. 15), twice cites Pantaenus as one authority for an interpretation according to which Christ and his church are foreshewn in the history of the creation of Paradise (I. p. 860; VII. cont. p. 893 in Bibl. Max. PP. t. ix. ed. Lyons, 1677), the true inference from these references apparently being that Pantaenus led the way in that method of spiritual or mystical interpretation of O.T., usually associated with his more famous followers, Clement and Origen.
Anastasius describes him as "priest of the church of the Alexandrians (τῆς
Ἀλεξανδρέων ἱερεύς)"; which is noteworthy in the absence of all direct information
concerning the
Besides authors quoted, see Baronius, Ann., s.a. 183; Cave, Primitive Fathers, p. 185 (1677); Hist. Lit. t. i. p. 51 (1688); Du Pin, Auteurs ecclés. t. i. pt. i. p.184; Lardner, Credibility, c. xxi.; Le Quien, Oriens Chr. t. ii. coll. 382, 391; Tillem. Mém. t. iii. p. 170.
Papa. [NESTORIAN CHURCH.]
Paphnutius (2), bp. in Upper Thebias, who suffered mutilation and banishment for the faith (Socr. H. E. i. 11; Theod. H. E. i. 7). At the council of Nicaea a.d. 325, he was much honoured as a confessor, specially by Constantine (Socr. u.s.), and earnestly opposed the enforcement of the law of clerical celibacy, on the ground of both principle and expediency, and prevailed (ib.). He closely adhered to the cause of St. Athanasius, and attended him at the council of Tyre, a.d. 335. Rufinus (H. E. i. 17), followed by Sozomen (H. E. ii. 25), tells a dramatic story of his there reproaching Maximus of Jerusalem for being in Arian company and explaining to him the exact position of affairs. Fleury, H. E. xv. c. 26; Ceill. Aut. sacr. iii. 420, 450; Boll. Acta SS. Sept. 11, iii. 778.
Paphnutius (5) (Pafnutius, Pynuphius, surnamed Bubalus, and Cephala), an anchoret and priest in the Scetic desert in Egypt. Cassian's words (Coll. iv. c. 1) regarding his promotion of abbat Daniel to the diaconate and priesthood have been held to prove that a presbyter had the power of ordaining, but Bingham (Ant. bk. ii. 3, 7) will not admit that Cassian is to be so understood. When Cassian visited him in 395, he was 90 years old, but hale and active (Coll. iii. c. 1). He seems to have fled twice from the Scetic into Syria for greater solitude and perfection (Cass. de Coen. Inst. iv. cc. 30, 31), and with some others had in 373 already found refuge at Diocaesarea in Palestine (Tillem. vi. 250, 251, ed. 1732). In the anthropomorphic controversy between Theophilus bp. of Alexandria and the monks of the Egyptian desert, Paphnutius took the side of the bishop and orthodoxy (Cass. Coll. x. c. 2) ; his attempt to convert the aged Serapion and his failure, till Photinus came, is very curious (ib. 3).
Papias (1), bp. of Hierapolis in Phrygia (Eus. H. E. iii. 36) in the first half of 2nd cent. Lightfoot says (Coloss. p. 48), "Papias, or (as it is very frequently written in inscriptions) Pappias, is a common Phrygian name. It is found several times at Hierapolis, not only in inscriptions (Boeckh, 3930, 3912 A, add.), but even on coins (Mionnet, iv. p. 301). This is explained by the fact that it was an epithet of the Hierapolitan Zeus (Boeckh, 3912 A, Παπίᾳ Διῒ σωτῆρι)." The date of Papias used to be regarded as determined by a notice in the Paschal Chronicle, which was thought to record his martyrdom at Pergamus under a.d. 163. But we have no ground for asserting that Papias lived so late as 163, and we shall see reason for at least placing his literary activity considerably earlier in the century.
His name is famous as the writer of a treatise in five books called Expositions of Oracles of the Lord (Λογίων Κυριακῶν ἐξηγήσεις), which title we shall discuss presently. The object of the book seems to have been to throw light on the Gospel history, especially by the help of oral traditions which Papias had collected from those who had met members of the apostolic circle. That Papias lived when it was still possible to meet such persons has given great importance to his testimony, though only some very few fragments of his work remain. Every word of these fragments has been rigidly scrutinized, and, what is less reasonable where so little is known, arguments have been built on the silence of Papias about sundry matters which it is supposed he ought to have mentioned and assumed that he did not. We give at length the first and most important of the fragments, a portion of the preface preserved by Eusebius (iii. 39), from which we can infer the object of the work and the resources which Papias claimed to have available. "And I will not scruple also to give for thee a place along with my interpretations to whatsoever at any time I well learned from the elders and well stored up in memory, guaranteeing its truth. For I did not, like the generality, take pleasure in those who have much to say, but in those who teach the truth; nor in those who relate their strange commandments, but in those who record such as were given from the Lord to the Faith and come from the Truth itself. And if ever any one came who had been a follower of the elders, I would inquire as to the discourses of the elders, what was said by Andrew, or what by Peter, or what by Philip, or what by Thomas or James, or what by John or Matthew or any other of the disciples of the Lord; and the things which Aristion and the elder John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I did not think that I could get so much profit from the contents of books as from the utterances of a living and abiding voice."
The singular "for thee" in the opening words implies that the work of Papias
was inscribed to some individual. The first sentence of the extract had evidently
followed one in which the writer had spoken of the "interpretations" which appear
to have been the main subject of his treatise, and for joining his traditions with
which he conceives an apology necessary. Thus we see that Papias is not making a
first attempt to write the life of our Lord or a history of the apostles, but assumes
the previous existence of a written record. Papias enumerates the ultimate sources
of his traditions in two classes: Andrew, Peter, and others, of whom he speaks in
the past tense; Aristion and John the Elder, of whom he speaks in the present. As
the passage is generally understood, Papias only claims a second-hand knowledge
of what these had related, but had inquired from any who had conferred with elders,
what Andrew, Peter, etc., had said, and what John and Aristion were
saying; the last two being the only ones then surviving. But considering that there
is a change of pronouns, we are disposed to think that there is an anacoluthon,
and that his meaning, however ill expressed, was that he learned, by inquiry from
others, things that Andrew, Peter, and others had said, and also stored up in his
memory things which
The fragment quoted enables us to fix within certain limits the date of Papias. He is evidently separated by a whole generation from the apostolic age; he describes himself as living when it was not exceptional to meet persons who had. been hearers of the apostles, and (if we understand him rightly) he had met two who professed to have actually seen our Lord Himself. Eusebius tells that Philip the apostle (some suppose that he ought to have said Philip the deacon) came to reside at Hierapolis with his daughters; and that Papias, on the authority of these daughters, tells a story of Philip raising a man from the dead. Eusebius certainly understood Papias to describe himself as contemporary with those daughters and as having heard the story from them. If these were they whom St. Luke describes as prophesying at Caesarea in 58, and if they were young women then, they might have been still alive at Hierapolis between 100 and 110. But as Papias speaks of his inquiries in the past tense, a considerable time had probably elapsed before he published the results. On the whole, we shall not be far wrong in dating the work c. 130.
Papias evidently lived after the rise of Gnosticism and was not unaffected by the controversies occasioned by it. Strong asceticism was a feature of some of the earliest Gnostic sects; and their commandments, "Touch not, taste not, handle not," may well have been "the strange commandments" to which Papias refers. Lightfoot is probably right in thinking that the sarcasm in the phrase "those who have so very much to say" may have been aimed at the work on the Gospel by Basilides in 24 books, and some similar productions of the Gnostic schools of which the later book Pistis Sophia is a sample.
Of the traditions recorded by Papias, what has given rise to most discussion and has been the foundation of most theories is what he relates about the Gospels of SS. Matthew and Mark, which he is the first to mention by name. Concerning Mark he says, "This also the elder [John] said: Mark having become the interpreter of Peter wrote accurately everything that he remembered of the things that were either said or done by Christ; but however not in order. For he neither heard the Lord nor had been a follower of His; but afterwards, as I said, was a follower of Peter, who framed his teaching according to the needs [of his hearers], but not with the design of giving a connected account of the Lord's discourses [or oracles]. Thus Mark committed no error in thus writing down some things as he remembered them. For he took heed to one thing: not to omit any of the things he had heard, or to set down anything falsely therein." Concerning Matthew, all that remains of what Papias says is, "So then Matthew composed the oracles in Hebrew, and every one interpreted them as he could." For a long time no one doubted that Papias here spoke of our Gospels of SS. Matthew and Mark; and mainly on the authority of these passages was founded the general belief of the Fathers, that St. Matthew's Gospel had been originally written in Hebrew, and St. Mark's founded on the teaching of Peter. But some last-century critics contended that our present Gospels do not answer the descriptions given by Papias. There is a striking resemblance between the two as we have them at present; but Papias's description, it is said, would lead us to think of them as very different. St. Matthew's Gospel, according to Papias, was a Hebrew book, containing an account only of our Lord's discourses; for so Schleiermacher translates τὰ λόγια, which we have rendered "oracles." St. Mark, on the other hand, wrote in Greek and recorded the acts as well as the words of Christ. Again, St. Mark's Gospel, which in its present state has an arrangement as orderly as St. Matthew's, was, according to Papias, not written in order. The conclusion which has been drawn is, that Papias's testimony relates not to our Gospels of SS. Matthew and Mark, but to their unknown originals; and accordingly many constantly speak of "the original Matthew," the "Ur-Marcus," though there is no particle of evidence beyond what may be extracted from this passage of Papias that there ever was any Gospel by SS. Matthew or Mark different from those we have. Renan even undertakes to give an account of the process by which the two very distinct works known to Papias, St. Matthew's collection of discourses, and St. Mark's collection of anecdotes, came into their present similar forms. In the early times, every possessor of anything that purported to be a record of our Lord desired to have the story complete; and would write into the margin of his book matter he met elsewhere, and so the book of St. Mark's anecdotes was enriched by a number of traits from St. Matthew's "discourses" and vice versa.
If this theory were true, we should expect to find in early times a multitude
of gospels differing in their order and selection of facts. Why we should have now
exactly four versions of the story is hard to explain on this hypothesis. We should
expect that, by such mutual assimilation, all would in the end have been reduced
to a single gospel. The solitary fact to which Renan appeals in support of his theory
in reality refutes it—the fact, i.e., that the pericope of the adulteress (
We count it a mere blunder to translate λόγια
"discourses" as if it were the same as λόγους.
In N.T. (
The manner in which Papias speaks of St. Mark's Gospel quite agrees with the inspired authority, which the title, as we understand it, implies. Three times in this short fragment he attests St. Mark's perfect accuracy. "Mark wrote down accurately everything that he remembered." "Mark committed no error." "He made it his rule not to omit anything he had heard or to set down any false statement therein." Yet, for some reason, Papias was dissatisfied with St. Mark's arrangement and thought it necessary to apologize for it. No account of the passage is satisfactory which does not explain why, if Papias reverenced St. Mark so much, he was dissatisfied with his order. Here the hypothesis breaks down at once, that Papias only possessed two documents unlike in kind, the one a collection of discourses, the other of anecdotes. Respecting St Mark's accuracy as he did Papias would certainly have accepted his order unless he had some other document to which, in this respect, he attached more value, going over the same ground as St. Mark's but in a different order. If, then, Papias held that St. Mark's Gospel was not written in the right order, what, in his opinion, was the right order? Strauss considers and rejects three answers to this question, as being all irreconcilable at least with the supposition that the Gospel known to Papias as St. Mark's was that which we receive under the name: (1) that the right order was St. John's; (2) that it was St. Matthew's; (3) that Papias meant to deny to St. Mark the merit, not only of the right order, but of any orderly arrangement at all. Lightfoot defended (1) with great ability (Contemp. Rev. Oct. 1875, p. 848). But there remains another answer which we believe the true one—viz. that Papias regarded St. Luke's as the right order. The reason this solution has been generally set aside is that St. Luke's Gospel is not mentioned in any extant fragments of Papias, from which it has been assumed that he was unacquainted with Luke's writings. If we had the whole work of Papias the argument from his silence might be reasonable; but we have no right to assume his silence merely because Eusebius included no statement about St. Luke in the few brief extracts from Papias which he gives. Lightfoot has shewn (Coloss. p. 52) that Eusebius is not wont without some special reason to copy references made by his predecessors to undisputed books of the Canon. Hilgenfeld finds in the preface of Papias echoes of the preface to St. Luke's Gospel which induce him to believe that Papias knew that gospel. To us this argument does not carry conviction, but there is every appearance that Papias was acquainted with the Acts. In one fragment he mentions Justus Barsabas; in another he gives an account of the death of Judas Iscariot which seems plainly intended to reconcile the story in St. Matthew with that in the Acts. One extant fragment appears to have been part of a comment on our Lord's words preserved by St. Luke, "I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven."
But if Papias knew St. Luke's Gospel, his language with respect to St. Mark's
is at once explained. St. Luke's preface declares his intention to write in order,
γραψαὶ καθεξῆς; but his order is neither St.
Mark's nor St. Matthew's. On this difference we conceive Papias undertook to throw
light by his traditional anecdotes. His account is that Mark was but the interpreter
of Peter, whose teaching he accurately reported; that Peter had not undertaken at
any time to give an orderly account of our Lord's words and deeds, but had merely
related some of them from time to time as the immediate needs suggested; that Mark
therefore faithfully reported what he had heard, and if his order was not always
accurate it was because it had been no part of his plan to aim at accuracy in this
respect. With regard to St. Matthew's Gospel, his solution seems to be that the
church had not then the Gospel as St. Matthew had written it; that the Greek Matthew
was but an unauthorized translation from a Hebrew original which individuals had
translated, each for himself as he could. Thus, so far from it being
As we have seen, the extant fragments of Papias do not mention the Gospels of SS. Luke or John by name. Eusebius says, however, that Papias uses testimonies from St. John's first epistle. There is therefore very strong presumption that Papias was acquainted with the Gospel, a presumption strengthened by the fact that the list of the apostles in the fragment of the preface contains names in the order in which they occur in St. John's Gospel, placing Andrew before Peter, and includes some such as Thomas and Philip, who outside that Gospel have little prominence in the Gospel record, and that it gives to our Lord the Johannine title, the Truth. Irenaeus (v. 36) has preserved a fragment containing an express recognition of St. John's Gospel; and though Irenaeus only gives it as a saying of the elders, Lightfoot (Contemp. Rev., u.s.) has given convincing reasons for thinking that Papias is his authority, a conclusion which Harnack accepts as highly probable. An argument prefixed to a Vatican (9th cent.) MS. of St. John's Gospel quotes a saying of Papias about that Gospel and speaks of Papias as having been John's amanuensis. On the latter statement, see Lightfoot, u.s. p. 854; but the evidence seems good enough to induce us to believe that the work of Papias contained some notices of St. John's Gospel which Eusebius has not thought it worth while to mention. Papias belonged to Asia Minor, where the Fourth Gospel according to all tradition was written, and where its authority was earliest recognized; and he is described by Irenaeus as a companion of Polycarp, of whose use of St. John's Gospel we cannot doubt. Eusebius does not mention that Papias used the Apocalypse; but we learn that he did from other trustworthy authorities, and on the subject of Chiliasm Papias held views most distasteful to Eusebius. We learn from Irenaeus (v. 33) that Papias, in his fourth book, told, on the authority of "the Elder" [John], how our Lord had said that "the days will come when there shall be vines having 10,000 stems, and on each stem 10,000 branches, and on each branch 10,000 shoots, and on each shoot 10,000 clusters, and in each cluster 10,000 grapes, and each grape when pressed shall give 25 measures of wine. And when any of the saints shall take hold of a cluster, another shall cry out, I am a better cluster, take me, and bless the Lord through me." The story tells of similar predictions concerning other productions of the earth, and relates how the traitor Judas expressed his unbelief and was rebuked by our Lord. The ultimate original of this story of Papias was a Jewish apocryphal book made known by Ceriani, Monumenta Sac. et Profan., in 1866. See the Apocalypse of Baruch, c. 29, in Fritzsche, Libri Apoc. Vet. Test. p. 666. To this, and possibly other similar stories, Eusebius no doubt refers when he says that Papias had related certain strange parables and teachings of the Saviour and other things of a fabulous character. Amongst these Eusebius quotes the doctrine that after the resurrection the kingdom of Christ would be exhibited for a thousand years in a sensible form on. this earth; and he considers that things spoken mystically by the apostles had wrongly been understood literally by Papias, who "was a man of very poor understanding as his writings shew." The common text of Eusebius elsewhere (iii. 26) calls him a very learned man, deeply versed in the Holy Scriptures; but the weight of evidence is against the genuineness of the clause containing this encomium, which probably expresses later church opinion.
Eusebius tells nothing as to Papias's use of St. Paul's Epistles, and, though the silence of Eusebius alone would not go far, Papias may have found no occasion to mention them in a work on the gospel history. In looking for traditions of our Lord's life, Papias would naturally inquire after the testimony of those who had seen Him in the flesh. The very gratuitous inference from the assumed fact that Papias does not quote St. Paul, that he must have been Ebionite and anti-Pauline, is negatived by the fact that, as Eusebius testifies, he used St. Peter's Epistle, a work the teaching of which, as all critics allow, is completely Pauline. If the silence of Eusebius as to the use by Papias of St. John's Gospel and St. Paul's Epistles affords any presumption, it is that Papias gave no indication that his opinion about the undisputed books differed from that which, in the time of Eusebius, was received as unquestioned truth. For Eusebius thought meanly of Papias and, if he had known him to have held wrong opinions about the Canon, would have been likely to have mentioned it in disparagement of his authority in support of Chiliasm.
Eusebius says that Papias tells a story of a woman accused before our Lord of
many sins, a story also to be found in the Gospel according to the Hebrews. There
is a reasonable probability that this story may be that of the woman taken in adultery,
now found in the common text of St. John's Gospel. Eusebius does not say that Papias
took this story from the Gospel according to the Hebrews, and the presumption is
that Papias gave it as known to him by oral tradition and not from a written source.
If so, Papias need have had no direct knowledge of the Gospel according to the Hebrews.
Papias has a story about Justus Barsabas having taken a cup of poison without injury.
If Papias's copy of St. Mark contained the disputed verses at the end, this story
might appropriately have been told to illustrate the verse, "If they drink any deadly
thing it shall not hurt them," a promise instances of the fulfilment of which are
very rare, whether in history or legend. A story of the kind is told
Georgius Hamartolus quotes Papias as saying, in his second book, that the apostle
John had been killed by the Jews. That there is some blunder is clear; but Lightfoot
has made it very probable from comparison with a passage in Origen that a real saying
of Papias is quoted, but with the omission of a line or two. Papias, in commenting
on
In JOANNES PRESBYTER we quote several authorities (including Irenaeus) who speak of Papias as a disciple of John the Evangelist. He is called by Anastasius of Sinai ὁ πάνυ and ὁ πολύς, and passed in the church as an authority of the highest rank. Jerome (Ep. ad Lucinium, 71 Vallars.) contradicts a report that he had translated the writings of Papias and Polycarp, declaring that he had neither leisure nor ability for such a task. He does not, in his writings, shew any signs that he knew more of the work of Papias than he could have learned from Eusebius. The latest trace of the existence of the work of Papias is that an inventory, a.d. 1218, of the possessions of the cathedral of Nismes (Menard. Hist. civil. ecclés. et littér. de la ville de Nismes) contains the entry "Item inveni in claustro—librum Papie librum de verbis Domini." No trace of this MS. has been recovered. The fragments of Papias have been assembled in various collections, e.g. Grabe (Spicilegium), Galland and Routh (Rel. Sac.), but can best be read in Gebhardt and Harnack's Apost. Fathers, pt. ii.; a trans. is in the vol. of Apost. Fathers in Ante-Nicene Lib. (T. & T. Clark). Dissertations on Papias are very numerous; we may mention important articles in the Theol. Studien und Kritiken by Schleiermacher, 1832, Zahn, 1867, Steitz, 1868; an essay by Weiffenbach (Giessen, 1876), a reply by Leimbach (Gotha, 1878), and a rejoinder by Weiffenbach, Jahrbuch f. Prot. Theol. 1877; Hilgenfeld in his Journal, 1875, 1877, 1879; Lightfoot, Contemp. Rev. 1867, 1875 ; Harnack, Chronologie.
Others of the name of Papias are—a martyr with Victorinus (Assemani, Act. Mart. Or. et Occ. ii. 60); a martyr with Onesimus at Rome, Feb. 16; a physician at Laodicea (Fabric. Bibl. Gr. vii. 154); and a grammarian Papias in the 11th cent., a note of whose on the Maries of the Gospel was published by Grabe among the fragments of Papias of Hierapolis and accepted as such until Lightfoot established the true authorship.
Papylus (Papirius or Papyrius, as Rufinus, and Ado after him, write), April 13. In 1881 Aubé brought some new facts to light respecting this martyr from the Greek MSS. in the Bibliothèque Nationale. Papylus is mentioned by Eusebius (H. E. iv. 15) at the end of his account of Polycarp's martyrdom. Ruinart (p. 27), in his preface to the Acts of Polycarp, says that according to Eusebius Papylus and his companions Carpus and Agathonice suffered about the same time as Polycarp. This is a mistake of the Bollandist Henschenius, arising out of the Latin version of Eusebius, which inserts the words "sub id tempus," which have no equivalent in the Greek original. The Acts of Papylus contained in Metaphrastes assign his martyrdom to the Decian persecution. These Acts, however, Aubé thinks utterly worthless. In the Revue archéologique, Dec. 1881, p. 350, he published a Greek MS. containing Acts which he thinks may be those seen by Eusebius. Aubé seems to agree in placing the martyrdom of Papylus in the Decian persecution. But Lightfoot points out (Ignatius, i. 625) that in the Acts mention is made of emperors in the plural, thence he infers that this rather points to the reign of M. Aurelius or of Severus.
Parmenianus, successor to Donatus the Great, who followed Majorinus as Donatist bp. of Carthage. Optatus calls him "peregrines," i.e. probably not a native of Africa. Having adopted Donatist opinions, he succeeded Donatus c. 350, was banished a.d. 358, and returned under the decree of Julian a.d. 362 (Aug. Retract. ii. 17; Eus. Chron. ap. Hieron. Opp. vol. iii. p. 687). About this time, if not earlier, he published a work, not now extant, in five parts, in defence of Donatism, to which the treatise of Optatus is a reply. About 372 Tichonius, a Donatist, well versed in Scripture, becoming sensible of the narrow and exclusive views of the sect, wrote a book to condemn them, but without abandoning his party. Parmenian replied, condemning the doctrine of Tichonius as tending to connect the true church, that of the Donatists, with the corrupt one, the Catholic, especially its African branch. A council of 270 Donatist bishops was convened at Carthage, which sat for 75 days and at last resolved that "traditors," even if they refused rebaptism, should be admitted to communion (Aug. Ep. 93, 43).
The time of this council is not known. Parmenian died and was succeeded by Primian c. 392; but his book against Tichonius fell into the hands of St. Augustine, who, at the request of his friends, discussed it in a treatise in three books, c. 402–405 (Tillem. xiii. 128 and note 32). For a full account of the treatise, with a list of Scripture quotations, see Ribbek, Donatus und Augustinus, pp. 348–366. (See also Aug. Retract. ii. 17.)
Pascentius (1), steward or controller of imperial property in Africa,
comes domus regiae, severe in the execution of his office, an Arian and a
bitter opponent of the Catholic faith, very troublesome to the simple-minded and
perhaps not very highly educated clergy of Carthage. (Possidius, Vit. Aug.
c. 17; Böcking, Not. Dign. c. 11, vol. ii. p. 374–393.) He requested St.
Augustine to confer with him at Carthage on the subject of religion,
a.d. 406, but
refused to allow written notes of the discussion to be made, and asserted that Augustine
was afraid to declare his opinions. Augustine therefore wrote two letters in succession
to give Pascentius an opportunity of reply. Augustine, compelled by his opponent's
repeated evasions to declare his own belief, exhibits this in terms closely resembling
the Athanasian Creed, its method of illustration, and sometimes its very words (Aug.
Ep. 238, 239). Aug. Opp. vol. ii. App. pp. 1153–1162, ed. Migne;
Tillem. Mém. vol.
Paschasinus (2), bp. of Lilybaeum in Sicily, c. 440, when that country was devastated by Vandal raids (Leonis Magni, Ep. iii. c. i. Migne's ed., note e). LEO Great, sending him pecuniary assistance, consulted him about the Paschal cycle (a.d. 443). He replies in favour of the Alexandrian computation against the Roman, but in an abject strain of deference to his patron. He relates in confirmation of his view a miracle which used to occur in the baptistery of an outlying church on the property of his see on the true Paschal Eve every year, the water rising miraculously in the font (ib. c. 3). In 451 he received another letter from Leo desiring him to make inquiries as to the Paschal cycle (Ep. lxxxviii. c. 4) and sending him the Tome to stir up his energies in the cause of orthodoxy. Immediately after he was sent as one of Leo's legates to the council of Chalcedon (Ep. lxxxix.) and presided on his behalf (Labbe, Conc. vol. iv. p. 580 E, etc. The phrase "synodo praesidens," however, does not occur in the Acta of the council, but only in the signatures of the prelates representing Rome.)
Paschasius (3), deacon of Rome, called by Gregory the Great in his Dialogues, bk. iv. c. 40, "a man of great sanctity." He was a firm supporter of the antipope Laurentius to his death, and his adhesion was a great source of strength to the opponents of Symmachus (cf. Baronius, ann. 498). There is extant a work of his in two books, de Sancto Spiritu (Patr. Lat. lxii. 9–40), which Gregory (u.s.) calls "libri rectissimi ac luculenti." The date of his death was c. 512.
Pastor (1). This name is connected with traditions of the Roman church,
which, though accepted as historical by Baronius and other writers, including Cardinal
Wiseman (Fabiola, p. 189), must be rejected as mythical. These traditions
relate to the origin of two of the oldest of the Roman tituli, those of St.
Pudentiana and St. Praxedis, which still give titles to cardinals, and the former
of which claims to be the most ancient church in the world. The story is that Peter
when at Rome dwelt in the house of the senator Pudens in the vicus Patricius, and
there held divine service, his altar being then the only one at Rome. Pudens is
evidently intended as the same who is mentioned
Patricius (10) (St. Patrick),
I. The Documents.—The materials for St. Patrick's history which have a claim to be regarded as historical are, in the first place, the writings of the saint himself. We have two works ascribed to him, his Confession and his Epistle to Coroticus. Both seem genuine.
We have a copy of the Confession more than 1,000 years old preserved in the Book of Armagh, one of the great treasures of the library of Trinity College, Dublin. This copy professes, in the colophon appended to it, to have been taken from the autograph of St. Patrick. "Thus far the volume which St. Patrick wrote with his own hand." Dr. Todd, in his Life of St. Patrick (p. 347), sums up the case for the Confession of St. Patrick: "It is altogether such an account of himself as a missionary of that age, circumstanced as St. Patrick was, might be expected to compose. Its Latinity is rude and archaic, it quotes the ante-Hieronymian Vulgate; and contains nothing inconsistent with the century in which it professes to have been written. If it be a forgery, it is not easy to imagine with what purpose it could have been forged." This strong testimony might have been made stronger and applies equally clearly to the Ep. to Coroticus. There are two lines of evidence which seem conclusive as to the early date. The one deals with the State Organization, the other with the Ecclesiastical Organization there alluded to and implied. They are both such as existed early in the 5th cent., and could scarcely be imagined afterwards.
To take the State Organization first. In the Ep. to Coroticus he describes himself thus: "Ingenuus fui secundum carnem, decurione patre nascor." We now know that decurions—who were not magistrates but town councillors rather, and members of the local senates—were found all over the Roman empire to its extremest bounds by the end of the 4th cent. Discoveries in Spain last century showed that decurions were established by the Romans in every little mining village, charged with the care of the games, the water supply, sanitary arrangements, education, and the local fortifications; while Hübner in the Corp. Insc. Lat. t. vii. num. 54 and 189, showed that decurions existed in Britain (cf. Marquardt and Mommsen, Handbuch der römischen Alterthümer, t. iv. pp. 501–516 and Ephem. Epigraph. t. ii. p. 137; t. iii. p. 103) This institution necessarily vanished amid the barbarian invasions of the 5th cent. Now, St. Patrick's writings imply the existence of decurions. Again, the Confession calls England Britanniae, using the plural, which is strictly accurate and in accordance with the technical usage of the Roman empire at the close of the 4th cent., which then divided Britain into five provinces, Britannia prima and secunda, Maxima Caesariensis, Flavia Caesariensis and Valentia, which were collectively called Britanniae (cf. Böcking's Notitia Dig. t. ii. c. iii. pp. 12–14). Further, the Ecclesiastical Organization implied is such as the years about A. D. 400 alone could supply. St. Patrick tells us in the opening words of his Confession that his father was Calpurnius, a deacon, his grandfather Potitus, a priest. A careful review of the councils and canons will shew that in Britain and N. Gaul there existed no prohibition of clerical marriage in the last quarter of the 4th cent. Exuperius, bp. of Toulouse, wrote in 404 to pope Innocent I. asking how to deal with married priests who had begotten children since their ordination. Innocent's reply, dated Feb. 20, 405, shews, first, that the prohibition of marriage was only a late innovation, as be refers to the decree of pope Siricius, not quite 20 years before (Mansi, iii. 670; Hefele, ii. 387, Clark's ed.); secondly, that Innocent permitted the clergy of Toulouse to live with their wives if they had contracted marriage in ignorance of papal legislation.
The aspect of the political horizon, and the consequent action of the church as depicted in these writings, correspond with their alleged age. In the Ep. to Coroticus Patrick says, "It is the custom of the Roman Gallic Christians to send holy men to the Franks and other nations with many thousand solidi, to redeem baptized captives." The term Roman was then used to express a citizen of the Roman empire wherever he dwelt; and the custom itself is one of the strongest evidences as to age. The writings of Zosimus, Salvian, and Sidonius Apollinaris prove the ravages of the Franks in Gaul about the middle of the 5th cent. Salvian mentions the rescue of a captive taken at Cologne in Ep. 1. SEVERINUS, the apostle of Austria, a little later in the century, devoted his life to the same work in another neighbourhood, and introduced the payment of tithes for this special object. (See his Life in Pez. Scriptores Rerum Austriacarum, t. i., and in Pertz, Monumenta.) By the end of the 5th cent. the Franks had been converted, and Clovis was the one orthodox sovereign of Christendom, the ally and champion of Catholic bishops. The redemption of captives would be then no longer necessary. This passage could only have been written about the middle of the 5th cent. at the latest. These instances will show how capable St. Patrick's own writings are of standing the tests of historical criticism.
Next in importance stand the collection of Patrician documents contained in the Book of Armagh. The contents of the book are: 1st, Patrician documents, including the oldest copy of the Confession; 2nd, the N.T. in Latin; 3rd, the Life of St. Martin of Tours. The N.T. is remarkable as the only complete copy which has come down from the ancient Celtic church. "The collections," says Mr. Gilbert (Nat. MSS. of Ireland), "concerning St. Patrick in the first part of the Book of Armagh constitute the oldest writings now extant in connexion with him, and are also the most ancient specimens known of narrative composition in Irish and Hiberno-Latin." These documents are all now accessible in print, though a critical edition of them, and indeed of the whole Book of Armagh, is a desideratum in Celtic literature.
II. Life and History.—The story of St. Patrick's life may be derived from
the primary authorities, his own writings and the Patrician documents which really
belong to the 7th and 8th cents. He was born probably at Kilpatrick, near Dumbarton
in Scotland. St. Patrick, in the Confession, names Bannavem Taberniae as
the residence of his parents, a name which cannot now be identified. (Cf. archbp.
Moran in Dublin Rev., Apr. 1880, pp. 291–326.) He was carried captive into
Antrim when 16 years old, in one of those raids which Roman writers like Ammianus
Marcellinus and Irish Annalists like the Four Masters shew were so prevalent
during the 2nd half of the 4th cent. He became the slave of Milchu, the king of
Dalaradia, the commencement of whose reign the Four Masters assign to 388,
so that the very earliest year for St. Patrick's birth would be 372. Dalaradia was
the most powerful kingdom of N.E. Ireland. It extended from Newry, in the S. of
co. Down, to the hill of Slemish, the most conspicuous mountain of central Antrim.
In the 7th cent. traditions about his residence there were abundantly current in
the locality, as indeed they are still. He lived near the village of Broughshane,
5 or 6 miles E. of Ballymena, where a townland, Ballyligpatrick, the town of the
hollow of Patrick, probably commemorates the position of the farm where he fed Milchu's
swine (cf. Dr. Reeves's Antiq. of Down and Connor, pp. 78, 83, 84, 334–348)
After 7 years he escaped, went to Gaul and studied under Germanus of Auxerre. He
remained for a very long period, some say 30, others 40 years, in Gaul, where he
was ordained priest and bishop. He then returned to Ireland, visiting England on
his way. He landed where the river Vartry flows into the sea at Wicklow, as Palladius
had done before him. It was a very natural point for mariners
This fire was at once seen on Tara, where the king of Ireland, Laoghaire, was holding a convention of the chiefs of Ireland. The ritual of the convention demanded that no fire should be lit in his dominions on this night till the king's fire was lit on Tara. St. Patrick's act directly challenged the edict of the king, who proceeded to Slane to punish the bold aggressor. The narrative of the conflict between St. Patrick and king Laoghaire and his priests is marked by a series of miracles and legends, terminating, however, with the defeat of paganism and the baptism of great numbers of the Irish, including Laoghaire himself, who yielded a nominal adhesion to the truth. (See Mr. Petrie's great work on the Hill of Tara, where the subject has been exhaustively discussed.)
The Paschal controversy, about which Cummian wrote (a.d. 634), throws an interesting light upon the date of the introduction of Christianity into Ireland. The Irish have been accused of Quartodeciman practices as to Easter, which is quite a mistake. They simply adhered to the old Roman cycle, which was superseded in 463 by the Victorian cycle. ["Easter," in D. C. A. vol. i. p. 594.] The invasions of the barbarians then cut off the Celtic church from a knowledge of the more modern improvements in the calendar, which they afterwards resisted with a horror natural to simple people. The English surplice riots of bp. Blomfield's time shew how a much shorter tradition may raise a popular commotion. This fixes the introduction of Christianity into Ireland in the first half of 5th cent. The alleged connexion of the Irish church with Egypt and the East, as shewn in art, literature, architecture, episcopal and monastic arrangements, would afford material for an interesting article on the peculiarities of the Irish church. (See Butler's Coptic Churches of Egypt, Oxf. 1885.)
See Sir Samuel Fergusson's treatise on the Patrician Documents in the Transactions of the Royal Irish Academy (Dec. 1885), and Benjamin Robert's Etude critique sur la vie de St. Patrice (Paris, 1883), where a diligent use has been made of modern authorities, and, pp. 3–7, a convenient summary given of the literature. A cheap popular Life by E. J. Newell is pub. by S.P.C.K. in their Fathers for Eng. Readers, who also pub. the Epp. and Hymns, including the poem of Secundinus in his praise, in Eng. ed. by T. Olden. Cf. esp. The Tripartite Life of Patrick, with other documents, etc., by Whitley Stokes in Rolls Series, No. 89, 2 vols. (Lond. 1887); also W. Bright, The Roman See in the Early Church, pp. 367–385 (Lond. 1896).
Patrocius (2) (St. Parre), Jan. 21, a martyr supposed to have suffered
under Aurelian, and commemorated by Greg. Turon. Glor. Mart. c. 64. His Acts
are fully told by the Bollandists,
Patroclus (3), bp. of Arles, between SS. Heros and Honoratus (a.d. 412–426).
In 412 the people of Arles drove out Heros and elected Patroclus, a creature of
Constantius (Prosper Aquit. Chronicon, Migne, Patr. Lat. li. 590).
As bishop he is said to have sold ecclesiastical offices (Prosper Tyro, Chronicon,
in Bouquet i. 638) and hoarded up stores of ill-gotten wealth (cf. the funeral sermon
of Hilary of Arles upon St. Honoratus, c. vi. Patr. Lat. l. 1265). He seems,
however, to have commended himself to pope Zosimus, who conferred upon him unprecedented
privileges of jurisdiction, and his history illustrates the relations of the French
dioceses. On the ground that Arles was the fountain-head of Gallic Christianity,
the pope confirmed to the see all parishes it had ever held, whether within the
province or not, and gave Patroclus exclusive rights of ordination over the independent
provinces of Vienne, Narbonensis Prima, and Narbonensis Secunda, and deposed Proculus,
bp. of Marseilles, for infringing these privileges by ordaining in his own diocese.
On the ground of Patroclus's personal merits, the pope, in a letter addressed to
all the Gallic bishops, forbade any cleric of whatever rank to visit Rome without
first obtaining literae formatae, or letters of identification and recommendation,
from the bp. of Arles. See the pope's correspondence from
Patrophilus (1) of Scythopolis, one of the original Arian party, took
a leading part in all their principal acts and was one of the most relentless opponents
of Athanasius, by whom he is designated as a πνευματόμαχος
(adv. Serap. iv. 7, p. 360). He enjoyed considerable reputation for theological
learning, and trained Eusebius of Emesa in the exposition of Scripture (Socr.
H. E. ii. 9). When Arius, driven from Alexandria, took refuge in Palestine,
Patrophilus was one of the Palestinian bishops who warmly espoused his cause, wrote
in support of his teaching (Athan. de Synod. p. 886), and in
a.d. 323 joined
with Paulinus of Tyre and Eusebius of Caesarea in summoning a local synod, which
granted Arius permission to hold private religious assemblies (Soz. H. E.
i. 15). At Nicaea he was one of the 17 episcopal partisans of Arius, and united
with them in drawing up a creed which was indignantly rejected by the council (Theod.
H. E. i. 7) Embittered by defeat, he became one of the most relentless persecutors
of Athanasius. In 330 he took part in the synod at Antioch by which Eustathius was
deposed (ib. i. 21). At the synod of Tyre (a.d. 335) he was one of the most
active in bringing about the condemnation of Athanasius (Labbe, ii. 436; Athan.
Apol. c. Arian. cc. 73, 74, 77), and the same year he attended the abortive
synod of the Dedication at Jerusalem (Socr. H. E. i. 31; Soz. H. E.
ii. 26; Theod. H. E. i. 31). Passing thence to Constantinople at the empress's
command, he denounced Athanasius as having threatened the imperial city with starvation
by preventing the sailing of the Alexandrian corn-ships, and procured his banishment
to Trèves (Socr. H. E. i. 35; Theod. H. E. i. 31; Theophan. p. 26;
Athan. Apol. c. Asian. c. 87). In 341 be took part in the ambiguous council
of Antioch, in Encaeniis (Soz. H. E. iii. 5). He was one of the ordainers
of George, the violent heterodox intruder into the see of Alexandria in 353 (ib.
iv. 8), and with his leader Acacius kept entirely aloof from Athanasius when Maximus
of Jerusalem welcomed him on his return from banishment in 346, and before long
contrived to establish Cyril in Maximus's place as their own nominee (Theophan.
p. 34; Gwatkin, Studies of Arianism, p. 145). He was one of the few Eastern
bishops who attended the council of Milan in 355 (his name appearing erroneously
in the lists as Stratophilus), and he took part in the condemnation and deposition
of Eusebius of Vercelli, on whose banishment to Scythopolis, Patrophilus, "his jailer,"
as Eusebius calls him, vented his annoyance by studied insults and ill-treatment
(Eus. Vercell. Ep. apud Baronium Annal. 356, No. 93). According to
Philostorgius (H. E. iv. 8–10) Patrophilus poisoned the mind of Constantius
against Basil of Ancyra, who had at one time exercised unbounded influence over
him, and was the proposer of the scheme of breaking up the proposed general council
into two. When the Eastern division met at Seleucia, Sept. 27, 359, Patrophilus
was a leading member of the shifty Acacian party pledged to the Homoiousion. Finding
the majority of the synod against them, he and his party refused to take part in
the later sessions, and at the fourth sitting, Oct. 1, he shared in the sentence
of deposition passed on Acacius and his followers (Socr. H. E. ii. 40; Soz.
H. E.
Paula (2), a noble and wealthy Roman lady, who accompanied Jerome to Palestine in 385, and lived the rest of her life at Bethlehem, dying in 404. The chief facts of her life were given in Jerome's Epitaphium of her addressed to Eustochium (Hieron. Ep. 108, ed. Vall.). She was born in 347, and while quite young was married to the senator Toxotius, of the Julian family, which traced its descent from Aeneas. Through her mother Blaesilla she was connected with the Scipios and the Gracchi, through her father Rogatus with a Greek family, which traced its descent from Agamemnon. Her family was connected with the Aemilian gens, and her name taken from that of the illustrious Paulus. Jerome records these ancestral glories in her epitaph,
Scipio quam genuit, Pauli fudere parentes,
Gracchorum soboles, Agamemnonis inclyta proles.
She was possessed of great wealth, owning, amongst other properties, the town of Nicopolis or Actium. During her early married life, though always without reproach in her character, she lived in the usual luxury of Roman patricians. She gave birth to four daughters, BLAESILLA, who married, but lost her husband and died early in 384; Paulina, wife of Pammachius; Julia, called EUSTOCHIUM, and Ruffina, who died early, probably in 386; and one son, called after his father Toxotius. After the birth of a son she appears to have adopted the practice of continency (Hieron. Ep. cviii. 4), but to have still lived with her husband, whose death (probably in 380) she deeply lamented. In 382, during the synod held at Rome (following on the council of Constantinople), she entertained the bps. Epiphanius of Salamis and Paulinus of Antioch, and by them her ascetic tendencies, already considerable, were heightened. Through them Jerome, who had come to Rome with them, became her friend. She imbibed through him her love for the study of Scripture, and, with her daughter Eustochium, attended his readings at the palace of Marcella. She gave vast sums to the poor, spending her own fortune and that of her children in charity. She assumed a coarse dress and a sordid appearance, and undertook all sorts of menial duties in the relief of distress. But her mind was set upon the monastic life and upon the country of the Eastern hermits. After the death of Blaesilla she determined to quit Rome, and, early in 385, disregarding the tears of her son Toxotius, then a child, who was left to the wardship of the praetor, and the entreaties of Ruffina, then a girl of marriageable age, who begged her mother to wait till she was married, she sailed for the East. After visiting Epiphanius in Cyprus, she rejoined Jerome and his friends at Antioch. With him she braved the winter's journey through Lebanon to Palestine [HIERONYMUS] and Egypt, from whence returning the whole party settled in Bethlehem in the autumn of 386.
Their life there is related under HIERONYMUS, and only personal details need here be given. Her letter to Marcella inviting her to come to Palestine (Hieron. Ep. 46) shows her enthusiastic delight in every sacred place and association in the Holy Land. Paula and Eustochium lived at first in a cottage till their convent and hospice (diversorium) were built. They then founded a monastery for men, and a convent of three degrees for women, who lived separately, though having the same dress, and met for the services. Paula's capacity of management, her patience and tact, are warmly praised by Jerome (Ep. cviii. c. 19). She is said by Palladius (Hist. Laus. 79) to have had the care of Jerome and to have found it a difficult task. Her scriptural studies, begun in Rome, were carried on earnestly at Bethlehem. She had (through her father's family) a good knowledge of Greek, and she learnt Hebrew to be able to repeat and sing the Psalms in the original (c. 26). She read constantly with Jerome, and they went through the whole Bible together (ib.). In his account of his writings in the catalogue (de Vir. Ill. 135) written in 392, Jerome says, "Epistolarum ad Paulam et Eustochium, quia quotidie scribuntur, in certus est numerus." She was remarkably teachable, and when doubts were suggested to her by Origenistic teachers, she was able at once, with Jerome's help, to put them aside. Her charities were so incessant that Jerome states that she left Eustochium with a great debt, which she could only trust the mercy of Christ would enable her to pay (c. 15). It is believed that Jerome, who had in vain counselled prudence and moderation (ib.), gave her pecuniary help in her later years. Her health was weak; her body slight; her mortifications, against many of which Jerome remonstrated and which gave occasion to some scandals, and her frequent illnesses had worn her away; and in her 57th year (404) she sank under a severe attack of illness. Jerome describes with deep feeling the scene at her death, the personal attention of her daughter to all her wants, the concern of the whole Christian community. The bishops of the surrounding cities were present. John of Jerusalem, who only four years before had been at strife with the convents of Bethlehem, was there. Her funeral was a kind of triumph, the whole church being gathered together to carry her to her resting-place in the centre of the cave of the Nativity. She is reckoned as a saint by the Roman church, her day, that of her death, being Jan. 26.
Paula (3), granddaughter of foregoing, daughter of Toxotius, and of Laeta
the daughter of Albinus, a heathen and a priest. Laeta embraced Christianity and
wrote to consult Jerome as to Paula's education, who
Paulina (1), daughter of Paula the friend of Jerome, and wife of PAMMACHIUS. She married about the time when her mother and her sister Eustochium went with Jerome to Palestine in 385. Her children died at birth and she herself probably died in childbirth in 397. Her merits are described in consolatory letters to Pammachius from Jerome (Ep. 66, ed. Vall.) and Paulinus (Ep. 13, Migne's Patr. Lat. vol. 61).
Paulinianus, younger brother of Jerome. He was still young in 385 ("adolescens," Hieron. c. Rut. iii. 22) when he left Rome with his brother and their friend Vincentius, and he was under 30 when ordained in 394 (Hieron. adv. Joan. Hier. § 8). He shared his brother's journeys in Palestine and settled with him in Bethlehem, where he probably remained to the end of his life. He was modest, only desiring to help his brother in the monastery. But Epiphanius, coming to Jerusalem in 394, and finding (or rather promoting) a schism between the monasteries of Bethlehem and bp. John of Jerusalem, took him to the monastery which he had founded at Ad, and there, against the protests and even resistance of Paulinian, ordained him priest. (See in Hieron. Ep. li. 1, ed. Vall. the trans. of Epiphanius's explanatory letter to John of Jerusalem.) Paulinian may perhaps have acted as presbyter in the monasteries for a time, but he felt it prudent during the vehement controversy which sprang up between Jerome and bp. John of Jerusalem to go to Epiphanius in Cyprus. Jerome declares (contra Joannem § 41) that his brother was in Cyprus.
Paulinus (3), bp. of Tyre and afterwards of Antioch, a.d. 328–329 (Clinton, F. R.). He was apparently a native of Antioch, and, according to his friend and panegyrist Eusebius (Eus. in Marcell. i. 4, p. 19), filled the office of bp. of Tyre with great splendour, and after the cessation of the persecution rebuilt with great magnificence the cathedral elaborately described by the historian in the inaugural oration delivered by him at its dedication (ib. H. E. x. 4). Paulinus was "claimed by the church of the Antiochenes as their own property," ὡς οἰκείου ἀγαθοῦ μεταποιηθῆναι, and chosen their bishop. According to Philostorgius, he only held his new dignity for half a year before his death (Philost. H. E. iii. 15). Paulinus, like his friend Eusebius of Caesarea, was an Arianizer, claimed by Arius in his letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia as one of his sympathizers (Theod. H. E. i. 5). Eusebius of Caesarea lavishes unstinting praise on his fellow-partisan, dedicates to him his Ecclesiastical History (Eus. H. E. x. 1), and speaks with great indignation of the unfounded charges brought against him by Marcellus, with the view of fixing on him the impious tenet that our blessed Lord is no more than a created being (in Marcell. u.s.).
Paulinus (4), St., 6th bp. of Trèves, between St. Maximinus and St. Bonosus, one of the foremost Gallic champions of orthodoxy against Arianism. He was probably consecrated in 349. In 351, at the council of Sirmium, Paulinus seems to have boldly championed the orthodox cause. The letter of condemnation of Athanasius tendered for his signature he scornfully rejected, exclaiming that he would sign the condemnation of Photinus and Marcellus, but not of Athanasius (Sulpicius Severus, Hist. Sacr. ii. 37, Migne, Patr. Lat. xx. 150). At the council of Arles in 353 Paulinus's fate was decided. The emperor Constantius there decreed the banishment of bishops who should refuse to subscribe the condemnation of Athanasius. Paulinus remained steadfast, and, after being condemned by the bishops, was driven into exile in Phrygia, to parts inhabited by heathen and heretics. This occurred in 353 or, at latest, in 354, not 356, as Jerome gives it. He died in 358 or 359. The church of his name outside the walls was one of the earliest at Trèves (Wilmowsky, Der Dom zu Trier, p. 11).
For his life see, further, the passages from the works of Athanasius collected, Boll. Acta SS. Aug. vi. 669 sqq.; Hilarius, ad Const. Aug. lib. i.; Lib. contra Const. Imp. 11; Fragr. Migne, Patr. Lat. x. 562, 588, 631.
Paulinus (5) (Paulonas), a priest and a disciple of Ephraem Syrus. Gennadius (de Script. Eccl. c. iii. in Patr. Lat. lviii. 1062) gives a short account of him, speaking of his great talent, knowledge of Scripture, and power as a preacher. After his master's death he "separated from the church, and wrote much against the faith," being of an ambitious temperament and eager for renown.
Paulinus (6), bp. of the Eustathian or old Catholic party at Antioch,
362–388, a man highly esteemed for piety. He was one of Eustathius's presbyters,
and, subsequently to the death of Eustathius, was recognized as the head of the
Eustathians, who, refusing to hold communion with Meletius, with whom they were
doctrinally agreed, in consequence of his having been appointed and consecrated
by Arians, remained some time without a bishop, holding their meetings for worship
in a small church within the walls of Antioch, the use of which had been granted
by the Arian bp. Evagrius, out of respect for Paulinus's high character. Lucifer
of Calaris, on his way home from his banishment in Upper Egypt,
a.d. 362, went straight
to Antioch, where, finding it impossible to reconcile the two contending parties
he took the fatal step of ordaining Paulinus bp. of the Eustathian Catholics. This
rendered union impossible, and the church had to lament the consequent schism at
Antioch for more than half a century. The controversy between the churches of the
West and of Egypt which supported Paulinus, and that of the East which adhered to
Meletius, was not finally healed till Alexander became bp, of Antioch, a.d. 413.
For
Paulinus (7), writer of the Life of St. Ambrose, a work which he says he undertook at the request of St. Augustine. He was well qualified for his task by his intimate acquaintance with St. Ambrose and attendance upon him in his last illness, and by information gathered from well-informed persons, especially his sister Marcellina. He seems to call himself the bishop's secretary (notarius) and he was certainly with him at his death (cc. 33, 35, 38, 42, 47). In his introduction he expresses his great anxiety to adhere strictly to the truth and to deliver what he has to say impartially, and this he appears to have done. After the death of St. Ambrose he went to Africa, where he was well received by the church, and distinguished himself by defending the memory of his friend and patron against an attack upon him by Muranus, bp. of Bollita. It was perhaps this which led to his acquaintance with St. Augustine, and his becoming the biographer of St. Ambrose. He took a prominent part in the proceedings of the council of Carthage, a.d. 412, against Celestius. Morcelli, Afr. Chr. iii. pp. 57, 80; Cave; Hist. Lit. i. p. 402; Ceillier, vol. vii. p. 533, viii. 549, ix. 453.
Paulinus (8), St., bp. of Nola, one of a patrician family of whom some had been Christians (Ausonius, Ep. xxiv. 103; Paulin. Ep. xl. Prudentius, Symm. i. 558, 560; Baronius, 394, 78, 99). They had property in Aquitania, and probably resided there habitually (Ambros. Ep. lviii. 1). His father was praefectus praetorio of Gaul, had large possessions in the province in which he lived, and was the founder of the town of Burgus (Bourg) on the Dordogne, and, as well as his wife, appears to have been a Christian.
I. First Period (353–394).—Besides Paulinus, his parents had an elder son and a daughter. He was probably born at Bordeaux, a.d. 353 or 354, and his tutor was Ausonius, who thought very highly of him as a pupil, regarded him with warm affection, and addressed to him many of his poetical epistles. The affection of Ausonius was fully returned by his pupil, who declares that he owed to him all the distinction he had attained.
Whatever merit his Latin compositions possess, he was by his own admission not strong in Greek, and in a letter to Rufinus, a.d. 408, regrets his inability to translate accurately an epistle of St. Clement (Ep. xlvi. 2). He entered early into public life, became a member of the senate, and filled the office of consul for part of the official year in the place of some one who had vacated it; in what year is not known, his name not appearing in the Fasti, but before 379 when Ausonius held the office and says that his pupil attained the dignity earlier than himself (Aus. Ep. xx. 4, xxv. 60). Paulinus has been supposed also to have been prefect of New Epirus, a supposition consistent with his own mention of frequent and laborious journeys by land and sea, but of which there is no direct evidence, though an edict of the joint emperors Valentinian, Valens, and Gratian undoubtedly exists, addressed to a prefect of that province of his name, a.d. 372. He certainly held a judicial office, for in one of his poems he expresses satisfaction at having condemned no one to death during his tenure of it. Lebrun conjectures that after his consulship he became consularis of Campania and resided at Nola (Carm. xxi. 396; Tillem. vol. xiv. p. 8). Possessed of easy fortune and enjoying the best society, he lived a life free from outward reproach, but one for which he afterwards found great fault with himself. His health was never good, and he suffered much from fatigue in his journeys (Carm. x. 134; xiii. 2, 10; Ep. v. 4). In the course of them he fell in with Victricius bp. of Rouen and Martin bp. of Tours at Vienne in Gaul, and ascribed to the latter the restoration of his sight, the loss of which was threatened, apparently by cataract (Ep. xviii. 9; Sulpic. Sev. Vit. S. Mart. xix. 3, ed. Halm.). He also regarded St. Ambrose with great veneration, calling him "father" (Ep. iii. 6). But his chief object of veneration was Felix of Nola, to whom he devoted himself specially when he visited Nola at about 26 or 27 years of age, a.d. 379 (Carm. xiii. 7, 9; xxi. 350, 381). About this time, but not later than 389, he and his brother received baptism at Bordeaux, from Delphinus, the bishop there (Epp. iii. 4; xx. 6; xxxv.; xxxvi.). Not long after he began to think of retiring from the world, and in 389 or ago went to Spain, residing chiefly at Barcelona. During this time he married a Spanish lady of good fortune and irreproachable character, named Therasia, and a son was born to them, who died after a few days (Prudentius, Peristeph. v. 41, 44; Dexter, Chron. a.d. 296; Carm. v. 66; xxi. 400; xxxv. 599, 610). There seems good reason for placing the violent death of his brother about this time, when not only his brother's property was in danger of confiscation, but that of Paulinus himself and even his life (Carm. xxi. 414–427; Buse, vol. i. p. 157). It was perhaps partly due to these events that during his stay in Spain he was led to give up the senate and worldly business and refused to take any further interest in "profane" literature (Ep. iv. 2; xxii. 3; Carm. x. 304, 316). But he continued to write verses on sacred subjects to the end of his life. Determined to renounce the world, he parted with a large portion of his property and his wife's, spending some of the money in redeeming captives, releasing debtors, and the like. In compliance with a sudden popular demand, he was ordained priest, but without any especial cure of souls, by Lampius, bp. of Barcelona, on Christmas Day, 393 (Epp. i. 10; ii. 2; iii. 4). He appears to have been already well acquainted with some of the most eminent African clergy, Alypius, Augustine, Aurelius, and others. In a letter to St. Augustine he mentions his work against the Manicheans, i.e. probably his de Doctrina Christiana, together with the single volume de Vera Religione in which Manichean doctrine is discussed (Aug. Ep. xxvii. 4). In the same letter Paulinus speaks of his own abandonment of the world, and requests Augustine to instruct and direct him.
II. Second Period (394–409).—In 394 he determined to retire to Nola, where he had property, including a house. On his way he saw St. Ambrose, probably at Florence, and in a letter to Sulpicius, whom he begs to visit him at Nola, he speaks of much jealousy being shewn him at Rome by pope Siricius and others of the clergy, probably on account of the unusual circumstances of his ordination; whereas at Nola, where not long after his arrival he had a serious illness, he was visited by nearly all the bishops of Campania, either in person or by deputy, by clergymen and some laymen, and received friendly letters from many African bishops who sent messengers to him. At Nola he entered with his wife at once upon the course of life he had marked out, and which he pursued as far as possible until his death, a.d. 431. SS. Ambrose, Augustine, and Jerome regarded the self-sacrifice of him and his wife with high respect and admiration (Ambros. Ep. lviii. 1–3; Hieron. Epp. lviii. 6; cxviii. 5). Augustine writes to him in terms of warm admiration and affection (Aug. Ep. xxvii.), and in a second letter announces his appointment as coadjutor to Valerius, bp. of Hippo, and urges Paulinus to visit him in Africa (Aug. Ep. xxxi.). St. Jerome exhorts him and Therasia to persevere in their self-denial, and praises highly his panegyric on the emperor Theodosius, a work which he himself mentions but which has perished (Hieron. Ep. lviii.; Paul. Ep. xxviii. 6; Gennadius, c. 48). In reply to Augustine and to letters of the African bishops, Paulinus writes to Augustine's friend Romanianus, congratulating the African church on the appointment of Augustine and hoping that his "trumpet" may sound forcibly in the ears of Romanianus's son Licentius, to whom also he addressed a letter ending
Vive precor, sed vive Deo, nam vivere mundo
Mortis opus, vera est vivere vita Deo.
When Paulinus settled at Nola, the burial-place of Felix, called in the Martyrology of Bede in Pincis or in Pineis, about a mile from the town, had become the site of four churches (basilicae), one built by pope Damasus, and also a chapel. Probably none of these were of any great size. Paulinus added a fifth. The church whose dedication he mentions in Ep. 32 is described by him as having a triple apse (trichorum, i.e. τρίχωρον). (Ep. xxxii. 17; Isid. Orig. xv. 8, 7.) It was perhaps on the site of the one built by Damasus, and contained not only the tomb of Felix, but beneath the altar (altaria) remains of various saints and martyrs, including SS. John Bapt., Andrew, Luke, Thomas, and others of less note, including St. Nazarius, of whom some relics were sent to him by Ambrose (Ep. xxxii. 17; Carm. xxvii. 436, 439), but above all the precious fragment of the true cross, brought from Jerusalem by Melania and presented by her to Paulinus a.d. 398, and of which he sent a chip (astula) enclosed in a tube of gold to Sulpicius, as a special offering from Therasia and himself to Bassula, his friend's mother-in-law, to honour the churches built by him at Primuliacum (Ep. xxxi.). The pavement, walls, and columns of this apse were marble, and the vaulted roof, from which lamps were suspended by chains, was ceiled with mosaic representing the Trinity symbolically, and also the twelve apostles, with an inscription in verse describing the subjects represented. Of this mosaic some remains were visible in 1512. All the buildings, both churches and cloisters, were adorned with pictures representing Scripture subjects, in the older church from the N.T. and in the newer one from O.T., for the introduction of which Paulinus apologizes on the score of their utility in occupying the attention of the illiterate people who flocked to the grave of Felix in large numbers at all times, and sometimes spent whole nights there in the winter, watching and fasting, having brought torches with them. With these pictures Paulinus hoped to employ their minds and prevent them from excess in eating or drinking (Carm. xxvii. 552–598).
Paulinus also devoted much pains and cost to the erection of a new church at Fundi, a place endeared to him by early recollections and at which he possessed property. He enriched it with relics of martyrs and apostles, including St. Andrew, St. Luke, SS. Nazarius, Gervasius, and Protasius (Ep. xxxii. 17).
His own residence was a house he had formerly built or enlarged as an asylum for the poor. He added a second story for the use of himself, his associates, and his visitors, reserving the ground-floor for the poor, so that by their ascending prayers the buildings above might be strengthened (Ep. xxix. 13; Carm. xxi. 390). His mode of life was monastic in the fullest sense, and he calls his house a monastery (Ep. v. 15). The inmates dressed themselves in hair cloth with a rope girdle, cut their hair in a manner studiously unbecoming, were perhaps not careful as to personal cleanliness, observed strict rules of silence and fasting, even during Easter-tide did not eat until about 3 p.m., and used mostly a vegetable diet, lying down to sleep on the ground, wrapped only in a coarse cloak or patch-work blanket, and abridging the time usually devoted to sleep (Epp. xv. 4; xxii. 1, 2, 3, 6; xxix. i. 13; Carm. xxxv. 445–497).
He seldom, if ever, left Nola, except to visit Rome once a year to join in the festival of SS. Peter and Paul, on June 29, the day of their martyrdom ("beatorum apostolorum natalem") (Epp. xvii. 2; xviii. 1; xx. 2; xliii. 1; xlv. 1; Carm. xxi. 132–166; Aug. Ep. xcv. 6).
The event of all the year which was the chief interest for him and his little community at Nola was the festival of St. Felix, on Jan. 14. For many years he always composed a poem in honour of the day. In one of the earlier poems Paulinus tells how multitudes came from all parts of S. Italy, to be cured of their ailments or relieved of troubles, or to thank God for cures or relief already granted; how even Rome sent forth thousands on the Appian road, which became encumbered by the crowds of pilgrims, and how Nola, for a short time, became almost as populous as Rome (Ep. xiv.).
III. Third Period (a.d. c. 409–431).—Paulinus became bp. of Nola
before the autumn of 410, when Alaric laid waste Campania, for St. Augustine speaks
of him as being then bp. of Nola. Therasia's death perhaps took place in the latter
part of 408, though Tillemont
Writings.—He has left behind 51 letters and 36 poems. (a)
Prose.—Of his letters, 13, some very long, are addressed to Sulpicius Severus,
the first in 394, and the last in 403; 5 to Delphinus, by of Bordeaux, 6 to Amandus
his successor, 4 to Augustine, 3 to Aper and Amanda, 2 to another Amandus and
Sanctus, 2 to Rufinus, 2 to Victricius, 3 to persons unknown, and single letters
to Alethius, Alypius, Desiderius, Eucherius and Gallus, Florentius, Jovius, Licentius,
Macarius, Pammachius, Romanianus, Sebastianus, besides the account of the martyrdom
of Genesius which is a sort of postscript to the letter to Eucherius and Gallus
(Ep. 51). It does not appear that he ever saw Sulpicius after his visit
to Spain, but the love of the two for each other never failed. His letters to
Delphinus and Amandus exhibit his deep humility and cheerful humour, but are chiefly
remarkable for the earnest request made to both, that they will offer their prayers
on behalf of his deceased brother, of whom he speaks with great affection but
with deep regret for his neglect in spiritual matters, hoping that by their prayers
he may obtain some refreshment in the other world (Epp. xxxv.; xxxvi.).
Of those to St. Augustine the third is chiefly occupied with remarks on the grief
of Melania for the loss of her only son Publicola, and a reply to Augustine on
the condition of the soul in celestial glory, which he thinks will be one of highly
exalted powers and beauty resembling the condition of our Lord after His resurrection.
He asks Augustine's opinion on the subject (Ep. xiv.). In the 4th letter
Paulinus asks for Augustine's opinion as a doctor of Israel on various Scripture
passages according to the Latin version. (1)
(b) Verse.—Paulinus wrote much in verse throughout his life, and sent many of his poems to his friends. Seventeen are more or less directly in praise of Felix, all of them dated Jan. 14, the day of his death, and consequently called Natalitia, though not by Paulinus himself. The 1st (Carm. xii.) was written in Spain, but when fully intending to retire to Nola, a.d. 394, the 2nd shortly after his arrival there (ib. xiii.). The 3rd describes the concourse from all parts to the tomb of Felix, and the power he manifested of casting out devils and curing diseases (ib. xiv. 21–43). The 15th and 16th relate the legend of FELIX. The 17th is a Sapphic ode to Nicetas, who was about to return to his see after his visit to Nola, a.d. 398 (ib. xvii.). He came a second time, a.d. 402, and his visit is mentioned with much satisfaction in the 27th poem. The 18th poem, 6th in honour of Felix, describes in hexameters the discovery of his tomb, mentions the five churches built around it, and how the country people came themselves and brought their animals to be cured of maladies by the saint's influence.
A poem of 730 lines describes how the relics of martyrs had been transferred to other places than those where they died, especially the more notable among them; how Nola was honoured and benefited by the grave of Felix; and how a thief who had stolen an ornament in the church containing a figure of the cross was discovered, partly by the agency of Felix, and partly by the miraculous operation of the sacred emblem (ib. xix.). The poem last in order is dedicated to a friend whom he calls Antonius, by which name he has been thought to denote Ausonius, and consists of a discourse of the insufficiency of the old mythological systems and of the advantages of the true faith he has adopted, whose doctrines on the Trinity, final judgment, and redemption through Christ he has described, and he invites his friend to consider the blessing of eternal life open to all who accept the offer (ib. xxxvi.).
As Bose remarks, the laws of versification and prosody were undergoing a great change in his day, and either of this or of intentional neglect of those laws, the verses of Paulinus afford abundant evidence. Nor can it be said truly that they shew much poetic power, though many are graceful and pleasing, especially his letters to Ausonius and his address to Nicetas. He wrote with facility and great pleasure to himself, and frequently wrote well, but his poems cannot justly claim a high rank as poetry. Ozanam, however, expresses a very favourable opinion of them (Civilisation au cinquième siècle, vol. ii. pp. 238–247). Of his amiable and affectionate disposition, love for his friends, profound humility, entire abnegation of self, earnest piety, and devotion to the service of God, sufficient evidence has been given. He was studiously orthodox on the Catholic doctrine of the Holy Trinity, which he states clearly on many occasions, but seems in one letter to favour the views of the semi-Pelagians (Ep. xxix. 7). He believed devoutly in the power and influence of departed saints, including their relics; his whole life from the time of his retirement to Nola may be said to turn upon this belief, which he carried, as the stories in his poems shew plainly, to the utmost bound of human credulity (Ampère, Revue des deux mondes, 1837, vol. xii. p. 66, and Littérature chrétienne au cinquième siècle, vol. i. p. 288).
The ed. of his works pub. by the abbé Migne, Patr. Lat. vol. lxi., contains
the matter of most of the former edd. It is, however, in all matters of reference
edited carelessly, and its index is exceedingly inaccurate. An account of Paulinus
is given by Cave, Hist. Litt. i. p. 288; Dupin, Hist. Eccl. vol.
iii.; Tillemont, vol. xiv.; and Ceillier, vol. viii. Dr. Gilly (Vigilantius
and his Times, Lond. 1844) describes his mode of life, blaming greatly both
it and his theology, though giving him full credit for
Paulinus (12), son of a prefect (probably a vicarius) of Illyricum;
born at Pella. His father soon afterwards went to Carthage as proconsul, and Paulinus
was before long sent to Bordeaux to be brought up by his grandfather. In his 84th
year (probably c. 460) he wrote a poem called "Eucharisticon Deo sub Ephemeridis
meae textu," in which he returns thanks to God for his preservation and for many
blessings throughout a long and rather eventful life. The poem throws some light
on the history of his time, particularly on the movement of the northern nations.
It has been erroneously attributed to St. Paulinus of Nola. It is in De la Bigne,
Bibl. Patr. (App.
Paulinus (13) of Périgueux (Petrocorius), a poet of the 2nd half of the 5th cent., to whom properly belong certain works sometimes attributed to St. Paulinus of Nola, viz. Vita Martini in six books, a poem, "de Visitatione Nepotuli Sui," and a short poem composed as a dedicatory inscription for the basilica of St. Martin at Tours. Nothing can be clearly made out concerning his life or parentage, save the inference, from the name Petrocorius, that he was probably a native of Périgueux. The poem on St. Martin was probably written c. 470, certainly during the episcopate of Perpetuus of Tours (who presided at the council of Tours in 461), since it is dedicated to that bishop, and is partly based on a document drawn up by him. It is mainly a rather rough versification of the Life of St. Martin by Sulpicius Severus and of parts of the dialogues of the same writer; the last book is especially interesting, as representing a formal account by the bp. of Tours of the miracles wrought at his predecessor's tomb. The short dedication poem for the new basilica was written later, at the request of Perpetuus. The poem "de Visitatione Nepotuli Sui" records a miraculous cure of the author's grandson, by the joint agency, as he appears to consider, of St. Martin and Perpetuus.
His works are, under the name of St. Paulinus of Nola, in Migne, Patr. Lat. lxi. (Ebert, Gesch. der Chr. Lat. Lit. 385; Cave, Hist. Litt. i. 449; Teuffel, vol. ii.; Greg. Turon de Mir. B. Mart., and Ruinart's note in the Benedictine ed.) Cf. A. Huber, Die poetische Bearbietung der Vita S. Mar. durch Paul von Périgueux (Pamplon. 1909).
Paulinus (20), the first Christian missionary from Rome to Northumbria, and the bishop who begins the recognized succession in the archiepiscopal see of York.
He was sent from Rome by Gregory in 601, with Mellitus, Justus, and Rufinianus. They joined Augustine in Kent, and would take an active part in evangelizing that kingdom.
In 625 Edwin, king of Northumbria, wished to marry Ethelburga, daughter of Eadbald, king of Kent, who objected to a pagan son-in-law. A second embassy revealed Edwin's eagerness. He promised to allow the princess and her suite entire freedom in their religious worship, and even that he himself would adopt her faith, if his wise men should consider it right and just. Here was an opportunity for evangelizing Northumbria, and Eadbald sent his daughter. Paulinus accompanied the princess as her religious adviser, and, to add dignity and importance to his mission, Augustine consecrated him bishop before he set out, on July 21, 625.
At first, however, Paulinus found the king quiescent though respectful, and that the people paid no attention; while his own little party was in danger from the taint of heathenism. At the feast of Easter, 626, an attempt was made upon Edwin's life. That act probably accelerated the birth of Ethelburga's first child, a daughter, and Paulinus thanked God for the preservation of his master and mistress with such fervour that Edwin, touched at last, promised to become a Christian if he could be avenged upon those who had sent forth the assassin, and, to shew he was in earnest, permitted Paulinus to baptize the new-born princess, with eleven courtiers who chose to accompany her to the font.
Edwin obtained his revenge, but loitered over the fulfilment of his promise. Paulinus reminded the hesitating monarch of what had taken place twelve years before at Redwald's court. He laid his hand upon Edwin's head, and asked him if he remembered that sign and his pledge. Now was the time for its fulfilment. Whether Paulinus was the stranger himself, or had gathered from the queen, or some courtier, that Edwin had seen and heard all this in a dream, is a matter of doubt. A national gathering took place at Goodmanham, near York, to consider the subject, and resulted in the king, court, and many of the people becoming Christians.
Northumbria was now opened to the missionary work of Paulinus, and his time fully occupied. He made a convert of Blecca, the reeve of Lincoln, and through his means a church was erected on the summit of its hill in which Paulinus consecrated archbp. Honorius in 627. He is said soon after to have founded Southwell minster, and his appearance was described to Beda as he stood in the river baptizing convert after convert in king Edwin's presence.
At Donafeld, probably the modern Doncaster, amid the remains of the Roman camp, there was a Christian basilica with a stone altar, which may be ascribed to Paulinus. At Dewsbury was a stone cross with an inscription stating that he preached there; whilst at Whalley in Lancashire and near Easingwold, close to York, there were other crosses connected with his name. He is said to have baptized very many at Brafferton and Catterick. In Bernicia a streamlet called Pallinsburn in the N. of Northumberland retains the great preacher's name. He is said to have been occupied in instructing and baptizing for 36 consecutive days at Adgebrin or Yeavering. There would yet be very few churches, and these at first chiefly baptisteries on river banks. There the catechumens were taught, and thence went down with their instructor into the water below.
In 633, after six years of unceasing and successful exertion, the labours of Paulinus in the north came abruptly to a close. Edwin fell in battle at Hatfield, near Doncaster, and the disaster was so complete that the newborn Christianity of the north seemed utterly overwhelmed by the old idolatry. Paulinus thought that he owed his first duty to the widowed queen who had come with him into Northumbria, and he took her back, with her children and suite, to Kent. There he was made bp. of Rochester, which see had been vacant some time. In the autumn of 633 he received from the pope, who had not heard of the great disaster in the north, a pall designed for his use as archbp. of York. Whether or no, by virtue of the gift of this pall, he has a just claim to be considered an archbishop, he never went back to Northumbria. He is said to have been a benefactor to the monastery of Glastonbury, rebuilding the church and covering it with lead, and to have spent some time within its walls. He died Oct. 10, 644, and was buried in the chapter-house at Rochester, of which place he became the patron saint. Lanfranc translated his remains into a silver shrine, giving a cross to hang over it. Among the relics in York minster were a few of his bones and two teeth, but nothing else to commemorate his great work in the north, save an altar which bore his name and that of Chad conjoined.
His life has been carefully related in Dr. Bright's Chapters of Early English Church History, and in the Lives of the Archbishops of York, vol. i., for which see a full statement and sifting of the authorities.
Paulus (9) of Samosata, patriarch of Antioch, a.d. 260–270. A celebrated Monarchian heresiarch, "the Socinus of the 3rd century" (so Bp. Wordsworth), deposed and excommunicated for heretical teaching as to the divinity of our Blessed Lord, a.d. 269. His designation indicates that he was a native of Samosata, the royal city of Syria, where he may have become known to Zenobia, queen of Palmyra, through whom Cave and others ascribe his advancement to the highest post in the Syrian church. Dr Newman points out that the beginning of Paul's episcopate synchronizes with the commencement of the successes of Zenobia's husband Odenathus against Sapor (Asians of the Fourth Cent. p. 4, n. 6). Athanasius distinctly calls her Paul's patroness (Athan. Hist. Ar. c. 71).
Our only knowledge of his career and character is from the encyclical letter of the bishops and clergy who condemned him. The picture of him is most unfavourable there. He is described as haughty, ostentatious, vain-glorious, worldly-minded, a lover of pomp and parade, avaricious, rapacious, self-indulgent and luxurious; as one whose manner of life laid him open to grave suspicions of immorality; and as a person originally of humble birth, who had adopted the ecclesiastical career as a lucrative speculation, and, by the abuse of its opportunities and the secular office obtained by favour of Zenobia, had amassed a large fortune. In public he affected the pomp and parade of a secular magistrate rather than the grave and modest bearing of a Christian bishop. He stalked through the forum surrounded by attendants, who made a way for him through a crowd of petitioners whose memorials he made a display of dispatching with the utmost celerity, dictating the replies without halting a moment. In his ecclesiastical assemblies he adopted an almost imperial dignity, sitting on a throne raised on a lofty tribunal (βῆμα), with a cabinet (σήκρητον) for private conferences screened from the public gaze. He is said to have suppressed the psalms which were sung to Christ as God, which had ever proved a great bulwark to the orthodox faith, as modern novelties not half a century old (cf. Caius ap. Routh, Rel. Sacr. ii. 129), and to have introduced others in praise of himself, which were sung in full church on Easter Day by a choir of women, causing the hearts of the faithful to shudder at the impious language which extolled Paul as an angel from heaven. By his flatteries and gifts, and by his unscrupulous use of his power, he induced neighbouring bishops and presbyters to adopt his form of teaching and other novelties. His private life is described in equally dark colours. He indulged freely in the pleasures of the table, and enjoyed the society of two beautiful young women, as spiritual sisters, "subintroductae," and encouraged other clergymen to follow his example, to the scandal of all and the moral ruin of many. Yet, disgraceful as his life was, he had put so many under obligations and intimidated others by threats and violence, so that it was very difficult to persuade any to witness against him (Eus. H. E. vii. 30).
However great the scandals attaching to Paul's administration of his episcopal
office, it was his unsoundness in the faith which, chiefly by the untiring exertions
of the venerable Dionysius of Alexandria, led to the assembling of the synods
at Antioch, through which his name and character have chiefly become known to
us. The first was held in 265, Firmilian of the Cappadocian Caesarea being the
president. The second (the date is not precisely known) was also presided over
by Firmilian, who, on his way to the third synod, in 269, was suddenly taken
ill and died at Tarsus, the bishop of that city, Helenus, taking his place as
president. In the first two synods Paul, by dialectical subtleness and crafty
concealment of his real opinions (ib. vii. 29), escaped condemnation.
The members of the
The teaching of Paul of Samosata was a development of that of Artemon, with whose heresy it is uniformly identified by early writers. Like the Eastern heresiarch, Paul held the pure humanity of Christ, "He was not before Mary, but received from her the origin of His being" (Athan. de Synod. p. 919, c. iii. s. 10). His pre-existence was simply in the divine foreknowledge. He allowed no difference in kind between the indwelling of the Logos in Christ and in any human being, only one of degree, the Logos having dwelt and operated in Him after a higher manner than in any other man. This indwelling was not that of a person, but of a quality. There is no evidence that he denied the supernatural conception of Christ. Athanasius distinctly asserts that he taught Θεὸν ἐκ παρθένου, Θεὸν ἐκ Ναζαρὲτ ὀφθέντα (Athan. de Salut. adv. Apoll. t. i. p. 635); but he laid no particular stress upon it. His inferior Being was ἐκ παρθένου; his superior Being was penetrated by the Logos, Whose instrumentality by it was continually advancing itself towards God, until the "Jesus Christ from below" (κάτωθεν) became worthy of union with God (ἐκ προκοτῆς τεθεοποιῆσθαι). Therefore, although he called Christ God, it was not as God by His nature, but by progressive development. The Deity of Christ grew by gradual progress out of the humanity. He was convicted, according to Eusebius, of asserting that Christ was mere man deemed specially worthy of divine grace (Eus. H. E. vii. 27). He taught also that as the Logos is not a Person, so also the Holy Spirit is impersonal, a divine virtue belonging to the Father and distinct from Him only in conception.
It deserves special notice that Paul's misuse, "σωματικῶς et crasso sensu," of the term ὁμοούσιος, "consubstantial," which afterwards at Nicaea became the test word of orthodoxy, is stated to have led to its rejection by the Antiochene council (Athan. de Synodis, t. i. in pp. 917, 922). This is allowed by Athanasius, though with some hesitation, and only on the testimony of his semi-Arian opponents, as he said he had not seen the original documents (ib. pp. 918–920) by Hilary (de Synod. § 81, p. 509; § 86, p. 513) on the ground that it appeared that "per hanc unius essentiae nuncupationem solitarium atque unicum sibi esse Patrem et Filium praedicabat" (in which words he seems mistakenly to identify the teaching of Paul with that of Sabellius), and still more emphatically by Basil (Ep. 52 [30]).
Dr. Newman regards Paul of Samos "the founder of a school rather than of a sect" (Arians, p. 6). A body, called after him Paulianists, or Pauliani, or Samosatensians, existed in sufficient numbers at the time of the council of Nicaea for the enactment of a canon requiring their rebaptism and the reordination of their clergy on their return to the Catholic church, on the ground that orthodox formulas were used with a heterodox meaning (Canon. Nic. xix. Hefele, i. 43). The learned presbyter Lucian, who may be considered almost the parent of Arianism, was a friend and disciple of Paul, and, as being infected with his errors, was refused communion by each of the three bishops who succeeded the heresiarch. The many references to them in the writings of Athanasius show that for a considerable period after the Nicene council it was felt necessary for Catholics to controvert the Samosatene's errors, and for semi-Arians to disown complicity in them (Athan. u.s.). The Paulinians are mentioned by St. Augustine as still existing (Aug. de Haer. 44), though pope Innocent spoke of the heresy as a thing of the past in 414 (Labbe, ii. 1275), and when Theodoret wrote, c. 450, there did not exist the smallest remnant of the sect (Haer. ii. 11). Cf. Epiphan. Haer. 65; Tillem. Mém. eccl. t. iv. pp. 289–303.
Paulus (10) II., patriarch of Antioch, a.d. 519–521 (Clinton,
F. R.). On the expulsion of the Monophysite Severus by Justin, Paulus,
a presbyter of Constantinople, warden of the hospice of Eubulus, was nominated
by the emperor to the vacant see, and was canonically ordained at Antioch. He
strictly attended to Justin's commands to enforce the decrees of Chalcedon,
and by inserting in the diptychs the names of the orthodox bishops of that synod
caused a schism in his church, many of the Antiochenes regarding the council
with
Paulus (11), surnamed The Black, Jacobite patriarch of Antioch
from about the middle of 6th cent. to 578, was a native of Alexandria (Assem.
B. O. ii. 331) and, like most Egyptians, a Monophysite. Before he became
bishop he maintained at Constantinople a successful public dispute in the patriarchal
palace with the Tritheites Conon and Eugenius (ib. 329). Either Mennas
or Eutychius must then have been patriarch. Paul was probably then syncellus
to Theodosius, the Jacobite patriarch of Alexandria, who was in nominal exile
at Constantinople, but exercising full authority over the Jacobite congregations
there and in Egypt. Paul's connexion with Theodosius, and his success as a disputant,
marked him out for the titular see of Antioch and the patriarchate of the whole
Monophysite body, then beginning to be called Jacobites, and he was consecrated
by Jacob Baradaeus himself who originated the name. We cannot feel sure that
this was before 550. Paul appears in a list of celebrities flourishing in 571.
All we hear of him afterwards is disastrous. The great persecution of the Monophysites
by the patriarch John Scholasticus broke out at Constantinople, if the year
is right, on
Paulus (13), surnamed of Asia, Jacobite bp. of Aphrodisias and metropolitan of Caria in the reign of Justin II. We owe our knowledge of him to the Ecclesiastical History of John of Ephesus (Dr. R. Payne Smith's trans.). As his persecution by John Scholasticus, patriarch of Constantinople, marks a period in the history of the Monophysite body, it is important to fix its date, which in all probability was 571. The persecution fell chiefly on the numerous Monophysite monasteries, of both sexes, which had sprung up in and around Constantinople while the empress Theodora lived. These were burst into to admit the "synodite" clergy bearing the consecrated bread, of which the inmates were compelled to partake, though it was necessary in some cases to bind their hands and force it into their mouths. The chief difficulty was with the bishops, and Paul of Aphrodisias was singled out for the first example (p. 13). The historian describes him as an honest and simple-minded old man, dwelling quietly in his monastery in Caria, when the patriarch had him brought to Constantinople and imprisoned in his own palace, until, overcome by harsh treatment, he was compelled to receive the communion at his hands, besides signing an act of submission, which he was not allowed to read (given by the historian), to the effect that he accepted the decrees of Chalcedon and the jurisdiction of the patriarch of Constantinople. He was then sent back, but the "synodite" bp. of Aphrodisias had instructions to depose him from the episcopal office and consecrate him afresh to the see of the Carian Antioch, on the Meander, at the far east of the province and not very distant from Aphrodisias. All this was done, to the extreme grief and indignation of the venerable bishop, whom soon "death overtook, and his old age descended in affliction and misery to the grave" (p. 16).
Paulus (18) I., 6th bp. of Constantinople, elected a.d. 336 (or 340), died after three exiles and two restorations c. 351, four or five years after the council of Sardica. He was a native of Thessalonica, a presbyter of Constantinople, and secretary to the aged bp. Alexander, his predecessor in the see. No sooner had Alexander breathed his last than the two parties came into open conflict. The orthodox party prevailed; Paulus was elected and consecrated by bishops who happened to be at Constantinople in the Church of Peace, close to what was afterwards the Great Church of St. Sophia.
The emperor Constantius had been away during these events. On his return
he was angry at not having been consulted. He summoned a synod of Arian bishops,
declared Paulus quite unfit for the bishopric, banished him, and translated
Eusebius from Nicomedia to Constantinople. This is thought to have been in 338.
Eusebius died in 341. Paulus was at once restored by the people to his see.
But the Arians seized the occasion; Theognis of Nicaea, Theodorus of Heraclea,
and other heterodox bishops, consecrated Macedonius in the church of St. Paul;
and again the city became the prey of a civil war. The greatly exasperated emperor
was at Antioch, and ordered Hermogenes, his general of cavalry, to see that
Paulus was again expelled. The
Constantius was not likely to pass over this rebellion against his authority. He rode on horseback at full speed to Constantinople, determined to make the people suffer heavily for their revolt. They met him, however, on their knees with tears and entreaties, and he contented himself with depriving them of half their allowance of corn, but ordered Paulus to be driven from the city.
Athanasius was then in exile from Alexandria, Marcellus from Ancyra, and Asclepas from Gaza; with them Paulus betook himself to Rome and consulted bp. Julius, who examined their cases severally, found them all staunch to the creed of Nicaea, admitted them to communion, espoused their cause, and wrote strongly to the bishops of the East. Athanasius and Paulus recovered their sees; the Eastern bishops replied to bp. Julius altogether declining to act on his advice.
Constantius was again at Antioch, and as resolute as ever against the choice of the people of Constantinople. Philippus, prefect of the East, was there, and was ordered to once more expel Paulus and to put Macedonius definitely in his place. Philippus was not ready to incur the risks and fate of Hermogenes; he said nothing about the imperial order. At a splendid public bath called Zeuxippus, adjoining a palace by the shore of the Hellespont, he asked the bishop to meet him, as if to discuss some public business. When he came, Philippus shewed him the emperor's letter, and ordered him to be quietly taken through the palace to the waterside, placed on board ship, and carried off to Thessalonica, his native town. He allowed him to visit Illyricum and the remoter provinces, but forbade him to set foot again in the East. Paulus was afterwards loaded with chains and taken to Singara in Mesopotamia, then to Emesa, and finally to Cucusus in Armenia, where he died. Socr. H. E. ii. 6, etc.; Soz. H. E. iii. 3, etc.; Athan. Hist. Arian. ad Monach. 275; Mansi, Concil. i. 1275.
Paulus (28) Edessenus, Monophysite bp. of Edessa; consecrated a.d. 510 in succession to Peter. In the first year of his episcopate he took part with Gamalinus, bp. of Perrha, against certain sectarians who refused the use of bread, water, and wine, except in the Eucharist. Justin, becoming emperor, undertook to force the decrees of Chalcedon on Severus of Antioch and his followers, and committed the task to Patricius, who came in due course to Edessa (Nov. 519), and ordered Paul either to subscribe the council or resign. Paul refused, and took sanctuary in his baptistery; whence he was dragged by Patricius and sentenced to be exiled to Seleucia. Justin, however, hoping to overcome the bishop's resistance, reinstated him after 44 days. But Paul still refused to submit, and was at length deposed and banished to Euchaita in Pontus, July 522. A later imperial order placed Asclepius in the see.
Paul translated, no doubt in his days of exile, the Greek hymns of Severus
and other Monophysite writers, and arranged them so as to form a Syriac hymnal.
A MS. of this collection as corrected by his famous successor Jacob—dated in
the lifetime of that prelate (a.d. 675), and probably written by his hand is
in the Brit. Mus. (Add. MS. 17134). On the death of Asclepius (June 525), Paul
"repented" (as the orthodox author of the Chronicon Edessenum states)
and made submission to Justinian, then acting for Justin. From him he obtained
a letter supporting the petition he addressed to Euphrasius, then patriarch,
praying to be restored to his see. He was accordingly permitted to return to
Edessa as bp. in
His hymnal consists of 365 hymns; 295 being by Severus, the rest by his contemporary John Bar-Aphtunaya; abbat of Kinnesrin, John Psaltes his successor there, and others. Though the trans. is no doubt mainly Paul's work, it includes a few hymns of obviously later date. Bp. Lightfoot (Ignatius, vol. i. p. 185) gives the hymns of this collection "on Ignatius" at length, with a trans.
Paulus (30), bp. of Emesa, one of the most deservedly respected prelates
of the period of the Nestorian controversy, the contemporary of Cyril and John
of Antioch, the peacemaker between the patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch
after the disastrous close of the council of Ephesus, a.d. 431. He reached Ephesus
together with John of Antioch and the other Oriental bishops, and joined in
the deposition of Cyril and Memnon (Labbe, iii. 597) and in all the proceedings
of the Oriental party. He was one of the eight Oriental deputies despatched
to the emperor with plenipotentiary powers (ib. 724). His moderation
in these difficult and delicate negotiations was condemned by the uncompromising
Alexander of Hierapolis as proceeding from a mean desire for reconciliation
at the cost of the truth (Baluz. Concil. Nov. Collect. 800). Paul was
a sincere lover of peace, and above all things anxious to put an end to the
disputes on points of faith, the mutual violence of which was a disgrace to
the church, a scandal to the faithful, and a stumbling-block to unbelievers.
He was a man of vast experience in ecclesiastical matters, an accomplished theologian,
possessed of great tact and courtesy, and one who—for unblemished holiness as
well as for his advanced age—enjoyed the confidence and reverence of both parties.
Weary of conflict and anxious to obtain peace, John of Antioch despatched Paul
as his ambassador to Alexandria to confer with Cyril on the terms of mutual
concord, a.d. 432. Paul presented in his own name and John's a confession of
faith originally drawn up by Theodoret. The formulary was accepted by Cyril
as orthodox, and he exhibited a formulary of faith which Paul approved as consonant
with the creed of the Orientals (Labbe, iii. 1090).
Paulus (73), St. (called Thebaeus; ὁ Θήβηθεν, Niceph.), Jan. 10; called by Jerome the founder of the monastic life ("auctor vitae monasticae," Ep. 22, ad Eustoch; "princeps vitae monasticae," Vit. S. Pauli, Prol.), and said to have been the first, in Egypt at least, to lead the life of a hermit, preceding even the celebrated Anthony (Rosweyd, Vitae Patrum, in Patr. Lat. lxxiii. 105 and notes). He lived in the desert of the Thebaid, whither he fled in youth from the terrors of the Decian persecution, and where he died, at an extraordinary age, hale and hearty to the last (Hieron. Ep. 21, ad Paul. Concordiens.). The palm-tree at the mouth of his cave supplied him with food and clothing (Vita Pauli, c. 6). The ravens are said to have brought him bread, and two lions dug his grave (ib. cc. 9, 13). Anthony is said to have paid him a visit shortly before his death, and ever afterwards to have worn his tunic of palm leaves on great festivals. Jerome adds (c. 13), with characteristic fervour, that such a garment, the legacy of so great a saint, was more glorious than the purple of a king. Niceph. Call. H. E. ix. 14; Boll. Acta SS. 10 Jan. i. 603; Butler, Jan. 15.
Paulus (110), sometimes called "the Silentiary," from his position as an officer of Justinian's court, wrote several epigrams preserved in the Anthologia Palatina, and some other works of minor importance; his poetical account of the buildings and dedication of the Great Church of Constantinople must, as the evidence of a contemporary, always be an important authority on the greatest effort of Byzantine church architecture. It is written in Homeric hexameters, with a dedication in iambic verse. Its vividness is much praised by Agathias, but, from his necessary avoidance of technical terms, it is not easy to follow his description of the building. Together with the ἔκφρασις τοῦ ἄμβωνος, it was edited by Graefe (Lips. 1822). Some assistance to its better understanding in relation to church architecture is given by Neale, Hist. of Holy Eastern Church (Intro.).
Pegasius (1), bp. of Troas c. 350–360. His name was found in a previously unknown letter of the emperor Julian, first published in Hermes (1875), pp. 257–266. This letter gives a very interesting description of a visit paid by Julian to Troy before he became emperor. It describes the graves of Hector and Achilles, and the temple of Minerva as being still honoured with sacrifices; while the bishop of the place Pegasius seems to have acted as custodian of the temple and of the images which were in their places and in good order. He had evidently discerned Julian's tendency to paganism. Julian, upon entering the temple, recognized traces of sacrifices, and asked if the people still sacrificed to the gods. The bishop defended the practice on the analogy of the honour paid by Christians to the martyrs. The bishop turned pagan on the accession of Julian, whose letter was written to plead his cause on the ground that such converts needed encouragement. This letter is of great interest in view of modern explorations of the site of Troy. Cf. Boissier's art. on Julian in Revue des deux mondes, July 1880, pp. 106–108.
Pelagia (3), surnamed Margarita, Marina, and Peccatrix,
an actress of Antioch about the middle of 5th cent., celebrated for her repentance.
Her history is discussed at length in the AA. SS. Boll. Oct. iv. 248–268,
where she is distinguished from two other Pelagias of Antioch, and Pelagia of
Tarsus, martyr under Diocletian. The story of our Pelagia has been told by Jacobus,
a deacon and eyewitness of her conversion. Nonnus, bp. of Edessa and successor
of Ibas in that see, was once preaching at Antioch when present at a synod of
eight bishops. Pelagia was then the favourite actress and dancer of Antioch,
whose inhabitants had poured riches upon her and surnamed her Margarita from
the number of pearls she wore. She came into the church during the sermon, to
the astonishment and horror of the other bishops. Nonnus had been an ascetic
of the severe order of Pachomius of Tabenna, and he addressed Pelagia with such
plainness and sternness touching her sins and the future judgments of God, that
she at once repented,
Pelagianism and Pelagius (2). The details of the early career of Pelagius, whose name is identified with the prominent subject of theological controversy of Latin Christendom in the 5th cent., are very imperfectly known from contemporary history. He is said by Augustine, Prosper, Gennadius, Orosius, and Mercator to have been a Briton. Jerome's words ("habet progeniem Scoticae gentis de Britannorum vicinia," Pref. lib. 3 in Hieron.) may imply that he was an Irishman, the Scoti being then settled in Ireland. His name undoubtedly looks like a Grecized version of some earlier name; but the tradition that the original name of the heresiarch was Morgan (Marigena, Πελάγιος and that he came from Bangor in N. Wales, rests on late and untrustworthy authority. His birth probably occurred c. 370. Both Orosius and pope Zosimus speak of him as a layman. He came to Rome very early in the 5th cent. If Mercator's statement is accepted, that he imbibed his opinions from Rufinus the Syrian in the episcopate of Anastasius, we must fix his arrival in Rome not later than 401. His personal character at this period is spoken of with the utmost respect by his contemporaries. His great opponent St. Augustine describes him as being generally held to be a good and holy man, and of no mean proficiency as a Christian (de Pecc. Mer. iii. 1). Paulinus, bp. of Nola, who was much attached to him, esteemed him a special servant of God. Pelagius was actuated at Rome by a strong moral purpose, enforcing the necessity of a strict Christian morality as against a laxity of life content with external religious observances. To this period must be assigned his earliest 3 works: the first, in 3 books, on the Trinity; the second a collection of passages from Scripture, all bearing on Christian practice, called by Gennadius Eulogiarum Liber, by Augustine and Orosius Testimoniorum Liber; the third an exposition of the Epp. of St. Paul.
At Rome Pelagius became acquainted with Coelestius, whose name was so intimately
associated with his in the subsequent controversy. Coelestius, originally an
advocate, was led by Pelagius to a strict religious life, and very soon became
an ardent disciple and a propagandist of his master's views. Despite the imputations
of later opponents, it is evident that during his long residence at Rome Pelagius
was animated by a sincere desire to be a moral reformer. The consciousness of
the need of a pure and self-denying morality as an element in religion led him
to lay exaggerated stress upon the native capacity of the free will of man,
to form a wrong estimate of the actual moral condition of human nature, and
to overlook or fatally undervalue the necessity of divine aid in effecting the
restoration of man to righteousness. The first signs of his antagonism to the
Augustinian theories, which were then developing and obtaining general acceptance
in the Western church, are exhibited in an anecdote related by St. Augustine
himself (de Dono Persev. c. 53). Pelagius was violently indignant on
hearing a bishop quote with approbation the famous passage in the Confessions
of St. Augustine, where he prays, "Give what Thou dost command, and command
what Thou wilt." This language appeared to Pelagius to make man a mere puppet
in the hands of his Creator. About the same time, apparently (a.d. 405), Pelagius
wrote to Paulinus (Aug. de Grat. Christi, 38). The letter is not extant,
but St. Augustine, who had read it, declared that it dwelt almost entirely upon
the power and capacity of nature, only referring most cursorily to divine grace,
and leaving it doubtful whether by grace Pelagius meant only the forgiveness
of sins and the teaching and example of Christ, or that influence of the Spirit
of God which corresponds to grace proper and is an inward inspiration. Pelagius
remained at Rome till c. 409, when, as Alaric's invasion threatened the
city, he withdrew with Coelestius to Sicily, and shortly after to Africa. He
visited Hippo Regius, from which Augustine was then absent, and seems to have
remained quiet at Hippo, but shortly afterwards repaired to Carthage, where
he saw Augustine once or twice. Augustine was then deeply involved in the Donatist
controversy, but learned that Pelagius and his friends had begun to advocate
the opinion that infants were not baptized for the remission of sins, but for
the sake of obtaining a higher sanctification through union with Christ. This
novel doctrine appeared to Augustine to deny the teaching of the church, as
it virtually involved the denial of any guilt of original sin which needed forgiveness.
Augustine, pre-occupied with the Donatist errors and not ascribing much weight
to the chief upholders of the new heresy, did not then write in defence of the
doctrine assailed. Pelagius, after a short interval, sailed for Palestine, leaving
Coelestius at Carthage. In Palestine he was introduced to Jerome in his monastery
at Bethlehem. Coelestius at Carthage openly disseminated Pelagius's views, and
on seeking ordination as a presbyter was accused of heresy before bp. Aurelius.
A council was summoned at Carthage in 412. Augustine not being present, the
accusation was conducted by Paulinus the deacon and biographer of Ambrose. The
charges against Coelestius were that he taught that: (1) Adam was created liable
to death, and would have died, whether he had sinned or not. (2) The sin of
Adam hurt himself only, and not the human race. (3) Infants at their birth are
in the same state as Adam before the fall. (4) Neither by the death nor the
fall of Adam does the whole race of man die, nor by the resurrection of
Coelestius endeavoured to explain away some of his assertions; but his explanations were judged evasive and his doctrines condemned as unscriptural and contrary to the Catholic faith. A sentence of excommunication was passed upon him and his followers. He shortly afterwards sailed to Ephesus. The prevalence of these opinions and the efforts made to diffuse them led Augustine to denounce them. In three or four sermons delivered at this time (170, 174, 175) he devoted himself to refuting the innovating doctrines, though he does not mention their chief upholders by name. His first written treatise on the controversy was called forth by a letter from his friend Marcellinus, who was troubled by daily assaults of Pelagian disputations. The work originally consisted of two books. The first established the positions that death in man was the penalty of sin, and not a mere condition of his natural constitution; that the whole offspring of Adam was affected by his sin, and that baptism of infants was for the remission of original sin, the guilt of which they bear from their birth. In the second book Augustine argued that the first man might have lived without sin by the grace of God and his own free will; that as a matter of fact no living man is wholly free from sin, for no man wills all that he ought, to do, owing to his ignorance of what is right or his want of delight in doing it; that the only man absolutely without sin is Christ, the God-man and Mediator. Augustine added to this treatise as a third book a letter he wrote to Marcellinus when, a very few days after the compilation of the two books, he became acquainted with some fresh arguments against original sin advanced in the exposition of the Epistles of St. Paul by Pelagius, who, however, put the arguments in the mouth of another and did not avowedly express them as his own. In bks. i. and ii. Augustine never, mentions Pelagius or Coelestius by name, possible hoping they might yet be won back to orthodoxy; in bk. iii., while arguing strongly against the views of the nature of original sin propounded by Pelagius, he speaks of Pelagius with marked respect, calling him a signally Christian man, a highly advanced Christian ("vir ille tam egregie Christianus," de Pecc. Mer. iii. 6; "non parvo provectu Christianus," ib. iii. 1).
Pelagianism continued to propagate and assert itself and found many upholders
in Carthage. It claimed the authority of the Eastern churches, whose tendency
had always been to lay stress on the power of the human will, and, boldly retorting
the accusation of innovation, it declared that the views of Augustine and the
dominant party in Africa were a departure from the old orthodoxy. This roused
the indignation of Augustine. In a sermon preached June 27, 413, he dealt with
infant baptism and refuted some new phases of Pelagian opinion. From it we learn
that the Pelagians now taught that infants were baptized, not because they needed
any remission of the guilt of original or actual sin, from which they were wholly
free, but that they might enter the kingdom of God and thereby obtain salvation
and eternal life. The critical passage in
The condemnation of Pelagianism by the synod of Carthage deterred its more
prominent upholders from the continued open assertion of its doctrines, but
a quiet and secret circulation of them continued. Adherents increased so greatly
that Augustine professed alarm as to where the evil might break out afresh (Ep.
157). Tidings of such a fresh outbreak came in 414 from Sicily, where one Hilary
wrote to him that some Christians at Syracuse were asserting that man can be
without sin and easily keep the commandments of God, if he will; that an unbaptized
infant overtaken by death cannot possibly perish deservedly, as he is born without
sin. Other opinions mentioned by Hilary as held by these Syracusans exhibit
a fresh development of Pelagian thought, if they really originated from the
same source. These were that a rich man cannot enter the kingdom of God unless
he sell all he has, arid that it cannot avail him to keep the commandments of
God if he still retains and uses his riches. Such an assertion of the need of
renouncing private property as a condition of religious life was probably an
exaggeration of the real teaching of the monks, Pelagius, and Coelestius. Augustine
elaborately replied to Hilary, repeating many of the arguments he had before
employed. About the same time he learnt that two young men of good birth and
liberal education, Timasius and James, had been induced
The same tendency to systematization is seen in a document of definitions or arguments attributed to Coelestius, which was communicated to Augustine by two bishops, Eutropius and Paul, as having been circulated in the Sicilian church. A series of 16, or as some condense them 14, questions is designed to point out the difficulties of the Augustinian theory and to establish the contrary theory by one ever-recurring dilemma, that either man can live entirely free from sin, or the freedom of the human will and its consequent moral responsibility must be denied. Augustine replied to this early in 415, in his treatise de Perfectione Justitiae Hominis, addressed to Eutropius and Paul.
The scene of the controversy now changed from Africa to Palestine, where Pelagius had been resident for some years. In the beginning of 415 Paulus OROSIUS, a presbyter from Tarragona in Spain, came to Africa to consult Augustine as to certain questions, connected with Origenism and Priscillianism, which were rife in his native land. He had conceived an intense admiration for Augustine and became one of his most devoted disciples. Augustine describes him as quick in understanding, fluent in speech, and fervent in zeal. After giving him the instruction he required, he sent him to Jerome at Bethlehem, ostensibly to obtain further instruction, but really to watch the proceedings of Pelagius, and announce to the church in Palestine the steps taken in the African church to suppress the rising heresy. Orosius reached Palestine in June and spent a few weeks with Jerome, who was then writing his Dialogue against the Pelagians. He was invited to a synod at Jerusalem on July 28, and was asked what he could tell as to Pelagius and Coelestius. He gave an account of the formal condemnation of Coelestius by the council of Carthage in 412, and mentioned that Augustine was writing a treatise in answer to a work of Pelagius, and read a copy of the letter from Augustine to Hilary. Thereupon bp. John desired Pelagius himself to be sent for to have an opportunity of defending himself from any charges of unsound doctrine alleged. Pelagius was asked by the presbyters whether he had really taught the doctrines against which Augustine protested. He bluntly replied, "And who is Augustine to me?" This bold and contemptuous rejection of the name and authority of the great bishop whose influence was paramount in the West owing to his signal services in the Donatist controversy, roused the indignation of the presbyters, but, to the amazement of Orosius, the presiding bishop admitted Pelagius, layman and alleged heretic as he was, to a seat among the presbyters, and exclaimed, "I am Augustine here." He proceeded to hear charges against Pelagius. Orosius said that Pelagius, according to his own confession, had taught that man can be without sin and can easily keep the commandments of God, if he will. Pelagius acknowledged that he had used such language. Orosius claimed that such doctrine should be at once denounced as untenable on the authority of the recent council at Carthage, and of the writings of Augustine, and the judgment of their own venerated neighbour Jerome recently expressed in a letter to Ctesiphon. The bishop quoted the scriptural instances of Abraham, who was bidden "to walk before God and be perfect," and of Zacharias and Elizabeth, who were described as "walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the law blameless," as affording a primâ facie justification of Pelagius, and argued, If Pelagius said that man could fulfil the commands of God without the aid of God, his doctrine would be wicked and worthy of condemnation, but as he maintained that man could be free from sin not without the aid of God, to deny this position would be to deny the efficacy of divine grace. Orosius proceeded to anathematize the notion of such a denial of grace, and, seeing that John was unwilling to admit a charge of heresy against Pelagius, appealed to another tribunal. Declaring the heresy to be of Latin origin and most formidable in the Latin churches, he demanded that the whole question should be referred to pope Innocent, as the chief bishop of Latin Christianity. This compromise was accepted. The whole account of the proceedings of this synod at Jerusalem is derived from the Apology of Orosius, and must be received with some deductions, having regard to the fiery and intemperate invective which the impassioned Spaniard lavishes upon Pelagius and all his followers.
A renewed effort to quell Pelagianism, the result, Pelagius says, of the
influence of Jerome and a small knot of ardent sympathizers at Bethlehem, was
made towards the end of 415, when two deposed Western bishops, Heros of Arles
and Lazarus of Aix, laid a formal accusation against Pelagius before a synod
at Diospolis (the ancient Lydda), at which Eulogius, bp. of Caesarea and metropolitan,
presided.
The controversy once more returned to the West. A synod of more than 69 bishops
assembled at Carthage towards the close of 416. Orosius produced the accusations
which had been presented against Pelagius by Heros and Lazarus. They recognized
in them the same heretical opinions previously condemned at Carthage in 412,
and determined to appeal to Innocent, bp. of Rome, on the great questions at
issue. Granting that the synods of Jerusalem and Diospolis might have been justified
in the acquittal of Pelagius on the ground of his explanations, evasions, and
disclaimers of responsibility for some of the positions alleged, they called
attention to the continued prevalence of doctrines which affirmed the sufficiency
of nature for the avoidance of sin and fulfilment of the commandments of God
(thus virtually superseding the need of divine grace), and which denied the
necessity of baptism in the case of infants, as the way of obtaining deliverance
from. guilt and eternal salvation. A synod at Mileum in Numidia in 416, attended
by 61 bishops, wrote a letter to Innocent to the same effect, and with these
two synodical letters was sent a letter from Augustine and four brother-bishops,
Aurelius, Alypius, Evodius, and Possidius, in which they sought to discount
the acquittal of Pelagius in the East at Diospolis by saying that the result
had only been obtained by the accused concealing his real sentiments and acknowledging
the orthodox faith in ambiguous language, calculated to deceive the Eastern
prelates, ignorant as they
Innocent died
Appeal was now made to the civil power. The emperors Honorius and Theodosius issued a decree banishing Pelagius and Coelestius from Rome, and pronouncing confiscation and banishment against all their followers. An imperial letter communicated this decree to the African bishops. Zosimus, whether in vacillation or in alarm at the strong force of dominant Catholic opinion now supported by the state, proceeded to investigate the subject afresh, and summoned Coelestius for fuller examination. Coelestius, seeing the inevitable result, withdrew from Rome. Zosimus thereupon issued a circular letter (epistola tractoria) confirming the decisions of the N. African church. He censured as contrary to the Catholic faith the tenets of Pelagius and Coelestius, particularly selecting for reprobation certain passages from Pelagius's Commentary on the Epistles of St. Paul, which since his former consideration of the case had been laid before him, and ordered all bishops acknowledging his authority to subscribe to the terms of his letter on pain of deprivation. This subscription was enforced through N. Africa under the protection of the imperial edict by Aurelius the bishop and president of the council at Carthage, and in Italy under the authority of the prefect. In Italy 18 bishops refused, and were immediately deprived. The ablest and most celebrated was Julian, bp. of Eclanum in Apulia, who entered into controversy with Augustine with much learning, critical power, and well-controlled temper. He complained, not without some justice, that the anti-Pelagian party sought to suppress their opponents by the strong hand of imperial authority rather than convince them by an appeal to reason. He charged the Roman bishop and clergy with a complete departure from their former convictions, and, complaining that subscription to the letter of Zosimus was being enforced on individual bishops in isolation and not at a deliberate synod, demanded further discussion in a fresh council, refusing to acknowledge the dogmatic authority of the N. African church. A letter commonly supposed to be written by him was circulated in Rome, the professed object of which was to shew the mischievous consequences of the dominant anti-Pelagian doctrine; and another letter, written in the name of the 18 deprived bishops of Italy to Rufus, bp. of Thessalonica, and remonstrating against their condemnation, was probably drawn up by Julian. The two letters reached Boniface, who at the end of the year succeeded Zosimus as bp. of Rome, and were communicated by him through Alypius to Augustine, who replied in his treatise contra Duas Epistolas Pelagianorum, addressed to Boniface, and subsequently pursued the argument against Julian, first in a treatise contra Julianum in six books, written in 421, and then in the closing years of his life in a work of which six books only were completed. Julian throughout his writings sought to cast a prejudice upon the Augustinian doctrine by raising forcible objections to its more unguarded assertions and exaggerations. He boldly challenged it as a revived form of Manicheism, implying that the early education of Augustine might still be moulding his doctrine. He objected that the Augustinian system denied the goodness of the original creation of God—represented marriage, although a divine institution, as necessarily evil—disparaged the righteousness of the O.T. saints—denied free will and its consequent moral responsibility—and nullified belief in the forgiveness of all sins at baptism. Augustine shewed that these were unfair deductions from his statements, maintaining that the original goodness of man's nature is not incompatible with the recognition of its corruption after Adam's fall, that the O.T. did not assert the sinlessness or freedom from temptation of the saints; that free will was so vitiated by the fall that it was powerless for righteousness without the prevenient and co-operating grace of God; and that even after the forgiveness conveyed in baptism there remained the sinful element of concupiscence. Augustine could confidently and successfully appeal to the popular consciousness of Christendom, as bearing witness to man's moral impotence and his need of redemption. The experience of the human heart was, after all, a better judge of such spiritual facts than the most subtle arguments of reason and conflicting interpretations of the meaning of N.T.
The tendency of Pelagianism to underrate the necessity of the divine redemption,
and to disparage the dignity of the person of the Redeemer by denying His sinless
humanity, is manifested in the case of Leporius, a monk and presbyter of S.
Gaul who, coming into Africa, had been reclaimed from Pelagian views by Augustine.
In recanting he acknowledged that he had taught that Jesus Christ as a mere
man was liable to sin and temptation, but by His own efforts and exertions without
divine aid had attained to perfect holiness. Jesus had not come into the world
to redeem mankind from sin, but to set them an example of holy living (Cassian,
de Incarn. i. 234; Gennad. de Script. Eccles. 59). Thus Leporius's
peculiar anthropology coloured his theological conception of the God-Man. Annianus,
a deacon of Celada, wrote at the same time in defence of Pelagian views, and,
Pelagianism was not wholly extinguished even in Italy by the forcible measures adopted against it both by the civil and ecclesiastical authorities, for pope Leo, writing c. 444, desired the bp. of Aquileia not to receive into communion any in his province suspected of the heresy before they subscribed a formal renunciation. The letters of pope Gelasius also refer to occasional outbreaks of the heresy in Dalmatia and elsewhere towards the end of the 5th cent.
Pelagianism came under the formal condemnation of the Eastern church in an incidental way. Several deposed Pelagian bishops repaired to Constantinople, where they found Coelestius. Atticus, the patriarch, had refused to receive them, but his successor Nestorius gave them a patient hearing. He wrote to Coelestinus, bp. of Rome, for information about the reasons of their condemnation and the nature of their peculiar doctrines, but received no answer. When Nestorius himself fell into disgrace because of his own heresy about the person of Christ, he was disposed to sympathize with Coelestius and his followers as the objects of persecution by a dominant party. The East had apparently not specially discussed the Pelagian controversy; its leading rulers and writers recognized the co-operation of grace and free will without narrowly determining their limits. But the general council at Ephesus in 431 joined, under the influence of Cyril, in one condemnation the tenets of Nestorius and Coelestius, while refraining from specifying them. It pronounced sentence of deposition upon any metropolitan or cleric who had held or should hereafter hold their views.
The personal history of Pelagius after the condemnation of his views by Zosimus is obscure. He is said to have died in some small town in Palestine, being upwards of 70 years old. Coelestius similarly disappears after the council of Ephesus; the time and place of his death are unknown. Julian is said to have died c. 454 in an obscure town of Sicily, where he maintained himself by teaching. There is a story that in a time of famine he relieved the poor by parting with all he had. There is a tradition that in the 9th cent. the inscription was still visible on his tomb: "Here rests in peace Julian, a Catholic bishop."
A modified form of Pelagianism, called by later scholastic writers semi-Pelagianism, arose in the closing years of Augustine's life. Its advocates were spoken of at the time of its introduction as Massilienses, as they were connected with the church of Marseilles. Its originator was John CASSIAN, commonly called a Scythian but probably a native of Gaul. He had been brought up in a monastery at Bethlehem, and after living some time with the monks of Egypt, went to Marseilles, where he founded two monasteries, one for men and one for women. He differed widely from Pelagius, for he acknowledged that the whole human race was involved in the sin of Adam and could not be delivered but by the righteousness of the second Adam; that the wills of men are prevented by the grace of God, and that no man is sufficient of himself to begin or to complete any good work. But though he admitted that the first call to salvation sometimes comes to the unwilling and is the direct result of preventing grace, yet he held that ordinarily grace depends on the working of man's own will. Augustine, at the suggestion of two lay-friends, Prosper and Hilary, in two treatises, one on the predestination of the saints, the other on the gift of perseverance, defended the doctrines of an arbitrary election and of a will determined wholly by grace, but failed to satisfy the objections felt by the church of Marseilles, and the Gallic theologians continued after the death of Augustine to regard his predestinarian views as essentially fatalistic and injurious to moral progress. The monastery of Lerins was a principal centre of opposition to ultra-Augustinian views. At length the controversy was closed in the time of CAESARIUS, bp. of Arles, an ardent admirer of St. Augustine, at a council at Arausio (Orange) in July 529. Of its 25 canons the first two, in opposition to Pelagian doctrine, declare that by the sin of Adam not only his own soul but those of his descendants were injured. The next six expound the functions of grace, affirming that the initial act of faith is not from man but from God's grace, and that we cannot without grace think or choose any good thing pertaining to salvation. Others develop the doctrine on similar lines, but not one touches the disputed question of predestination. An address appended by the prelates to the canons repudiates indignantly the belief that any are predestined to evil and asserts that without any preceding merits God inspires men with faith and love, leads them to baptism, and after baptism helps them by the same grace to fulfil His will. Pope Boniface II., who had succeeded Felix, confirmed the decrees of this Gallican council in a letter written to Caesarius. The moderation and good sense of the fathers of Orange, and their earnest desire to avoid the extravagance either of extreme predestinarianism, which would annihilate the human will, or an arrogant self-trust, which would claim to be independent of divine grace, had their reward. Their decrees met with general acquiescence, and both Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism ceased to be dominant forces in Western Christendom.
Semi-Pelagianism held man in his original state to have had certain physical,
intellectual, and moral advantages which he no longer enjoys. In the beginning
his body was not subject to death, he had extraordinary knowledge of external
nature and apprehension of the moral law, and was sinless. The sin of the first
man entailed physical death and a moral corruption which was propagated to his
posterity. Freedom of will to do good was not lost, but greatly impaired. The
imputation
The full theory of Augustinianism in all its strong asseverations of an unconditional election and a total corruption of human nature did not retain its hold on the theology of the Western church during the succeeding centuries, nor was it ever acknowledged in the Eastern church. Men like popes Leo I. and Gregory I., in the 5th and 6th cents., and Bede in the 8th, were Augustinian, but the general tendency of the West turned in another direction, while it sternly rejected Pelagianism proper. The famous history of the monk Gottschalk, in the latter part of the 9th cent., proves how distasteful unqualified predestinarianism had become, but this lies beyond the assigned limits of this Dictionary.
Pelagianism never developed into a schism by setting up any organization external to the Catholic church. It practised no distinctive rites, it accepted all the traditional ecclesiastical discipline. It freely retained the practice of infant baptism, though it formed a different opinion on the moral and spiritual significance of the act. It was a mode of thought which strove to win acceptance within the church, but which was successfully cast out. [AUGUSTINE, § 10.] Cf. Zunnier, Pelagius in Irland (Berlin, 1902).
Pelagius (8) I., bp. of Rome after Vigilius, in the reign of Justinian I., a.d. 555–560. A native, and deacon, of Rome, he had been appointed by pope AGAPETUS (a.d. 536) as his apocrisiarius at Constantinople. Under Vigilius he again held the same office, and joined with the patriarch Mennas in moving Justinian to issue his edict for the condemnation of Origenism. After this he returned to Rome, where he was one of the two deacons of Vigilius who applied to Ferrandus of Carthage for advice after the issue of the imperial edict "de Tribus Capitulis" (c. 544). Vigilius being summoned by the emperor to Constantinople in the matter of the Three Chapters, Pelagius remained as the archdeacon and chief ecclesiastic at Rome; and occupied this position when the Gothic king Totila (Dec. 546) entered Rome as a conqueror and went to pay his devotions in the church of St. Peter. There Pelagius, bearing the gospels, met him, and falling on his knees said. "Prince, spare thy people." The conqueror answered with a significant smile, "Hast thou now come to supplicate me, Pelagius?" "Yes," he replied, "inasmuch as the Lord has made me thy servant. But now withhold thy hand from these who have passed into servitude to thee." Moved by these entreaties, Totila forbade any further slaughter of the Romans. He also employed Pelagius, together with a layman Theodorus, in an embassy to Constantinople for concluding peace with the emperor, binding them with an oath to do their best in his behalf and to return without delay to Italy. They executed their commission and brought back Justinian's reply that Belisarius was in military command, and had authority to arrange matters (Procop. de Bell. Goth. L. 3).
Pope VIGILIUS having proceeded from Sicily on his voyage to Constantinople in the early part of 547, Pelagius joined him, and appears to have acted with him in his changing attitudes of submission or resistance to the emperor's will. He proceeded to Rome after the death of Vigilius at Syracuse, and was there consecrated pope, being supported by Narses, at that time in command of Rome, who acted under the emperor's orders. The appointment was not welcome to the Romans, and there was difficulty in getting prelates to consecrate him. The real cause of his unpopularity was his consenting to condemn the Three Chapters and to support the decisions of the Constantinopolitan council. A great part of the western church still, and for many years afterwards, resolutely rejected these decisions, and the chief recorded action of Pelagius as pope is his unavailing attempt to heal the consequent schism.
In Gaul Pelagius was accused of heresy. Consequently the Frank king Childebert
sent to him an ambassador, by name Rufinus, requesting him to declare his acceptance
of the tome of pope Leo, or to express his belief in his own words. He readily
did both, asserting his entire agreement with Leo and with the four councils,
and appending a long orthodox confession of faith. But he made no mention of
the fifth council, or of the necessity of accepting its decrees. He praised
the king for his zeal in the true faith, and expressed the hope that no false
reports about himself might occasion any schism in Gaul (Ep. xvi.
ad Childebertum; Ep. xv. ad Sapaudum). He showed anxiety to
conciliate Sapaudus, bp. of Arles, fearing, we may suppose, the possible defection
of the Gallican church from Rome. He sent him a short friendly letter (Ep.
viii.), and afterwards the pall, and conferred on him the vicariate jurisdiction
over the churches of Gaul which former popes had committed to metropolitans
of Arles (Epp. xi. xii. xiii.). He speaks of "the eternal solidity of
that firm rock on which Christ had founded His church from the rising to the
setting of the sun, being maintained by the authority of his (i.e. Peter's)
successors, acting in person, or through their vicars." And, as his predecessors
had, by the grace of God, ruled the universal church of God, he commits to the
bp. of Arles, after their example, and according to ancient custom, supreme
and exclusive jurisdiction over Gaul, as vicar of the apostolic see. It cannot
but strike readers of church history during the reign of Justinian I., and especially
of the proceedings of the 5th council, how little the theory of universal spiritual
dominion thus enunciated agreed with facts. Indeed Pelagius himself was really
throughout his popedom acting as the creature of the emperor,
Pelagius (9) II., bp. of Rome after Benedict I., under the emperors Tiberius, Constantine, and Mauricius, from Nov. 578 to Feb. 590. He was a native of Rome, the son of Winigild, and supposed from his father's name to have been of Gothic extraction. At the time of Benedict's death the Lombards, already the masters of a great part of N. Italy, were besieging Rome. Consequently the new pope was consecrated without the previous sanction of the emperor (required since the reign of Justinian). Partly, perhaps, to excuse this informality, as well as to solicit aid against the Lombards, the new pope, as soon as possible after his accession, sent a deputation to Tiberius, who had become sole emperor on the death of Justin II. in Oct. 578. It was doubtless now that Gregory, afterwards pope Gregory the Great, was first sent to Constantinople as apocrisiarius of the Roman see. On Oct. 4, 584, Pelagius sent him a letter to represent the lamentable condition of Italy and the imminent danger of Rome from the Lombard invasion; Longinus, the exarch at Ravenna, having been appealed to in vain. Gregory is directed to press on the emperor the urgent need of succour. He returned to Rome probably a.d. 585 (Joan. Diac. ib.).
The emperor Mauricius had engaged the Frank king, Childebert II., for a large pecuniary reward to invade Italy and drive out the Lombards. The invasion (probably a.d. 585) resulted in a treaty of peace between the Franks and Lombards (Greg. Turon. vi. 42; Paul. Diac. de Gest. Longob. iii. 17).
On the retirement of Childebert from Italy, it appears that Smaragdus exarch of Ravenna had also concluded a truce with the Lombards (Epp. Pelag. ii.; Ep. i. ad Episcopos Istriae). Pelagius took advantage of it to open negotiations with the bishops of Istria, who still remained out of communion with Rome in the matter of the Three Chapters. In the first of his three letters he implores them to consider the evil of schism, and return to the unity of the church. He is at pains to vindicate his own faith, and to declare his entire acceptance of the four great councils and of the tome of pope Leo, by way of shewing that his acceptance of the 5th council, and his consequent condemnation of the Three Chapters, involved no departure from the ancient faith. He does not insist on condemnation of the Three Chapters by the Istrian bishops themselves. He only begs them to return to communion with Rome, notwithstanding its condemnation of the same; and this in a supplicatory rather than imperious tone. In his second letter he declares himself deeply grieved by their unsatisfactory reply to his first, and by their reception of his emissaries. He quotes St. Augustine as to the necessity of all churches being united to apostolic sees, but further cites Cyprian de Unitate Ecclesiae (with interpolations that give the passages a meaning very different from their original one) in support of the peculiar authority of St. Peter's chair. Finally he calls upon the Istrians to send deputies to Rome for conference with himself, or at any rate to Ravenna for conference with a representative; whom he would send; and mentions (significantly, as appears in the sequel) that he has written to the exarch Smaragdus on the subject. Another, called his third, letter to Elias and the Istrian bishops, is a treatise on the Three Chapters, composed for him by Gregory (de Gest. Longob. iii. 20). Appeals and arguments proving of no avail, Pelagius seems to have called on the civil power to persecute; for Smaragdus is recorded to have gone in person to Grado, to have seized Severus, who had succeeded Elias in the see, together with three other bishops, in the church, carried them to Ravenna, and forced them to communicate there with the bp. John. They were allowed after a year (Smaragdus being superseded by another exarch) to return to Grado, where neither people nor bishops would communicate with them till Severus had recanted in a synod of ten bishops his compliance at Ravenna (Paul. Diac. ib. iii. 27; cf. Epp. S. Greg. l. 1, Ep. 16).
Towards the end of the pontificate of Pelagius (probably a.d. 588), a council at Constantinople, apparently a large and influential one, and not confined to ecclesiastics, dealt with Gregory patriarch of Antioch, who being charged with crime, had appealed "ad imperatorem et concilium" (Evagr. H. E. vi. 7). This council is memorable as having called forth the first protest from Rome, renewed afterwards more notably by Gregory the Great, against the assumption by the patriarch of Constantinople of the title "oecumenical." The title itself was not a new one; as an honorary or complimentary one it had been occasionally given to other patriarchs; and Justinian had repeatedly designated the patriarch of Constantinople "the most holy and most blessed archbishop of this royal city, and oecumenical patriarch" (Cod. i. 7; Novell. iii. v. vi. vii. xvi. xlii.). Nor do we know of any previous objection, and at this council it may have been ostentatiously assumed by the then patriarch, John the Faster, and sanctioned by the council with reference to the case before it, in a way that seemed to recognize jurisdiction of the patriarchate of Constantinople over that of Antioch. In Nov. 589 a destructive inundation of the Tiber at Rome was followed by a plague, described as "Pestis inguinaria," of which Pelagius II. was one of the earliest victims, being attacked by it in the middle of Jan. 590 (Greg. Turon. l. x. c. 1). According to Anastasius he was buried on Feb. 8 in St. Peter's.
Peregrinus (1), called Proteus, an apostate from Christianity
and a Cynic philosopher of the 2nd cent., whose history has been satirically
told by Lucian. That Lucian's work is not a romance is amply shown by the account
of Peregrinus in Aulus Gellius, Noct. Attic. viii. 3, and xii. 11. Other
writers, pagan and Christian alike, of the same age, mention him: e.g.
Tatian, Orat. adv. Graec. c. 25; Athenagoras, pro Christian. c.
26, who tells us of his statue at Parium; Maximus Tyrius, Diss. iii.;
Tertull. ad Mart. c. 4; and Eusebius in his Chronicon (ii. 178
seq. ed. Schöne); cf. also I. Sörgel, Lucian's Stellung zum Christenthum,
(1875); Schiller's Geschichte der Kaiserzeit, p. 685; and Bernays' tract
Lucian u. die Kyniker (Berlin, 1879). The story of Peregrinus is therefore
a very valuable illustration
Perpetua (1), martyr. Her full name was Vibia Perpetua. She was well born, and had a father, mother, and two brothers living, one of whom was a catechumen. When 22 years old, married, and having lately borne a son, she was arrested. Her father repeatedly strove to induce her to recant. She and her fellow-martyrs were baptized after their arrest, possibly before their transference to the public prison (cf. Le Blant, Actes des Mart. v. 9, p. 48). They were attended in prison, according to the ancient discipline of the Carthaginian church, by the deacons Tertius and Pomponius (Cypr. Ep. 15 ad Mart.). Perpetua now had her first vision, indicative of her future passion. She saw a ladder reaching to heaven guarded by a dragon. Saturus mounted first and then Perpetua followed. They came to a large garden, where was a shepherd clad in white, feeding sheep, while thousands in white robes stood around. The shepherd gave Perpetua a piece of cheese, which she received "junctis manibus" and consumed, the attendants saying "Amen." Their trial came soon after. The procurator Hilarianus condemned the martyrs to the beasts. After her condemnation Perpetua saw a vision of her brother Dinocrates, who had died when 7 years old, in punishment, but after continuous prayer for him it was revealed to her that he was removed into a place of refreshment and peace. This vision is a clear proof that prayers for the dead were then used by that party in the church which claimed to adhere most closely to apostolic usages. Some, supposing Dinocrates unbaptized, have claimed it as sanctioning the view that the unbaptized dead are helped by prayer, a view which Augustine combated in de Orig. Animae, lib. i. c. 10, and lib. iii. c. 9, where he maintains that Dinocrates was in punishment for sins committed after baptism. The day before her passion Perpetua saw another vision, wherein she triumphed over an Egyptian, representing the devil, and was rewarded with a golden branch. When the hour of execution arrived the tribune attempted to array the men as priests of Saturn, the women as priestesses of Ceres, but yielded to the indignant protest of Perpetua. She suffered by the sword, after being tossed by an infuriated cow, but, like Blandina at Lyons in a like trial, was unconscious of any pain (cf. Dodwell's Diss. in Iren. ii. §§ 43, 46; Routh's Rel. Sacr. i. 360).
The precise year of the martyrdom is uncertain, the succession of African proconsuls being very imperfectly known. We know that they suffered in the year when Minucius Timinianus was proconsul. One circumstance would seem to fix the date as 202, or at farthest 203. There was as yet no general persecution of the Christians, such as soon after developed itself. The freedom enjoyed by the clergy and Christians in ministering to the martyrs is sufficient proof of this. Why, then, did they suffer? On Jan. 1, 202, Severus was at Antioch, where he appointed himself and Caracalla consuls for the ensuing year. During the month he proceeded by easy stages through Palestine to Egypt, exercising severities upon the Jews which, according to Renan, have left their mark on the Talmud (Mission de Phénicie, pp. 775, 776). He published an edict forbidding any fresh conversions from Paganism to Judaism or Christianity, while imposing no penalties on original Jews or Christians. Now all our martyrs were fresh converts, and as such seem to have suffered under this edict.
Some have maintained that Tertullian wrote the Acts of these martyrs. The style is in many places very similar to his. The documents themselves profess to have been written mainly by Perpetua and Saturus, and completed for publication by a third party, who cannot now be identified. Tertullian certainly knew the Acts, as he refers to the vision of Perpetua in de Animâ, c. 55.
All our MSS. are in Latin; yet Aubé (Les Chrét. dans l’Emp. Rom. p.
615) thinks they may have been originally written in Greek. One MS. represents
Perpetua as speaking Greek to bp. Optatus in Paradise. The Acts contain very
many Greek words in Latin characters, whence we may at least conclude that the
martyrs were bi-lingual, and that Greek was then very current at Carthage. The
Acts contain some interesting illustrations of ancient church customs. The kiss
of peace is given (c. x.). The Trisagion is sung, and in Greek (c. xii.). In
the language of the visions we can clearly see the influence of the Apocalypse
(cf. specially c. xii.). The Acts were discovered and pub. by Lucas Holstenius
in 17th cent. They are in Ruinart's Acta Sincera; Acta SS. Boll.
Mart. i. p. 630; Munter, Primord. Eccles. Afric. p. 226; and trans. in
Clark's Ante-Nicene Series, Cyprian's works, t. ii. p. 276. Aubé, l.c.
p. 521, has pub. another version from a Parisian MS. The
Perpetuus, St., 6th archbp. of Tours, between St. Eustochius and St. Volusianus, both of whom were his relatives, belonged to one of the great senatorial families of the Auvergne. He possessed considerable wealth (Greg. Tur. Hist. Franc. x. 31), was a student of sacred literature and a friend of the two poets Sidonius Apollinaris and Paulinus of Périgueux (Sid. Apoll. Ep. vii. 9; Paul. Petr. de Vita S. Mart. vi.; Ep. ad Perpet. Migne, Patr. Lat. lxi. 1064 sqq., 1071). Consecrated in 460 or 461, he presided in 461 over the council of Tours, convoked to check the worldliness and profligacy of the Gallic clergy (Mansi, vii. 943 sqq.). The council of Vannes, c. 465, over which apparently he also presided, had the same object (ib. 951 sqq.). His principal work was the construction of the great church of St. Martin at Tours. The one built by Briccius had become too small for the fame and miracles of the saint. Of the new one which replaced it at 550 paces from the city, and to which the saint's body was translated with great ceremony (c. July 4, 473), we have, owing to its being Gregory the historian's own church, full and interesting details and measurements. (See Hist. Franc. ii. 14; de Mirac. S. Mart. i. 6.) A good many other churches were built by Perpetuus, notably one in honour of St. Peter and St. Paul, which he constructed to receive the roof of St. Martin's old church, as it was of elegant workmanship. Perpetuus also bestowed much care on the services. Gregory recounts the fasts, vigils and regulations for divine service instituted by him for different seasons of the year and still observed in Gregory's own time (Hist. Franc. x. 31; cf. Hist. Litt. ii. 626–627; Ceillier, x. 438, 441). Perpetuus died in 490 or 491, after an episcopate of 30 years (Hist. Franc. ii. 26; x. 31), and, as he had asked in his will, was buried in the church he had built, at the feet of St. Martin (Epitaphium in Migne, Patr. Lat. lviii. 755, and elsewhere).
Petilianus, an eminent Donatist bishop, probably a native of Constantina
or Cirta, chief town of Numidia, born of parents who were Catholics; but while
still a catechumen carried off against his will by the Donatists, received by
baptism into their community, and subsequently made, between 395 and 400, their
bishop in Cirta. (Aug. c. Lit. Petil. ii. 104, 238; Serm. ad pleb.
Caesar. de Emerito, 8.) He had practised as a lawyer with great success,
so as to obtain the name of the Paraclete, the identity of which name with that
of the Holy Spirit, if we may believe St. Augustine, was flattering to his vanity
(c. Lit. Petil. iii. 16, 19). He took a prominent part in the Conference,
a.d. 411, as one of the seven managers on the Donatist side, but after this
we hear no more of him. (Aug. Retract. ii. 34; c. Lit. Petal.
ii. 40, 95; iii. 57, 69; Optatus, Opp. Mon. Vet. Don. liii.) About 398
or 400, Augustine in a private letter invited some of the leaders of the Donatist
sect in Cirta to discuss the questions at issue between them and the church,
an invitation rejected by them with contempt. But when he was in the church
of that place, together with Absentius (Alypius) and Fortunatus its Catholic
bishop, a letter addressed by the Donatist bp. (Petilianus, but without a name)
to his own clergy, proposing to cut off communion with the Catholic church,
was put into Augustine's hands. This proposal seemed so monstrous as to make
him doubt whether the letter could have proceeded from a man of Petilian's reputation,
until he was assured that this was the case. Lest his silence should be misunderstood,
he undertook at once to reply to it, though it was plainly imperfect and ought
to be presented in a complete state. The writer accuses the Catholics of making
necessary a repetition of baptism, because, he says, they pollute the souls
of those whom they baptize. The validity of baptism in his view depends on the
character of the giver, as the strength of a building depends on that of the
foundation. He quotes
In his second book, for the benefit of the less acute among his brethren (tardiores patres) he takes one by one the charges of Petilian, whose letter had by that time been received in a complete state. The statements, 108 in number, including applications of Scripture passages, and an appeal to the Catholics, are answered by Augustine seriatim. The arguments used by Petilian come under two principal heads, but are much intermixed, and contain much coarse vituperation. (1) The inefficacy of baptism by ungodly persons. (2) The iniquity of persecution. In his reply Augustine shews, (1) The true nature of baptism. Those who fall away after baptism must return, not by rebaptism, but by repentance. (2) As to persecution. Augustine denies the charge, and retorts it upon his adversary, whose partisans, the Circumcellions and others, were guilty of persecution. (3) In near connexion with the last question comes that of appeal to the civil power; Augustine shews that the Donatists themselves appealed to Constantine, and took advantage of the patronage of Julian. (4) Language of Scripture and of the church perverted.
Of a second letter from Petilian only some passages quoted by Augustine are extant, but it appears from Augustine's reply to have contained no new arguments but much personal abuse (Possidius, Indiculus, iii.).
In close connexion with these letters is the treatise of St. Augustine on the Unity of the Church, written between the second and third of them, and intended to answer the question, "Where is the church?"
In the inquiry of 411 at Carthage Petilian took a leading part and was chiefly
remarkable for ingenious quibbling and minute subtlety on technical details
of procedure—using, in short, as Augustine said afterwards, every artifice in
order to prevent real discussion; and on the third day losing his temper
Petronilla (1), saint and virgin. According to the legend related in the letter attributed to Marcellus, son of the prefect of the city, and incorporated in the apocryphal Acts of SS. Nereus and Achilleus, she was the daughter of St. Peter, was struck with palsy by her father and afterwards restored to health by him. Her great beauty led count Flaccus to fall in love with her and come with soldiers to take her by force as his wife. She rebuked him for coming with an armed band, and desired him, if he wished her as his wife, to send matrons and virgins on the third day to conduct her to his house. He agreed, and she passed the three days in prayer and fasting with her foster-sister Felicula, and on the third day died, after receiving the sacrament, and the women brought by Flaccus to escort her home celebrated her funeral. She was buried on the estate of Flavia Domitilla, on the road to Ardea, a mile and a half from Rome (Acts SS. May, iii. 10, 11, vii. 420–422).
The legend seems to have originated (see Lightfoot, S. Clement, 259–262) from the combination of two elements: (i) the Manichean apocryphal story mentioned by St. Augustine (c. Adimantum, xvii. Op. viii. in Migne, Patr. Lat. xlii. 161) that St. Peter by his prayers caused his daughter to be struck with palsy (the account in St. Augustine implies also her restoration to health by her father); (ii) the existence in the Christian cemetery of Flavia Domitilla of a sarcophagus inscribed with the words AURELIAE (or AUREAE) PETRONILLAE FILIAE DULCISSIMAE. Petronilla was assumed to be a diminutive of Petros; the inscription, it was imagined, had been engraved by the apostle himself. Later writers, e.g. Baronius, felt the supposition that St. Peter had a daughter to be a difficulty, and explained filia as a spiritual daughter, as St. Peter speaks of St. Mark as his son. Petronilla, however, is really derived from Petronius or Petro; and the founder of the Flavian family, the grandfather both of the emperor Vespasian and his brother, T. Flavius Sabinus, the head of that branch of the Flavii to which the supposed converts to Christianity belonged, was T. Flavius Petro of Reate. Petronilla therefore was probably one of the Aurelian gens, several of whom are shewn by the inscriptions discovered by De Rossi to have been buried in the same cemetery, and was by the mother's side a scion of the Flavian family, and therefore related to Flavia Domitilla, the owner of the land over the cemetery, and was probably, like her, a Christian convert.
Probably on account of her assumed relationship to St. Peter she was held in high veneration. Though the subterranean basilica constructed by pope Siricius between 391 and 395 contained the tombs of the martyrs SS. Nereus and Achilleus, it was in her honour it was dedicated, and there her body remained in its sarcophagus till in 757 it was translated by pope Paul I. to the Vatican and placed in what had been the mausoleum of the Christian emperors, close to St. Peter's (Liber Pontificalis in Patr. Lat. cxxviii. 1139).
Cav. de Rossi discovered and excavated the ancient basilica of St. Petronilla,
determined the original positions of her sarcophagus and the tombs of SS. Nereus
and Achilleus, and found a fresco, probably of the first half of the 4th cent.
(Bull. 1875, 16), which represents St. Petronilla, designated in it a
martyr, conducting one of her votaries to Paradise. A chamber was discovered
(Athenaeum,
Petrus (4) I., St., archbp. of Alexandria, succeeded Theonas,
a.d.
300. He had three years of tranquil administration, which he so used as to acquire
the high reputation indicated by Eusebius, who calls him a wonderful teacher
of the faith, and "an admirable specimen of a bishop, alike in the excellence
of his conduct and his familiarity with Scripture" (Eus. viii. 113; ix. 6).
Then came the Diocletian persecution, and in the early part of 306 Peter found
it necessary to draw up conditions of reconciliation to the church, and of readmission
to her privileges, for those who through weakness had compromised their fidelity.
The date is determined by the first words of this set of 14 "canons" or regulations,
"Since we are approaching the fourth Easter from the beginning of the persecution,"
i.e. reckoning from the Lent of 303. (This is overlooked in Mason's
Persecution of Diocletian, p. 324, where these "canons" are assigned
to 311.) The substance of these remarkable provisions (given at length in Routh's
Reliquiae Sacrae, iv. 23 ff.) is as follows. (1) Those who did not give
way until extreme tortures had overstrained their powers of endurance, and who
had been for three years already "mourners" without being admitted to regular
penance, might communicate after fasting 40 days more with special strictness.
(2) Those who, as Peter phrases it, had endured only the "siege of imprisonment,"
not the "war of tortures," and therefore deserved less pity, yet gave themselves
up to suffer some affliction for "the Name," although in prison they were much
relieved by Christian alias, may be received after another year's penance. (3)
Those who endured nothing at all, but lapsed under sheer terror, must do penance
for four years. (4) is not, strictly speaking, a canon, but a lamentation over
lapsi who had not repented
Very soon after these "canons" were drawn up the persecution was intensified by the pagan fanaticism of Maximin Daza. Peter felt it his duty to follow the precedents he had cited in his 8th canon and the example of his great predecessor Dionysius by "seeking for safety in flight" (Burton, H. E. ii. 441). Phileas, bp. of Thmuis, and three other bishops were imprisoned at Alexandria; and then, according to the Maffeian documents, Meletius, being himself at large, held ordinations in their dioceses without their sanction "or that of the archbishop," and without necessity (Hist. Writings of St. Athanasius, Oxf. 1881, Introd. p. xxxix). Peter, being informed of this lawless procedure, wrote to the faithful in Alexandria: "Since I have ascertained that Meletius, disregarding the letter of the martyred bishops, has entered my diocese, taken upon himself to excommunicate the presbyters who were acting under my authority . . . and shewn his craving for pre-eminence by ordaining certain persons in prison; take care not to communicate with him until I meet him in company with wise men, and see what it is that he has in mind. Farewell" (Routh, Rel. Sac. iv. 94).
Maximin, besides presiding over martyrdoms in Palestine (a.d. 306, 307, 308), practised other enormities at Alexandria (Eus. viii. 14; Burton, ii. 451). During Peter's retirement his habits had become more strictly ascetic. He continued to provide "in no hidden way" for the welfare of the church (Eus. vii. 32). The phrase οὐκ ἀφανῦς is significant, as it points to the well-understood system of communication whereby a bp. of Alexandria, although himself in hiding, could, as did Athanasius, make his hand felt throughout the churches which still owned him as their "father." Probably Peter's return to Alexandria, and the formal communication of the Meletians above mentioned, took place after a toleration-edict, which mortal agony wrung from Galerius in Apr. 311. This edict constrained Maximin to abate his persecuting energy; but he soon again harassed his Christian subjects, and encouraged zealous heathen municipalities to memorialize him "that no Christians might be allowed to dwell among them" (ib. ix. 2). Thus at the end of Oct. 311 "the Christians found themselves again in great peril" (Burton); and one of the first acts of Maximin's renewed persecution was to smite the shepherd of the flock at Alexandria. Peter was beheaded (Eus. vii. 32), "in the ninth year of the persecution" (311), by virtue of a "sudden" imperial order, "without any reason assigned" (ix. 6).
Johnson and Routh reckon as a "fifteenth" canon what is, in fact, a fragment
of a work on the Paschal Festival. In it Petrus says it is usual to fast on
Wednesday, because of the Jews "taking counsel for the betrayal of the Lord";
and on Friday, "because He then suffered for our sake." "For," he adds, "we
keep the Lord's day as a day of gladness, because on it He rose again; and on
it, according to tradition, we do not even kneel." The custom of standing at
prayer on Sunday was again enforced by the Nicene council (c. 20;
Petrus (5) II., archbp. of Alexandria, succeeded Athanasius in May 373. To promote the peaceful succession of an orthodox bishop, Athanasius, being requested to recommend one who could be elected by anticipation, named Peter, whom Gregory Nazianzen describes as honoured for his wisdom and grey hairs (Orat. 25. 12), "who had been a companion of his labours" (Theod. iv. 20), and, in Basil's phrase, his spiritual "nursling" (Ep. 133); and who, in conjunction with another presbyter, when they were passing through Italy to Egypt in 347, had accepted from the notorious Arian intriguers Valens and Ursacius a written attestation of their desire to be at peace with Athanasius, when his cause was for the time triumphant (Athan. Hist. Ar. 26). The clergy and magistrates assented to the nomination; the people in general applauded; the neighbouring bishops came together to attend the consecration, in which, according to a "fragment" of Alexandrian history, the dying archbp. took the principal part (cf. Theod. l.c.; and Hist. Aceph. ap. Athan.). Five days afterwards (May 2) Athanasius died, and Peter took possession of "the evangelical throne." But the Arians seized the opportunity for which they had been waiting, and employed, as in 340, the agency of a pagan prefect. Palladius, by means of bribes, assembled a "crowd of pagans and Jews" and beset that same church of Theonas within which Syrianus had all but seized Athanasius in 356. Peter was commanded to withdraw; he refused; the church doors were forced, and the brutal orgies described in Athanasius's Encyclical were repeated: a youth in female dress danced upon the altar; another sat naked on the throne, and delivered a mock sermon in praise of vice (cf. Peter ap. Theod. iv. 22 with Greg. Naz. Orat. l.c.). At this point Peter quitted the church; Socrates says that he was seized and imprisoned (iv. 21), but his own narrative points the other way. It proceeds to describe the intrusion of the Arian Lucius. Peter tells us that the pagans esteemed Lucius as the favourite of Serapis, because he denied the divinity of the Son; and dwells on the brave confessorship (1) of 19 priests and deacons whom Magnus, after vain attempts to make them Arianize, transported to the pagan city of Heliopolis in Phoenicia, sending also into penal servitude 23 monks and others who expressed their sympathy; (2) of 7 Egyptian bishops exiled to Diocaesarea, a city inhabited by Jews, while some other prelates were "handed over to the curia," their official immunity from onerous curial obligations being annulled in requital of their steadfastness in the faith. Damasus of Rome, hearing of this new persecution, sent a deacon with a letter of communion and consolation for Peter; the messenger was arrested, treated as a criminal, savagely beaten, and sent to the mines of Phenne. Peter adds that children were tortured, and intimates that some persons were actually put to death or died of cruel usage, and that, after the old usage in pagan persecutions, their remains were denied burial. The narrative illustrates at once the theology, ritual, and electoral customs of the Egyptian church. Peter puts into the mouth of the 19 confessors an argument, quite Athanasian in tone, from the eternity of the Divine Fatherhood (cf. Athan. de Decr. Nic. 12): like Athanasius, he there insists that God could never have existed without His "Wisdom" (cf. Orat. c. Ar. i. 14; disowns a materialistic conception of the γέννησις (cf. de Decr. Nic. 11; Orat. c. Ar. i. 21); quotes the Arian formula ἦν ὅτε οὐκ ἦν ("once the Son was not," cf. Orat. c. Ar. i. 5, etc.); and represents the Homoousion as summarizing the purport of many texts (cf. de Decr. Nic. 20).
Peter refers to the invocation of the Holy Spirit at the Eucharistic consecration,
and intimates that monks used to precede a newly arrived bishop, chanting the
Psalms. When describing the uncanonical intrusion of Lucius, he refers to the
three elements of a proper episcopal election, as fixed by "the institutions
of the church"—(1) the joint action of the assembled bishops of the province,
(2) the vote (ψήφω) of "genuine" clergy,
(3) the request of the people (αἰτήσει,
the Latin suffragium, as Cyprian uses it, Ep. 55. 7, speaking
of the same threefold process, "de clericorum testimonio, de plebis . . .
suffragio, et de sacerdotum . . . collegio"; and for the "requests" of the
people, sometimes urgently enforced, see Athan. Apol. c. Ar. 6). Peter
remained for some time in concealment, whence he wrote his encyclical (Tillem.
vi. 582); he afterwards went to Rome, and was received by Damasus, as Julius
welcomed Athanasius in 340. He remained at Rome five years, gave information
as to Egyptian monasticism (Hieron. Ep. cxxvii. 5), and was present,
as bp. of Alexandria, at a council held by Damasus, probably in 377, for the
condemnation of the Apollinarians. Timotheus, whom Apollinaris had sent to Rome,
and Vitalis, bishop of the sect in Antioch, were included in the sentence pronounced
against their master (cf. Soz. vi. 25 with Theod. v. 10); and Facundus of Hermiane,
in his Defence of the Three Articles, quotes part of a letter addressed
by Peter to the exiled Egyptian confessors at Diocaesarea. "I ask your advice,"
he writes, "under the trouble that has befallen me: what ought I to do, when
Timotheus gives himself out for a bishop, that in this character he may with
more boldness injure others and infringe the laws of the Fathers? For he chose
to anathematize me, with the bps. Basil of Caesarea, Paulinus, Epiphanius, and
Diodorus, and to communicate with Vitalis alone" (Pro Defens. Trium. Capit.
iv. 2). Here Peter treats Paulinus, not Meletius, as the true bp. of Antioch,
this being the Alexandrian view. His relations with Basil were very kindly;
their common love and reverence for Athanasius drew them into a correspondence
(Basil, Ep. 133, written in 373); and a letter of Basil's in 377 has
an interest for the church-history of the time (Ep. 266). It appears
that the Egyptian "confessors" had hastily received into their communion the
gravely-suspected disciples of Marcellus of Ancyra. This had troubled Basil.
Peter had heard of it, but not from Basil; and had remonstrated with his exiled
Peter's exile ended in the spring of 378. The troubles of Valens with the Goths encouraged the prelates he had banished to act for themselves. Fortified by a letter of commendation from Damasus, Peter returned to Alexandria; the people forthwith expelled Lucius, who went to Constantinople; and Peter was thenceforth undisturbed in his see. Jerome taxes him with being too easy in receiving heretics into communion (Chron.); and in one celebrated affair of another kind, his facility brought him no small discredit. Early in 379 he had not only approved of the mission of Gregory of Nazianzus to act as a Catholic bishop in Constantinople, but had formally authorized it, had "honoured" Gregory "with the symbols of establishment" (Carm. de Vita Sua, 861), and thereby apparently claimed some supremacy over Constantinople (Neale, Hist. Alex. i. 206). Yet ere long he allowed himself to become the tool of the ambitious Maximus, who pretended to have been a confessor for orthodoxy, and thus perhaps reached Peter's weak side. He aimed at "securing the see of Constantinople; and Peter, contradicting himself in writing," as Gregory words it (de Vita Sua, 1015), commissioned some Egyptian prelates to go to Constantinople and consecrate Maximus. The scheme failed disgracefully: Maximus had to leave Constantinople, and after attempting in vain to propitiate Theodosius, went back to Alexandria and tried to intimidate Peter, "putting the old man into a difficulty" (ib. 1018), but was expelled by secular force. Peter reconciled himself to Gregory, who panegyrized him as "a Peter in virtue not less than in name, who was very near heaven, but remained in the flesh so far as to render his final assistance to the truth," etc. (Orat. 34. 3). Peter died Feb. 14, 380. In ignorance of this event, Theodosius, a fortnight after wards, named him with Damasus as a standard of Catholic belief in the famous edict of Thessalonica (Cod. Theod. xvi. 1, 2; see Gibbon, iii. 363). He was succeeded by his brother Timotheus.
Petrus (6), surnamed Mongus (Stammerer), Monophysite patriarch
of Alexandria, ordained deacon by Dioscorus, and said to have taken part in
the outrages against Flavian at the Latrocinium (Mansi, vi. 1017). On the death
of the Monophysite patriarch Timotheus Aelurus in 477, and in the absence of
the orthodox Salofaciolus whom he had displaced, the Monophysites determined
to place Peter in the see. The emperor Zeno, indignant at the boldness of the
Monophysites (Neale, Hist. Alex. ii. 17), ejected Peter, and ordered
his expulsion from Alexandria (Mansi, vii. 983–985). Accordingly, Peter was
driven out of Egypt; John, surnamed Talaia, steward of the great church, was
chosen patriarch, but neglected to announce his accession to Acacius, who, piqued
by this omission, prevailed on Zeno to expel John, and to restore Peter on condition
that he should support an attempt to promote doctrinal unity without enforcing
the authority of the council of Chalcedon. Zeno ordered Talaia to be expelled
from Alexandria and Peter Mongus enthroned after accepting the HENOTICON,
or instrument of unity (a.d. 482).
This was addressed to the bishops, clergy, monks, and laymen of the Alexandrian
patriarchate; it recognized the creed of "the 318" at Nicaea as "confirmed by
the 150" at Constantinople, the decisions of the council of Ephesus, together
with the 12 articles of Cyril; it employed language as to Christ's consubstantiality
with man which Cyril had adopted in his "reunion with the Easterns"; it rejected
the opposite theories of a "division" and a "confusion" in the person of Christ,
and included Eutyches as well as Nestorius in its anathema. Instead of renewing
the explicit censure directed by Basiliscus in a previous circular against the
council of Chalcedon, Zeno employed an ambiguous phrase, "We anathematize every
one who thinks or ever has thought differently, either at Chalcedon or at any
other synod," words which might be explained as pointed at those who were admitted
to communion at Chalcedon after disclaiming Nestorianism, while, as their adversaries
alleged, they were still Nestorians at heart. At the same time all recognition
of that council was omitted (Evagr. iii. 14; Liberat. c. 18, and note thereon;
Galland. Bibl. Patr. xii. 149). Peter was accordingly enthroned amid
a great concourse, at Alexandria. His instructions were to unite all parties
on the basis of the Henoticon. This, for the time, be effected at a public festival,
when as patriarch he preached to the people, and caused it to be read (Evagr.
iii. 13; Liberat. c. 18). In letters to Acacias, the patriarch of Constantinople,
and pope Simplicius, he professed to accept the council of Chalcedon (Liberatus);
and by playing the part of a time-server (κόθορνος,
Evagr. iii. 17) disgusted the thorough-going Monophysite John, bp. of Zagylis
in Libya, and various abbats and monks of Lower Egypt, who raised a tumult in
the Caesarean basilica (Liberat. u.s.). Peter could not afford to quarrel
with them, and probably thought himself secure enough to shew his hand. (See
Valesius on Evagr. iii. 16. He accordingly anathematized the council of Chalcedon
and the Tome of pope Leo, substituted the names of Dioscorus and Timotheus Aelurus
for those of Proterius and Timotheus Salofaciolus on his diptychs, and gratified
his own vindictiveness by taking the body of Salofaciolus from its place among
the buried patriarchs and "casting it outside the city" (Liberat.; cf. Felix.
ap. Mansi, vii. 1076. This caused a great excitement; the
Petrus (10) (surnamed Fullo, "the Fuller"), intruding patriarch
of Antioch, 471–488, a Monophysite, took his surname from his former trade as
a fuller of cloth. Tillemont shews considerable skill in harmonizing various
statements of his earlier life (Empereurs, t. vi. p. 404). He considers
that Peter was originally a member of the convent of the Acoimetae, which he
places in Bithynia on the Asiatic side of the Bosphorus, and being expelled
thence for dissolute life and heretical doctrine, passed over to Constantinople,
where he became a parasite to persons of distinction, by whom he was introduced
to Zeno, the future emperor, the son-in-law of Leo, whose favour he secured,
obtaining through him the chief place in the church of St. Bassa, at Chalcedon.
Here his true character having speedily become known, he fled to Zeno, who was
then setting out for Antioch as commander of the East. Arriving at Antioch
a.d.
463, Peter's unbridled ambition soared to the patriarchal throne, then filled
by Martyrius, and having gained the ear of the rabble, be adroitly availed himself
of the powerful Apollinarian element among the citizens and the considerable
number who favoured Eutychian doctrines, to excite suspicions against Martyrius
as a concealed Nestorian, and thus caused his tumultuous expulsion and his own
Election to the throne. This was in 469 or 470 (Theod. Lect. p. 554; Labbe,
iv. 1009, 1082). When established as patriarch, Peter at once declared himself
openly against the council of Chalcedon, and added to the Trisagion the words
"Who wast crucified for us," which he imposed as a test upon all in his patriarchate,
anathematizing those who declined to accept it. According to the Synodicon,
he summoned a council at Antioch to give synodical authority to this novel clause
(Labbe, iv. 1009). The deposed Martyrius went to Constantinople to complain
to the emperor Leo, by whom, through the influence of the patriarch Gennadius,
he was courteously received; a council of bishops reported in his favour, and
his restoration was decreed (Theod. Lect. p. 554; Liberat. c. 18, p.
122). But notwithstanding the imperial authority, Peter's personal influence,
supported by the favour of Zeno, was so great in Antioch that Martyrius's position
was rendered intolerable and, wearied by violence and contumely, he soon left
Antioch, abandoning his throne again to the intruder. Leo was naturally indignant
at this audacious disregard of his commands, of which he was apprised by Gennadius,
and he despatched an imperial decree for the deposition of Peter and his banishment
to the Oasis (Labbe, iv. 1082). According to Theodorus Lector, Peter fled, and
Julian was unanimously elected bishop in his room,
a.d. 471, holding the see until
Peter's third restoration by Basiliscus in 475 (Theophan. p. 99; Theod. Lect.
p. 533). During the interval Peter dwelt at Constantinople, in retirement in
the monastery of the Acoimetae, his residence there being connived at on a pledge
that he would not create further disturbances (Labbe, iv. 1009, 1082; Theophan.
p. 104). During the short reign of the usurper Basiliscus (Oct. 475–June 477)
the fortunes of Peter revived. Under the influence of his wife Basiliscus declared
for the Monophysites, recalled Timothy Aelurus, patriarch of Alexandria, from
exile, and by his persuasion issued an encyclical letter to the bishops calling
them to anathematize the decrees of Chalcedon (Evagr. H. E. iii. 4).
Peter gladly complied,
Petrus (12), bp. of Apamea, the metropolis of Syria Secunda, under Anastasius, c. 510; a Monophysite, a warm partisan of Severus the intruding patriarch of Antioch, the leader of the Acephali, and charged with sharing in the violent and sanguinary attempts to force the Monophysite creed on the reluctant Syrian church. Peter was accused of having taken forcible possession of his see, in violation of all ecclesiastical order, not having received canonical ordination either as monk or presbyter (Labbe, v. 120). The first formal complaint against him was made before count Eutychianus, governor of the province, by the clergy of Apamea, substantiated by their affidavits (ib. 219, 243). In these he is charged with declaring himself the enemy of the Chalcedonian decrees, erasing from the diptychs the names of orthodox bishops and fathers, and substituting those of Dioscorus, Timothy Aelurus, and other heresiarchs. Evidence is given of insulting language and overbearing conduct toward his clergy, acts of violence and grossness, and intercourse with females of loose character. He was accused with Severus of having hired a band of Jewish banditti, who slew, from an ambuscade, a body of 350 orthodox pilgrims and left their corpses by the roadside (ib. 119). Clergy were violently dragged from the altar by his emissaries and ruthlessly butchered if they refused to anathematize the Chalcedonian faith. On the accession of Justin, a.d. 518, the bishops of Syria Secunda laid their complaints against Peter and Severus before the council assembled at the imperial city, July 518, asking the emperor to deliver them from so intolerable a tyranny (ib. 215). Their prayer was granted; Peter was deposed and sentenced to exile as a Manichee—as the Monophysites were popularly designated (Theoph. p. 142). Nothing seems known of Peter between his banishment and reappearance at Constantinople with Severus, on the temporary revival of the fortunes of the Monophysites, through the influence of the empress Theodora. In 536 Mennas was appointed to the patriarchal chair, and lost no time in summoning a council to pronounce the condemnation of Monophysitism and its chief leaders, Peter and Severus being cut off from communion as men who had "voluntarily chosen the sin unto death," and "shown no signs of repentance and a better mind" (ib.153). Justinian confirmed this sentence. Peter was forbidden to reside in or near Constantinople, or any other important city, commanded to live in complete retirement, and abstain from association with others lest he should poison them with his heresy (ib. 267). Nothing more is known of him. Letters to him from Severus exist among the Syriac MSS. of the Brit. Mus. (Wright, Catal. p. 559, No. 5, No. 20). Le Quien, Or. Christ. ii. 913; Fleury, Hist. eccl. livre xxxi., 40, 44; livre xxxii., 52, 54, 57.
Petrus (20), bp. of Edessa, succeeded Cyrus on his death, June 5, 498. During his episcopate Mesopotamia was ravaged by Cabades, king of Persia, in his endeavour to wrest the province from Anastasius. Of the horrors of this terrible time of war, pestilence, and famine, in which Edessa had a full share, being more than once besieged by Cabades, we have a moving account from a contemporary witness in the Chronicle of Joshua the Stylite. Peter signalized his entrance on the episcopate by several ritual reforms. He was the first to institute the feast of Palm Sunday in the church of Edessa, as well as the benediction of water on the eve of the Epiphany, and the consecration of chrism on Maundy Thursday, and he regulated the observance of other festivals (Jos. Stylit. c. 32). An earthquake occurring at Edessa a.d. 500, he instituted public processional litanies of the whole population (ib. 36). The same year, the city and province suffering grievously from famine, he visited Constantinople to petition Anastasius personally for a remission of taxes, but was only partially successful (ib.39). The famine returning a.d. 505, Peter made a second application to the emperor, who received him with frowns and rebuked him for leaving his distressed flock at such a time, but, feeling the justice of the request, remitted the taxes for the whole province, sending the order without informing Peter (ib. 78). Peter died on Easter Eve, a.d. 510. Asseman. Bibl. Orient. t. i. pp. 268 ff., 279, 406 ff.
Petrus (28), patriarch of Jerusalem,
a.d. 524–544 (Clinton, F. R.;
Niceph. Chron. p 410), born at Eleutheropolis, succeeded John II. (omitted
by Evagr. H. E. iv. 37) in 524. He manifested the same reverence as his
predecessors for the celebrated ascetic St. Sabas, and frequently visited him
in the desert.
Petrus (35), first bp. of Parembolae in Palestine, i.e. of
the military stations of the Saracens in Palestine. He was originally a Greek
in the service of the Persians under Izdegird. The Christians being persecuted
by the Magian party, Aspebetus, as Peter was then called was commissioned to
close the passes against the fugitives. Being sorry for the innocent victims
of religious intolerance, he executed his duty remissly, and even assisted them
in their flight. This being reported to Izdegird, Petrus in fear for his life
deserted to the Romans with his son Terebo, his relatives, and all his property.
Anatolius, then prefect of the East, gladly welcomed him, stationed him in Arabia,
and put him in command over all the tributary Saracen tribes in those parts.
Terebo, still a boy, had before his father's flight lost by paralysis the entire
use of one side. After reaching Arabia the boy was warned in a dream to apply
to Euthymius for cure. The application was successful, the boy recovered, and
the grateful father, his brother-in-law Maris, and all his Saracen followers
received baptism (Cyrill. Scythop. Vit. S. Euthym. cc. 18–24; Coteler.
Eccl. Graec. Monum. ii. pp. 216–222). The new disciple devoted himself
to a religious life; and the number of Arabian converts having become so large
as to require a bishop of their own, he was recommended by Euthymius to Juvenal,
Petrus (41), bp. of Sebaste, the youngest brother of Basil the Great and Gregory Nyssen, and the last of the ten children of Basil the elder and Emmelia. His father died almost immediately after his birth, which must be placed before a.d. 349 (Greg. Nys. de Vit. S. Macr. ii. 185). His sister Macrina, more than 20 years his senior, adopted her infant brother as her special charge, proving herself, in Gregory Nyssen's words; "not only his sister, but his father, mother, tutor, and warder" (παιδαγωγός). When Macrina and her mother retired to their religious retreat on the banks of the Iris, Peter accompanied them, where, according to his brother, he proved all in all to them, working with them towards the angelical life. He shared the high physical and mental endowments of the family. His acquirements were very varied, and he had a natural gift for handicrafts, in which, without any direct instruction, he excelled as much as in intellectual pursuits (ib. 186). He assisted by manual labour to support his mother and sister, and the large crowds attracted in time of scarcity by their reputation for charity. For some years his brother Basil was his near neighbour on the other side of the Iris, where he had established a monastery for male ascetics, in the presidency of which Peter succeeded him when in 365 he was finally recalled to Caesarea by bp. Eusebius. He was ordained presbyter by Basil, c. 370 (ib. 187). He was present with Macrina at their mother's death-bed, a.d. 373, and was offered by her as her tenth to God (ib. 186). He continued to reside in his monastery till after Basil and Macrina died in 379. In 380 he was ordained bishop, probably of Sebaste in Lesser Armenia, on the death or deposition of Eustathius. That Peter was bp. of Sebaste is accepted without question by Tillemont (Mém. eccl. ix. 574). Nicephorus, however, a somewhat untrustworthy authority, is the first writer who names his see (H. E. xi. 19). Theodoret (H. E. v. 8) and Suidas (sub voc. Βασίλειος, i. 539) simply style him a bishop, without naming his diocese. He took part in the council of Constantinople, a.d. 381 (Theod. u.s.). Olympias, the deaconess, the friend of Chrysostom, entrusted large funds to him for distribution to the poor (Pallad. p. 166). Tillemont places his death between 391 and 394. The genius of Peter seems to have been rather practical than literary. Rufinus, instituting a comparison between the three brothers, says that the two younger combined equalled Basil; Gregory in word and doctrine, and Peter in the works of faith (Rufin. ii. 9). Theodoret remarks that, though Peter had not received such a training in classical literature as his brothers, τῆς θύραθεν παιδείας οὐ μετειληχὼς σὺν ἐκείνοις, he was equally conspicuous in the splendour of his life (H. E. iv. 30). But though undistinguished in theological literature himself, several of his brother Gregory's most important works were written at his instigation; e.g. as we learn from the proems, the two treatises supplementary to his brother Basil's Hexaemeron, the Explicatio Apologetica and the de Hominis Opificio (Greg. Nys. Opp. i. 1, 44). The latter treatise was sent to Peter as an Easter gift. Gregory's great doctrinal work against Eunomius was due to his brother's entreaties that he would employ his theological knowledge to refute that heretic, and disprove the charges brought by him against Basil (ib. ii. 265, 266). Gregory's original intention was to limit his refutation to the first of Eunomius's two books. But Peter wrote a letter to him, his only extant literary production (ib. 168), entreating him to strike with the zeal of a Phinehas both the heretical books with the same spiritual sword, which he knew so well how to wield. The language and style of this letter shew Peter as not intellectually inferior to the more celebrated members of his family (Tillem. Mém. eccl. ix. 572–580).
Petrus (64), a solitary commemorated by Theodoret in his Religiosa Historia. By birth a Galatian, he embraced a monastic life when 7 years old, and lived to the age of 99. After visiting the holy places at Jerusalem and Palestine, he settled at Antioch, living in an empty tomb on bread and water, and keeping a strict fast every other day. His companion and attendant, named Daniel, he had delivered from an evil spirit. Theodoret relates that his mother, when a beautiful young woman of 23, failing to obtain relief from a malady in her eye from any oculist, was induced by one of her female servants to apply to Peter. Going to him dressed richly and resplendent with gold ornaments and gems, the solitary upbraided her for presuming to attempt to improve on the handiwork of her Maker, and having thus cured her of the malady of vanity and love of dress, signed her eye with the cross and she was speedily healed. Other members of her household he cured in a similar manner. When, seven years after, she became the mother of Theodoret and was given up by the physicians, Peter, having been summoned, prayed over her with her attendants and she speedily revived. She was accustomed to bring her child once every week to receive the old man's blessing. Peter made the young Theodoret a present of half his linen girdle, which was believed to have the miraculous property of relieving pain and curing sickness. The amulet was frequently lent, till kept by one of its borrowers, and so lost to the family. Theod. Hist. Rel. c. ix.; Tillem. Mém. Eccl. xv. 209–213.
Petrus (72), first abbat of the monastery of SS. Peter and Paul, commonly
called St. Augustine's, Canterbury. He was probably
See Gotselinus, de Translatione Sti. Augustini, ap. Mab. Acta SS. O.S.B. t. ix. p. 760; Elmham, ed. Hardwick, pp. 92–126; Thorn, cc. 1761, 1766; Hardy, Catalogue of Materials; etc. i. 206, 207; Monasticon Angl. i. 120.
Philaster (Philastrius), bp. of Brixia (Brescia), in the latter part of the 4th cent. His successor in the see, Gaudentius, used every year to preach a panegyrical sermon on the anniversary of his death (July 18). One of these (preached on the 14th anniversary) is extant, and from its vague laudatory statements we have to extract our scanty information concerning his life and work. We learn from it that he was not a native of Brescia. From what country he came we are not told; Spain or Africa has been conjectured. He is commended for zeal in the conversion of Jews and heathen, and in the confutation of heresies, especially of Arianism; and is said to have incurred stripes for the vehemence of his opposition to that then dominant sect. He travelled much; at Milan he withstood bp. Auxentius, the Arian predecessor of St. Ambrose; at Rome he was highly successful in his defence of orthodoxy. Finally he settled down at Brescia, where he is said to have been a model of all pastoral virtues.
The only details we have for dating his episcopate or the duration of his
life are that he took part as bp. of Brescia in a council at Aquileia in 381
(see its proceedings in the works of Ambrose, ii. 802, or p. 935, Migne); and
that he must have died before 397, the year of Ambrose's death, since that bishop
interested himself in the appointment of his successor. St. Augustine mentions
having seen Philaster at Milan in company with St. Ambrose; this was probably
some time during 384–387. Possibly Philaster had been commended to the church
of Brescia by Ambrose, who would know of his opposition to Auxentius. The notices
of Philaster in ecclesiastical writers are collected in the Bollandist Life
(AA. SS. July 18, vol. iv. p. 299). He is now chiefly interesting as
the author of a work on heresies, portions of which, having been copied by St.
Augustine, became stock materials for haeresiologists. Augustine having been
asked by Quodvultdeus to write a treatise on heresies, refers him in reply (Ep.
222) to the works of Epiphanius and Philastrius, the former of whom had enumerated
20 heresies before our Lord's coming and 60 since the ascension, the latter
28 before and 128 after. Augustine refuses to believe that Epiphanius, whom
he accounts far the more learned of the two, could have been ignorant of any
heresies known to Philaster, and explains the difference of enumeration as arising
from the word heresy not being one of sharply defined application, thus leading
one to count opinions as heresies which were not so reckoned by the other. As
a matter of fact, Philaster, in his excessive eagerness to swell his list of
heresies, has included many items which must be struck out unless we count every
erroneous opinion as a heresy; and when he has completed his list of heretical
sects called after their founders, he adds a long list of anonymous heresies,
apparently setting down all the theological opinions with which he disagreed,
and branding those who held them as heretics. Thus those are set down as heretics
who imagined, as many excellent Fathers did, that the giants of
The relation between Philaster and Epiphanius is important because of the theory of Lipsius, now generally accepted [see HIPPOLYTUS], that both writers drew from a common source, namely, the earlier treatise of Hippolytus against heresies. To establish this theory it is necessary to exclude the supposition of a direct use of Epiphanius by Philaster, which might seem the more obvious way of accounting for coincidences between the two.
It is chronologically possible for Philaster to have read the treatise of
Epiphanius which appeared in 376 or 377. At what period of
However, the complete independence of his treatment shews that Philaster did not use the work of Epiphanius. Eager as he was to swell his list of heresies, he does not mention the Archontici, Severiani, Encratitae, Pepuziani, Adamiani, Bardesianistae, and others, with whom Epiphanius would have made him acquainted; and in the discussion of all heresies later than Hippolytus, which are common to Epiphanius and Philaster, the two agree neither in matter nor in order of arrangement. Hence Lipsius inferred that the agreements as to earlier heresies must be explained by the use of a common source. This also accounts for a striking common feature, viz. the enumeration by both of pre-Christian heresies. Hegesippus (see Eus. H. E. iv. 22) had spoken of seven Jewish sects (τῶν ἐπτὰ αἱρέσεων) and had given their names; and it would seem from the opening of the tract of Pseudo-Tertullian that Hippolytus began his treatise by declining to treat of Jewish heresies. His two successors then might easily have been tempted to improve on their original by including pre-Christian heresies.
Concerning the N.T. canon, Philaster states (c. 88) that it had been ordained
by the apostles and their successors that nothing should be read in the Catholic
church but the law, the prophets, the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, 13
Epistles of St. Paul, and the seven other epistles which are joined to the Acts
of the Apostles. The omission of the Apocalypse and Hebrews seems intended only
to exclude them from public church reading. In c. 60 he treats as heretical
the denial that the Apocalypse is St. John's, and in c. 69 the denial that the
Ep. to the Hebrews is St. Paul's. He accounts for difficulties as to the reception
of the latter as arising from its speaking of our Lord as "made" (
The first printed ed. of Philaster appeared at Basle in 1539; the most noteworthy subsequent edd. are by Fabricius in 1721, containing an improved text and a valuable commentary, and by Galeardus in 1738, giving from a Corbey MS. now in St. Petersburg chapters on six heresies, omitted in previous eds., but which are required to make the total of 156 mentioned by St. Augustine. This complete text has been reprinted by Oehler in his Corpus Haeresiologum, vol. i. The latest ed. is by F. Marx, in the Corpus Script. Eccl. Lat. (Vienna, 1898). See also Zahn, Gesch. der N.T. Kanons (1890), ii. 1, p. 233.
Philippus (1), of Tralles, asiarch at the time of the martyrdom of POLYCARP. The historic reality of this Philip has been confirmed by an inscription found at Olympia, and Lightfoot (Ignatius, i. 613) printed two new inscriptions relating to him, and also by means of his full name, Caius Julius Philippus, there given, has assigned to him three other previously known inscriptions. Philip is thus proved to have been a well-known man of great wealth and munificence. Lightfoot (u.s.) shews that the date of his tenure of office indicated by these inscriptions is quite reconcilable with the date, otherwise determined, of Polycarp's martyrdom, without need of recourse to the perfectly admissible supposition, that Philip held the office of asiarch more than once. Concerning the office, see Lightfoot, ii. 990, where it is shewn that the holder was "high-priest of the province of Asia" and his tenure of office to be probably four years.
Philippus (5), "the Arabian," emperor, a native of Bostra in Trachonitis
and a man of low birth. Having been made pretorian prefect he supplanted the
younger Gordian in the affections of the soldiers, and caused him to be deposed
and put to death in
Philippus (6), bp. of Heraclea in Thrace and martyr in the Diocletian persecution c. 304 with Severus, a presbyter, and Hermes, a deacon. His Acts present one of the most vivid and minute pictures we possess of that persecution, and are often quoted by Le Blanc in his Actes des Martyrs—e.g. pp. 12, 41, 52, 54, etc., where many incidental marks of authenticity are pointed out. The various steps in the persecution can be clearly traced, the arrest of the clergy, the seizure and destruction of the sacred writings and vessels, and finally the torture and death of the martyrs. Philip was arrested and examined by a president Bassus, who then committed him to the free custody of one Pancratus (c. vii.). Bassus was soon succeeded by a certain Justinus, who was much more stern towards the Christians than his predecessor, whose wife was a Christian. After some time Justinus brought them to Adrianople, and there burned Philip and Hermes on the same day (Ruinart, Acta Sincera, p. 442).
Philippus (9), of Side, an ecclesiastical historian at the commencement of 5th cent., a native of the maritime town of Side in Pamphylia, the birthplace of Troilus the sophist, whose kinsman he was proud of reckoning himself. We find Philip at Constantinople enjoying the intimacy of Chrysostom, by whom he was admitted to the diaconate. Tillemont says that he was the imitator of Chrysostom's eloquence rather than of his virtues, and that the imitation was a very poor one. On the death of Atticus, a.d. 425, by whom he had been ordained presbyter, Philip was a candidate for the vacant see, and found a number of influential supporters (Socr. H. E. vii. 27). The prefering of Sisinnius caused him extreme mortification, which he exhibited in his Christian History, introducing a violent tirade against the character both of elected and electors, more particularly the lay supporters of Sisinnius. The bitterness and rashness of the charges are noticed by Socrates, who thought them undeserving mention in his history (ib. 26). Philip, when again a candidate, both after the death of Sisinnius, a.d. 428 and on the deposition of Nestorius in 431, had a considerable and energetic following (ib. vii. 29, 35) but was unsuccessful, and died a presbyter. His chief work, entitled A Christian History, was divided into 36 books and about a thousand chapters. It ranged from the creation to his own times. Except one or two fragments, the whole is lost. The descriptions of it given by Socrates (ib. 27) and Photius (Cod. 35) shew that its loss is not to be regretted on literary grounds. Socrates describes it as a medley of theorems in geometry, astronomy, arithmetic, and music, with descriptions of islands, mountains, and trees, and other matters of little moment. The chronological order of events was constantly disregarded. Photius's estimate is equally low: "diffuse; neither witty nor elegant; full of undigested learning, with very little bearing on history at all, still less on Christian history." A fragment relating to the school of Alexandria and the succession of the teachers has been printed by Dodwell at the close of his dissertations on Irenaeus (Oxf. 1689). Of this Neander writes: "The known untrustworthiness of this author; the discrepancy between his statements and other more authentic reports, and the suspicious condition in which the fragment has come down to us, render his details unworthy of confidence" (Ch. Hist. vol. ii. p. 460, Clark's trans.). Another considerable fragment is reported to exist in the Imperial Library at Vienna, entitled de Christi Nativitate, et de Magis, giving the acts of a disputation held in Persia concerning Christianity between certain Persians and Christians, at which Philip was himself present. Tillem. Mém. eccl. xii. 431; Hist. des empereurs, vi. 130; Cave, Hist. Lat. i. 395; Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vi. 112, lib. v. c. 4, § 28.
Philo (2), deacon. Among the proofs of the genuineness of the Ignatian
letters [IGNATIUS]
is the fact that we obtain a thoroughly consistent story on piecing together
scattered notices about obscure persons. Thus two deacons are mentioned, Philo
from Cilicia and Rheius Agathopus from Syria (Philadelph. ii., Smyrn.
10, 13). We find that these deacons had not started with Ignatius, but had followed
afterwards, taking the same route; that at Philadelphia, where Ignatius himself
had encountered heretical opposition, some had treated them also with contumely;
that they had been too late to overtake the saint at Smyrna, but had been kindly
entertained by the church there. Finally, they were with Ignatius at Troas,
and from them doubtless he received the joyful news of the peace which the church
of Syria had obtained since his departure. The clearness with which the whole
story comes out from oblique inferences
It was no doubt the mention in the genuine epistles of this Philo from Cilicia that suggested to Pseudo-Ignatius to forge a letter in the name of the martyr to the church of Tarsus, and to specify that city as the place where Philo served as deacon.
Philogonius, bp. of Antioch, 22nd in succession, following Vitalis c. 319. He affords an example of a layman, a husband, and a father being raised at once, like Ambrose at Milan, to the episcopate of his city. He had been an advocate in the law courts, and gained universal esteem by his powerful advocacy of the poor and oppressed, "making the wronged stronger than the wronger." The few facts known of his history are gathered from a homily delivered at Antioch by Chrysostom on his Natalitia (Chrys. Orat. 71, t. v. p. 507, ed. Savile). Chrysostom comments upon the great difficulties (δυσκολίαι) Philogonius met with at the commencement of his episcopate from the persecution which had so recently ceased, and says that his highest eulogy is the pure and flourishing condition in which he left the church. The earliest ecclesiastical building in Antioch, "the mother of all the churches in the city," traditionally ascribed to apostolic times, the rebuilding of which had been begun by Vitalis, was finished by him (Theod. H. E. i. 3). He was denounced by Arius as one of his most determined opponents (ib. 5). He was succeeded by Paulinus, the Arianizing bp. of Tyre, c. 323. He is called Philonicus by Eutychius (p. 431), who assigns him 5 years of office (Tillem. Mém. eccl. t. vi. p. 194; Neale, Patr. of Ant. p. 84).
Philostorgius, a Cappadocian, born c. 368, and author of a church history extending from 300 to 425. The greater part has perished, but some fragments have been preserved by Photius. They were published by Godefrid at Geneva in 1642, and by Valesius, with a Latin trans. and notes, at Paris in 1673. An English trans. by Walford appeared in 1855. Photius regarded both author and book with worse than contempt. The style he allows to be sometimes elegant, though more frequently marked by stiffness, coldness, and obscurity. The contents he treats as unworthy of reliance, often beginning his extracts by denouncing the author as an "enemy of God," an "impious wretch," an "impudent liar." Even Gibbon, naturally inclined as he was to accept the statements of a heretic in preference to those of an orthodox theologian, is compelled to allow that "the credibility of Philostorgius is lessened, in the eyes of the orthodox, by his Arianism; and, in those of rational critics, by his passion, his prejudice, and his ignorance" (Hist. c. xxi.). Gibbon thinks that he appears to have obtained "some curious and authentic intelligence" (c. xxv.), yet was marked in making use of it by "cautious malice" (c. xxiii.). These unfavourable opinions are shared by Tillemont (Hist. vol. iv. p. 281), and, though with some just expressions as to what might have been the value of his history had it been preserved, by Jortin (Eccl. Hist. vol. ii. p. 122) and Schröckh (vol. i. p. 148). All existing evidence leads to the belief that the history of Philostorgius was less a fair statement of what he had seen and known than a panegyric upon the heretics of his time.
Philoxenus (4) (Xenaias), a conspicuous leader of the Monophysites
at the beginning of 6th cent. He shares with Severus of Antioch, the true scientific
head of the previously leaderless party of the Acephali, the reputation of having
originated the Jacobite form of Monophysitism, which was long supreme in Egypt
and is still adopted by the Copts. Our knowledge of Philoxenus comes almost
exclusively from his theological opponents, against whom he was engaged in a
determined and not very scrupulous warfare. Much that is stated to his discredit
admits of reasonable doubt. Some stories we may absolutely reject. We know him
as an acute dialectician, a subtle theologian, and a zealous and uncompromising
champion of the unity of the nature of Christ against what he regarded as the
heresy of the two natures, and as one to whose desire for a faithful rendering
of N.T. the church is indebted for what is known as the "Philoxenian Syriac
Version." We soon find him in Syria, where, having accepted the Henoticon and
the Twelve Chapters of Cyril, he proved an active opponent of all Nestorianizers
and a zealous propagator of Monophysite views in the country villages round
Antioch. Calandio, the patriarch of Antioch, expelled him from his diocese.
He was recalled by Peter the Fuller, who ordained him bp. of Hierapolis (Mabug)
in place of the more orthodox Cyrus, c. 485. During Peter's turbulent
rule Philoxenus actively supported his measures for suppressing the Nestorianizing
section of the church and establishing Eutychian or Monophysite doctrines in
his patriarchate and generally in the East. The accession in 498 of the vacillating
Flavian to the throne of Antioch, and his change of front from opposition to
support of Chalcedon, led Philoxenus to adopt a more active line of conduct
(Evagr. H. E. iii. 31), pursuing Flavian with untiring animosity, endeavouring
to force him to accept the Henoticon, on his refusal denouncing him as a concealed
Nestorian, demanding that he should repudiate not only Nestorius but all who
were regarded as sympathizing with him, Diodorus, Theodorus, Theodoret, and
many others, repeatedly denouncing him to the emperor Anastasius, and at last
accomplishing his deprivation and expulsion. [FLAVIANUS
OF ANTIOCH.]
In pursuance of his object Philoxenus more than once visited Constantinople.
The first time was at the summons of Anastasius, a.d. 507. His arrival caused
a great disturbance among the clergy, laity, and monastic bodies. To consult
the peace of the city, the emperor was compelled to remove him secretly (Theophan.
p. 128; Victor. Tunun. sub. ann. 499). Unable in any other way to secure
the deposition of Flavian and his supporter Elias of Jerusalem, Philoxenus obtained
from Anastasius an order for convening a synod ostensibly to define more exactly
the points of faith, but really to remove the two obnoxious prelates. This synod
of about 80 bishops met at Sidon early in 512, under the joint presidency of
Philoxenus and Soterichus of the Cappadocian
The Syriac translation of N.T. known as the "Philoxenian Version," subsequently revised by Thomas of Harkel, in which form alone we possess it, was executed in 508 at his desire by his chorepiscopus Polycarp (Moses Agnellus, ap. Asseman. Bibl. Orient. ii. 83; ib. i. 408). It is extremely literal; "the Syriac idiom is constantly bent to suit the Greek, and everything is in some manner expressed in the Greek phrase and order" (Westcott in Smith's D. B. vol. iii. p. 1635 B).
Philoxenus and Severus were the authors of the dominant form of Monophysite doctrines which, while maintaining the unity of the natures of Christ, endeavoured to preserve a distinction between the divine and the human. This doctrine is laid down in eight propositions at variance with the tenets of the early Christians, whom he stigmatized as Phantasiasts. Christ was the Son of Man, i.e. Son of the yet unfallen man, and the Logos took the body and soul of man as they were before Adam's fall. The very personality of God the Word descended from heaven and became man in the womb of the Virgin, personally without conversion. Thus He became a man Who could be seen, felt, handled, and yet as God He continued to possess the spiritual, invisible, impalpable character essential to Deity. Neither the deity nor the humanity was absorbed one by the other, nor converted one into the other. Nor again was a third evolved by a combination of the two natures as by chemical transformation. They taught one nature constituted out of two, not simple but twofold, μία φύσις σύνθετος, or μία φύσις διττή. The one Person of the Incarnate Word was not a duality but a unity. The same Son Who was one before the Incarnation was equally one when united to the body. In all said, done, or suffered by Christ, there was only one and the same God the Word, Who became man, and took on Himself the condition of want and suffering, not naturally but voluntarily, for the accomplishment of man's redemption. It followed that God the Word suffered and died, and not merely a body distinct from or obedient to Him, or in which He dwelt, but with which He was not one. Their view as to the personal work of Christ is briefly summed up in the Theopaschite formula, "unus a Trinitate descendit de coelo, incarnatus est, crucifixus, mortuus, resurrexit, ascendit in caelum." Philoxenus held that "potuit non mori," not that "non potuit mori." It followed that he affirmed a single will in Christ. In the Eucharist he held that the living body of the living God was received, not anything belonging to a corruptible man like ourselves. He was decidedly opposed to all pictorial representations of Christ, as well as of all spiritual beings. No true honour, he said, was done to Christ by making pictures of Him, since His only acceptable worship was that in spirit and in truth. To depict the Holy Spirit as a dove was puerile, for it is said economically that He was seen in the likeness, not in the body, of a dove. It was contrary to reason to represent angels, purely spiritual beings, by human bodies. He acted up to these opinions and blotted out pictures of angels, removing out of sight those of Christ (Joann. Diaconus, de Eccl. Hist. ap. Labbe, vii. 369).
He was a very copious writer, and described by Assemani as one of the best and most elegant in the Syrian tongue (Bibl. Orient. i. 475; ii. 20). Assemani gives a catalogue of 23 of his works. To these may be added 13 homilies on Christian life and character (Wright, 764); 12 chapters against the holders of the Two Wills (ib. 730, 749); 10 against those who divided Christ (ib. 730). Evagr. H. E. iii. 31, 32; Theod. Lect. fragm. p. 569; Theophan. Chronogr. pp. 115, 128, 129, 131, 141; Labbe, iv. 1153, vii. 88, 368; Tillem. Mém. eccl. xvi. 677–681, 701–706; Neander, H. E. iv. 255, Clark's trans.; Gieseler, H. E. ii. 94; Schröckh, Kirch. Geschich. xviii. 526–538; Dorner, Person of Christ, div. ii. vol. i. pp. 133–135, Clark's trans.
Phocas, of Sinope, a celebrated martyr, of whom very little is actually
known and whose real date is uncertain. Combefis places his martyrdom in the
last years of Trajan, but Tillemont considers a later persecution, either that
of Decius or that of Diocletian, more probable. Our sole knowledge of Phocas
is from an oration in his honour by Asterius of Amasea. He states that Phocas
was an honest and industrious gardener at Sinope, a convert to Christianity,
and exceedingly hospitable to strangers. Being denounced as a Christian and
sentenced to death, a party of soldiers was despatched to Sinope to carry the
sentence into execution. Phocas hospitably entertained them, and on discovering
their mission forbore to escape, as he might easily have done, and, on their
asking him where they could find Phocas, made himself known to them and was
at once decapitated. His trunk was buried in a grave he had dug for himself,
over which a church was subsequently built. His relics were so fruitful in miracles
that he obtained the name of Thaumaturgus. His body was transferred to
Photinus, a Galatian, educated by Marcellus of Ancyra and afterwards deacon and presbyter of his church, perhaps too (during the time when Marcellus, expelled from his own see, a.d. 336, was wandering about between Rome and Constantinople) transferred to the see of Sirmium. He made no secret of the doctrines he had imbibed from his master, and succeeded in obtaining a hearing for them. The Eusebians at Antioch, in their lengthiest formula, three years after the Encoenia, were the first to attack him, classing him with his preceptor. He was next attacked at Milan, then the imperial capital; by the same party soon after at Sardica (D. C. A. "Councils of Milan" and "Councils of Sirmium"); and two years later another and larger synod decreed his deposition. Moderns are not agreed where this synod met, but St. Hilary, beyond any reasonable doubt, fixes it at Sirmium (Fragm. ii. n. 21; cf. Larroque, Diss. i. de Phot. pp. 76 seq.), being the first of the councils held there, a.d. 349 (Larroque says 350). Constantius being absent when sentence was first passed on Photinus in his own city, the popularity he had gained there stood him in good stead, in spite of his avowed opinions, which Socrates tells us he would never disclaim. He remained in possession till 351, when a second council having assembled there by order of the emperor, then present in person, he was taken in hand by Basil, the successor of his master at Ancyra, and having been signally refuted by him in a formal dispute, was put out of his see forthwith. Hefele thinks he may have regained it under Julian for a short time, but was again turned out under Valentinian, to return no more; and dates his death a.d. 366 (Counc. ii. 199). For a collection of authorities on the chronological difficulties in connexion with his history, see a note to Hefele's Councils (Oxenham's trans. ii. 188–189).
Photius, bp. of Tyre, and metropolitan, elected on the deposition of Irenaeus, Sept. 9, 448. He is unfavourably known for cowardly tergiversation in the case of IBAS of Edessa. Under the powerful influence of Uranius of Himera, he and his fellow-judges first acquitted Ibas at Tyre and Berytus, and the next year at the "Robber Synod" of Ephesus zealously joined in his condemnation (Martin, Le Brigandage d’Ephèse, pp 118–120, 181). At the same synod he accused Acylinus, bp. of Byblos, of Nestorianism and with refusing to appear before him and Domnus, the real ground of offence being manifestly that he had been appointed by Irenaeus. On Photius's statement alone Acylinus was at once deposed. Photius at the same time undertook to clear Phoenicia of all clergy tainted with Nestorianism (Martin, u.s. p. 183; Actes du brigandage, pp. 86–89). With easy versatility Photius took his place among the orthodox prelates at Chalcedon, regularly voted on the right side, signed the decisions of the council, voted for the restoration of Theodoret to his bishopric, presented a résumé of the proceedings at Berytus favourable to Ibas, and signed the 28th canon conferring on Constantinople the same primacy, πρησβεῖα, as that enjoyed by Rome (Labbe, iv. 79, 328, 373, 623, 635, 803). At the same time, after presenting a petition to Marcian (ib. 541), he obtained a settlement of the controversy between himself and Eustathius of Berytus as to metropolitical jurisdiction, in favour of the ancient rights of the see of Tyre, together with a reversal of Eustathius's act of deposition of the bishops ordained by Photius, within the district claimed by the former (ib. 542–546; Canon. Chalc. 29). Photius was no longer bp. of Tyre in 457, when Dorotheus replied to the encyclical of the emperor Leo. Labbe, iv. 921; Cave, Hist. Lit. i. 443; Ceillier, Aut. eccl. xiv. 271, etc.; Tillem. Mém. eccl. vol. xv. index; Fabric. Bibl. Graec. x. 678; Le Quien, Or. Christ. ii. 808).
Pierius (Hierius). An eminent presbyter of Alexandria, famous for voluntary poverty, philosophical knowledge, and public expositions of Holy Scripture. He ruled the catechetical school of Alexandria under bp. Theonas, a.d. 265, and afterwards lived at Rome. He wrote several treatises extant in St. Jerome's time, and some were known as late as that of Photius. One was a homily upon Hosea, which he recited on Easter Eve, wherein he notes that the people continued in church on Easter Eve till after midnight. Photius mentions a work on St. Luke's Gospel as part of a volume by him, divided into 12 books. >From his eloquence he was called the younger Origen. Photius declares that he was orthodox about the Father and the Son, though using the words substance and nature to signify person. But his manner of speaking about the Holy Ghost was unorthodox, because he said that His glory was less than that of the Father and the Son. In the time of Epiphanius there was a church at Alexandria dedicated in his honour. Some have therefore thought that he suffered martyrdom in Diocletian's persecution. Eus. vii. 32; Hieron. Vir. Ill. c. 76; id. Ep. 70 al. 84, § 4, p. 429; id. Praefat. in Osee; Photius, Cod. 119; Niceph. Call. H. E. vi. 35; Du Pin, H. E. cent. iii.; Ceillier, ii. 462; Tillem. Mém.. iv. 582.
Pinianus (2), the husband of Melania the younger. Palladius speaks
of him as son of a prefect (Vit. Patr. 119). He and his wife entertained
Palladius of Helenopolis when be came to Rome on Chrysostom's affairs (Hist.
Pionius, martyr at Smyrna, in the Decian persecution,
When taken to prison, Pionius and his companions, Asclepiades and Sabina, found there already another Catholic presbyter, named Lemnus, and a Montanist woman named Macedonia. The divisions of the Christian community were now well known to their persecutors for in the examinations of the martyrs those who owned themselves Christians were always further interrogated as to what church or sect they belonged. The Acts give a long report of exhortations delivered by Pionius to his fellow-prisoners. With Pionius suffered a Marcionite presbyter Metrodorus, the stakes of both being turned to the east, Pionius on the right, Metrodorus on the left. The Acts are important on account of their undoubted antiquity. We only know them by a Latin translation, of which two types are extant—one which seems more faithfully to represent the original, published by Surius and reprinted by the Bollandists (Feb. 1); the other by Ruinart (Acta Sincera, p. 137). The common original was certainly read by Eusebius, who (H. E. iv. 15) gives a description of the Acts of Pionius which agrees too often with those extant for different Acts to be intended. Eusebius, however, represents Pionius as suffering at the same time as Polycarp, while the extant Acts place him a century later, a date attested by the Paschal Chronicle, which makes Pionius suffer in the Decian persecution, and confirmed by internal evidence. On the Life of Polycarp ascribed to Pionius, see POLYCARP. Cf. Zahn, Forschungen zur Gesch. der N.T. Kanons, iv. 271.
Pius I., bp. of Rome after Hyginus in the middle part of 2nd cent. The dates cannot be fixed with certainty, the traditions being contradictory. The Liberian Catalogue and the Felician both name Antoninus Pius (138–161) as the contemporary emperor, as does Eusebius (H. E. iv. 11). Lipsius (Chronol. der röm. Bischöf.), after full discussion of the chronology, assigns from 139 to 154 as the earliest, and from 141 to 156 as the latest, tenable dates. The absence of distinct early records of the early Roman bishops is further shewn by the fact that both the Liberian and Felician Catalogues place Anicetus between Hyginus and Pius. So also Optatus (ii. 48) and Augustine (Ep. 53, ordo novus). But that the real order was Hyginus, Pius, Anicetus, may be considered certain from the authority of Hegesippus (quoted by Eus. H. E. iv. 22), who was at Rome himself in the time of Anicetus, and, when there, made out a succession of the Roman bishops. Irenaeus, who visited Rome in the time of Eleutherus, gives the same order (adv. Haer. iii. 3; cf. Eus. iv. 1; v. 24; Epipb. adv. Haer. xxvii. 6).
The episcopate of Pius is important for the introduction of Gnostic heresy into Rome. The heresiarchs Valentinus and Cerdo had come thither in the time of Hyginus and continued to teach there under Pius (Iren. i. 27, ii. 4; cf. Eus. H. E. iv. 11). Marcion of Pontus, who took up the teaching of Cerdo and developed from it his own peculiar system, arrived there after the death of Hyginus (Epiph. Haer. xlii. 1; cf. Eus. H. E. iv. 11).
Pius, according to the MURATORIAN FRAGMENT (c. 170) and the Liberian Catalogue, was brother to HERMAS, the writer of the Shepherd. Lipsius (op. cit.) considers this relationship established. Westcott (Canon of N. T. pt. i. c. 2) accepts it, and adduces internal evidence in the work of Hermas itself.
Those who maintain the view of the presbyterian constitution of the early
Roman church, and of the earliest so-called bishops having been in fact only
leading presbyters, to whom a distinct episcopal office was afterwards assigned
by way of tracing the succession, would attribute the development of the later
episcopal system to the age of Pius, Thus Lipsius speaks of him as the first
bishop in the stricter sense ("Bischof im engeren Sinn"). He supposes both Hyginus
and Pius to have presided over the college of presbyters, though only as
primi inter pares, and the need of a recognized head of the church to resist
Gnostic teachers to have led to the
More cogent is the fact that, in the account given by Epiphanius of Marcion's arrival in Rome, he is represented as having applied for communion to the presbyters, without mention of the bishop. Those to whom he applied, and who gave judgment, are called "the seniors (πρεσβῦται), who, having been taught by the disciples of the apostles, still survived" (adv. Haer. xlii. i); also "the presbyters (πρεσβῦτεροι) of that time" (ib. c. 2); also ἐπιεικεῖς καὶ πανάγιοι πρεσβύτεροι καὶ διδάσκαλοι τῆς ἁγίας ἐκκλησίας. But these expressions do not disprove the existence of a presiding bishop, acting in and through his synod, who would himself be included in the designation πρεσβύτεροι. For it was not till some time after the apostolic period that the names ἐπίσκοπος and πρεσβύτερος were used distinctively to denote two orders of clergy. Even Irenaeus, though enumerating the bishops of Rome from the first as distinct from the general presbytery, still speaks of them as presbyters; using in one place (iii. 2, 2) the phrase "successiones presbyterorum," though in another (iii. 3, 1 and 2) "successiones episcoporum." Cf. iv. 26, 2, 3, 5; v. 20, 2; and Ep ad Victorem (ap. Eus. v. 24); where the bishops before Soter are called πρεσβύτεροι ὁι προστάντες τῆς ἐκκλησίας. Tertullian also (Apol. c. 39) calls bishops and presbyters together seniores. Moreover, the omission by Epiphanius of any mention of a head of the Roman presbytery at the time of Marcion's visit may be due to a vacancy in the see. For it is said to be after the death of Hyginus, with no mention of Pius having succeeded. In such circumstances the college of presbyters would naturally entertain the case. Certainly very soon after the period before us, both Pius and his predecessors from the first were spoken of as having been bishops (however designated) in a distinctive sense, and Anicetus, the successor of Pius, appears historically as such on the occasion of Polycarp's visit to Rome (Iren. ap. Eus. H. E. v. 24).
Four letters and several decrees are assigned to Pius, of which the first two letters (to all the faithful and to the Italians) and the decrees are universally rejected as spurious. The two remaining letters, addressed to Justus, bp. of Vienne, are accepted as genuine by Baronius, Binius, and Bona, but have no real claims to authenticity.
Placidia (1), empress. [GALLA.]
Poemen (1), (Ποιμήν, Pastor), a famous anchorite of Egypt. He retired very young into the monasteries of Scete c. 390, and continued there 70 years, dying c. 460. His Life occupies much space in Rosweyd's Vitae Patrum, v. 15, in Patr. Lat. t. lxxiii. and in Cotelerii Monum. Eccl. Graec. t. i. pp. 585–637. The anecdotes in the last-mentioned authority give the best idea of the man. He treated his aged mother with neglect, refusing to see her when she sought him. His solitary life destroyed all feelings of human nature. His story is concisely told in Ceillier, viii. 468–470, and Tillemont, Mém. xv. 147.
Polycarpus (1), bp. of Smyrna, one of the most prominent figures in the church of the 2nd cent. He owes this prominence less to intellectual ability, which does not appear to have been pre-eminent, than to the influence gained by a consistent and unusually long life. Born some 30 years before the end of the 1st cent., and raised to the episcopate apparently in early manhood, he held his office to the age of 86 or more. He claimed to have known at least one apostle and must in early life have met many who could tell things they had heard from actual disciples of our Lord. The younger generation, into which he lived on, naturally recognized him as a peculiarly trustworthy source of information concerning the first age of the church. During the later years of his life Gnostic speculation had become very active and many things unknown to the faith of ordinary Christians were put forth as derived by secret traditions from the apostles. Thus a high value was attached to the witness Polycarp could give as to the genuine tradition of apostolic doctrine, his testimony condemning as offensive novelties the figments of the heretical teachers. Irenaeus states (iii. 3) that on Polycarp's visit to Rome his testimony converted many disciples of Marcion and Valentinus. Polycarp crowned his other services to the church by a glorious martyrdom. When, at the extremity of human life, it seemed as if he could do no more for the church but continue his example of holiness, piety, and orthodoxy, a persecution broke out in which he, as the venerated head of the Christian community in Asia Minor, was specially marked out for attack. He gave a noble exhibition of calm courage, neither courting nor fearing martyrdom, sheltering himself by concealment while possible, and when no longer so, resolutely declaring in defiance of threats his unshaken love for the Master he had served so long. Such a death, following on such a life, made Polycarp's the most illustrious name of his generation in Christian annals.
Irenaeus states (III. iii. 4) that Polycarp had been instructed by apostles
and conversed with many who had seen Christ, and had also been established "by
apostles" as bishop in the church at Smyrna; and doubtless Tertullian (de
Praescrip. 32) is right in understanding this to mean that he had been so
established by St. John, whose activity in founding the episcopate of Asia Minor
is spoken of also by Clem. Alex. in his well-known story of St. John and the
robber (Quis. div. Salv. p. 959). The testimony of Irenaeus conclusively
shews the current belief in Asia Minor during the old age of Polycarp, and it
is certain that Polycarp was bp. of Smyrna at the time of the martyrdom of Ignatius,
i.e. c. 110. Ignatius, journeying from Antioch to Rome, halted first
at Smyrna, where, as at his other resting places, the Christians flocked from
all around
The question as to the genuineness of the extant Ep. of Polycarp is very much mixed up with that of the genuineness of the Ignatian letters. The course of modern investigation has been decidedly favourable to the genuineness of the Ignatian letters [IGNATIUS], and the Ep. of Polycarp is guaranteed by external testimony of exceptional goodness. It is mentioned by Polycarp's disciple Irenaeus (III. iii. 4), and an important passage is quoted by Eusebius. Further, as Lightfoot has conclusively shown (Contemp. Rev. May 1875, p. 840), it is impossible that Polycarp's letter and those of Ignatius could have had any common authorship. Some of the topics on which the Ignatian letters lay most stress are absent from that of Polycarp; in particular, Polycarp's letter is silent about episcopacy, of which the Ignatian letters speak so much, and it has consequently been thought probable either that episcopacy had not yet been organized at Philippi, or that the office was then vacant. The forms of expression in the two letters are different; N.T. quotations, profuse in Polycarp's letter, are comparatively scanty in the Ignatian ones; and, most decisive of all, the Ignatian letters are characterized by great originality of thought and expression, while Polycarp's is but a commonplace echo of the apostolic epistles. When we compare Polycarp's letter with the extant remains of the age of Irenaeus, the superior antiquity of the former is evident, whether we attend to their use of N.T., their notices of ecclesiastical organization, their statements of theological doctrine, or observe the silence in Polycarp's letter on the questions which most interested the church towards the close of the 2nd cent. The question has been raised whether, admitting the genuineness of Polycarp's epistle as a whole, we may not reject as an interpolation c. xiii., which speaks of Ignatius. The extant MSS. of Polycarp's letter are derived from one in which the leaves containing the end of Polycarp's letter and the beginning of that of Barnabas were wanting, so that the end of Barnabas seemed the continuation of Polycarp's epistle. The concluding chapters of Polycarp are only known to us by a Latin translation. The hiatus, however, in the Greek text begins not at c. xiii. but at c. x.; and the part which speaks about Ignatius is exactly that for which we have the Greek text assured to us by the quotation of Eusebius. There is therefore absolutely no reason for rejecting c. xiii. unless on the supposition that the forgery of the Ignatian letters has been demonstrated.
Though Polycarp's epistle is remarkable for its copious use of N.T. language, there are no formal quotations, but it is mentioned that St. Paul had written to the church of Philippi, to which Polycarp's epistle is addressed. The language in which St. Paul's letters are spoken of, both here and in the epistles of Ignatius, decisively refutes the theory that there was opposition between the schools of John and Paul. It illustrates the small solicitude of Eusebius to produce testimony to the use of N.T. books undisputed in his time, that though he notices (iv. 14) Polycarp's use of I. Peter, he is silent as to this express mention of St. Paul's letters. Polycarp's Pauline quotations include distinct recognition of Eph. and I. and II. Tim., and other passages clearly shew a use of Rom., I. Cor, Gal., Phil., II. Thess. The employment of I. Peter is especially frequent. There is one unmistakable coincidence with Acts. The use of I. and II. John is probable. The report of our Lord's sayings agrees in substance with our Gospels, but may or may not have been directly taken from them. The coincidences with Clement's epistle are beyond what can fairly be considered accidental, and probably the celebrity gained by Clement's epistle set the example to bishops elsewhere of writing to foreign churches. Polycarp states, however, that his own letter had been invited by the church of Philippi. Some church use of Polycarp's epistle seems to have continued in Asia until Jerome's time; if we can lay stress on his rather obscure expression (Catal.) "epistolam quae usque hodie in conventu Asiae legitur." The chief difference between Clement's and Polycarp's letters is in the use of the O.T., which is perpetual in the former, very rare in the latter. There is coincidence with one passage in Tobit, two in Ps., and one in Is.; and certainly in one of the last 3 cases, possibly in all three, the adopted words are not taken directly from the O.T., but from N.T. This difference, however, is explained when we bear in mind that Clement had probably been brought up in Judaism, while Polycarp was born of Christian parents and familiar with the apostolic writings from his youth.
Our knowledge of Polycarp's life between the date of his letter and his martyrdom
comes almost entirely from 3 notices by IRENAEUS.
The first is in his letter to FLORINUS;
the second in the treatise on Heresies (III. iii. 4); the third in the letter
of Irenaeus to Victor, of which part is preserved by Eusebius (v. 24). Irenaeus,
writing in advanced life, tells how vivid his recollections still were of having
been a hearer of Polycarp, then an old man; how well he remembered where the
aged bishop used to sit, his personal appearance, his ways of going out and
coming in, and how frequently he used to relate his intercourse with John and
others who had seen our Lord, and to repeat stories of our Lord's miracles and
teaching, all in complete accord with the written record. The reminiscences
of Irenaeus are in striking agreement with Polycarp's extant letter in their
picture of his attitude towards heresy. He seems not to have had the qualifications
for successfully conducting a controversial discussion with erroneous teachers,
nor perhaps the capacity for feeling the difficulties which prompted their speculations;
but he could hot help strongly feeling how unlike these speculations were to
the doctrines he had learned from apostles and their immediate disciples, and
so met with indignant reprobation their
One of the latest incidents in Polycarp's active life was a journey which, near the close of his episcopate, he made to Rome, where Anicetus was then bishop. We are not told whether the cause of the journey was to settle points of difference between Roman and Asiatic practice; those existed, but did not interrupt their mutual accord. In particular Asiatic Quartodecimanism was at variance with Roman usage. We cannot say with certainty what kind of Easter observance was used at Rome in the time of Anicetus, for the language of Irenaeus implies that it was not then what it afterwards became; but the Asiatic observance of the 14th day was unknown in Rome, although Polycarp averred the practice of his church to have had the sanction of John and other apostles, and therefore to be what he could by no means consent to change. Anicetus was equally determined not to introduce into his church an innovation on the practice of his predecessors; but yet shewed his reverence for his aged visitor by "yielding to him the Eucharist in his church." This phrase seems capable of no other interpretation than that generally given to it, viz. that Anicetus permitted Polycarp to celebrate in his presence.
The story of the martyrdom of Polycarp is told in a letter still extant, purporting to be addressed by the church of Smyrna to the church sojourning (παροικούση) in Philomelium (a town of Phrygia) and to all the παροικίαι of the holy Catholic Church in every place. This document was known to Eusebius, who transcribed the greater part in his Eccl. Hist. (iv. 15). A trans. of this and of Polycarp's Ep. appears in the vol. of Apost. Fathers in Ante-Nicene Lib. (T. & T. Clark). The occurrence of the phrase "Catholic Church" just quoted has been urged as a note of spuriousness; but not very reasonably, in the absence of evidence to make it even probable that the introduction of this phrase was later than the death of Polycarp. We know for certain that the phrase is very early. It is used in the Ignatian letters (Smyrn. 8), by Clem. Alex. (Strom. vii. 17), in the Muratorian Fragment, by Hippolytus (Ref. ix. 12) and Tertullian. Remembering the warfare waged by Polycarp against heresy, it is highly probable that in his lifetime the need had arisen for a name to distinguish the main Christian body from the various separatists. The whole narrative of the martyrdom bears so plainly the mark of an eye-witness, that to imagine, as Lipsius and Keim have done, some one capable of inventing it a century after the death of Polycarp, seems to require great critical credulity. With our acceptance of the martyrdom as authentic Hilgenfeld (Zeitschrift, 1874, p. 334) and Renan (Eglise chrét. 462) coincide. We see no good reason to doubt that the narrative was written, as it professes to be, within a year of the martyrdom, by members of the church where it occurred and who had actually witnessed it; and we believe it to have been written specially to invite members of other churches to attend the commemoration on the anniversary of the martyrdom. It is deeply tinged by a belief in the supernatural, but it is uncritical to cast doubts on the genuineness of a document on the assumption that Christians of the 2nd cent., under the strain of a great persecution, held the views of their 19th-cent. critics as to the possibility of receiving supernatural aid or consolation.
The story relates that Polycarp's martyrdom was the last act of a great persecution
and took place on the occasion of games held at Smyrna, eleven others having
suffered before him. These games were probably held in connection with the meeting
of the Asiatic diet (τὸ κοινὸν τῆς Ἀσίας),
which met in rotation in the principal cities of the province. If more information
were available as to this rotation and as to the seasons when these meetings
were held, we should probably be able to fix the date of Polycarp's martyrdom
with more certainty. The proconsul came from Ephesus, the ordinary seat of government,
to preside. It may have been to provide the necessary victims for the wild beast
shows that the Christians were sought for (some were brought from Philadelphia)
and required to swear by the fortune of the emperor and offer sacrifice. The
proconsul appears to have discharged his unpleasant duty with the humanity ordinary
among Roman magistrates, doing his best to persuade the accused to save themselves
by compliance, and no doubt employing the tortures, of which the narrative gives
a terrible account, as a merciful cruelty which might save him from
Then follows by way of appendix a note, stating that the martyrdom took place on the 2nd of the month Xanthicus, the 7th before the calends of March [there is a various reading May], on a great sabbath at the 8th hour; the arrest having been made by Herod; Philip of Tralles being chief priest, Statius Quadratus proconsul, and Jesus Christ King for ever. A second note states that these Acts were transcribed by Socrates (or Isocrates) of Corinth, from a copy made by Caius, a companion of Polycarp's disciple Irenaeus. A third note states that this again had been transcribed by Pionius from a copy much decayed by time, the success of his search for which was due to a revelation made by Polycarp himself, "as will be shewn in what follows," from which we infer that the martyrdom was followed by a Life of Polycarp.
The first chronological note may be accepted as, if not part of the original document, at least added by one of its first transcribers, and therefore deserving of high confidence. The name of the proconsul Statius Quadratus indicates best the date of the martyrdom. Eusebius in his chronicle had put it in the 6th year of Marcus Aurelius, i.e. a.d. 166. M. Waddington (Mémoires de l’Académie des Inscriptions, 1867, xxvi. 235) shewed that Eusebius's date was doubtful. Eusebius seems to have had no real knowledge of the date, and to have put it down somewhat at random, for he places Polycarp's martyrdom and the Lyons persecution under the same year, though the Lyons martyrdoms were as late as 177. At this time the ordinary interval between the consulship and proconsulate ranged between 12 and 16 years. Quadratus we know to have been consul a.d. 142. We are at once led to reject Eusebius's date as placing the inadmissible interval of 24 or 25 years between the consulship and proconsulate. Waddington made out a probable case for a.d. 155, and an additional argument appears decisive. The martyrdom is stated to have taken place on Sat. Feb. 23, and among the possible years 155 is the only one in which Feb. 23 so fell. The reading of this chronological date is not free from variations. The "great sabbath" would in Christian times be thought to mean the Sat. in Easter week, and as Easter could not occur in Feb. there was an obvious temptation to alter Mar. into May, but none to make the opposite change, and we have independent knowledge that Feb. 23 was the day on which the Eastern church celebrated the martyrdom. But we do not know why Feb. 23 should be a "great" Sabbath. We believe the true explanation to be that the Latin date in this note is not of the same antiquity as the date by the Macedonian month. Probably Pionius, when he recovered the very ancient copy of the martyrdom, translated the date 2nd Xanthicus into one more widely intelligible and thus determined the date of subsequent commemorations. We accept, then, the 2nd Xanthicus as an original note of time faithfully preserved by a scribe who did not understand its meaning, because he interpreted according to the usage of his own day.
When we have abandoned the date Sat. Feb. 23 we lose one clue to fixing the exact date of the martyrdom, but we gain another. Since Nisan 2nd was Sat. the year must be one in which that lunar month commenced on a Friday. The only such years within the necessary limits were 155 and 159, and 155 again agrees best with the usual interval between consulship and proconsulate. The date Apr. 8, which a.d. 159 would require, is likely, moreover, to be too late. The chief difficulty raised by the date 155 is that if we adopt it the chronology of the Roman bishops obliges us to put Polycarp's visit in the last year of his life and the first of the episcopate of Anicetus.
For the literature connected with Polycarp see bp. Lightfoot's ed. of Ignatius and Polycarp. An ed. of Polycarp's remains by G. Jacobson is in Patr. Apost. (Clar. Press, 2 vols.). A small popular treatise on St. Polycarp by B. Jackson is pub. by S. P.C. K. Cf. also 7.ahn, Forschungen, iv. 249; Harnack, Gesch. der Alt.-Chr. Lat. 1897 (ii. 1, 334).
Polycarpus (5). Moyses of Aghel (c. 550), in a Letter to
Paphnutius prefatory to his Syriac version of the Glaphyra of Cyril
of Alexandria, prepares his readers to find variations from the Peshitto in
Cyril's citations of Scripture after the Greek, by referring them to "the translation
of the N.T. and of David into Syriac" from the Greek, which "the Chorepiscopus
Polycarpus made for Xenaias [Philoxenus] of Mabug" (Assem. ii. p. 82; see also
Dr. Ign. Guidi in Rendiconti della R. Academia dei Lincei, 1886, p. 397).
Now we know from Gregory Bar-hebraeus (Prooem. in Horr. Mystt.) that,
"after the Peshitto, the N.T. was more accurately translated again from the
Greek at Mabug in the days of Philoxenus." The same facts are stated
in a note purporting to be written by THOMAS
OF HARKEL
in 616, appended in slightly varying forms to many MSS. of the version of the
N.T. known as the Harklensian, one of which (Assem. xi., now Cod. Vat.
268) is probably (Bernstein, Das Heil. Evang. des Joh. p. 2) of the 8th
cent. In this MS., and others, the note gives also the date of this Philoxenian
version, a.d. 508. In all of them it proceeds to describe the Harklensian version
as based on this—in fact a revision of it; and the same description in more
direct terms is given by Bar-hebraeus in two places in his Chronicon
Of the Philoxenian N.T. as it was before Thomas of Harkel revised it, we only know with certainty the few small fragments of St. Paul recovered by Wiseman from the margin of his MS. of the Karkaphensian Syriac, and pub. by him in Horae Syriacae (p. 178, n. 11).
It seems highly probable that we have a considerable portion of this original Philoxenian, in the version of the four minor Catholic Epistles (II. Peter, II. and III. John, and Jude) not included in the Peshitto though printed with it in the Polyglotts and in most Syriac New Testaments—first published by Pococke (1630) from a MS. of no great age (Bodl. Or. 119). These four Epistles in the version in question are found also in a few Paris MSS. (see Zotenberg's Catal.), in one (formerly Wetstein's) at Amsterdam, in Lord Crawford's MS. in the Cambridge MS. (Oo. i. 1, 2), and in several MSS. in Brit. Mus.; one of which, Add. 14623 (7), written 823, is the oldest extant copy of this version. It is included also in the "Williams MS." of the N.T. Epistles, whence Prof. Hall issued it in photographic facsimile. This version is distinct from the Harklensian rendering of the same Epistles, which, however, though more servilely exact and grecised, is unmistakably founded on it. As then we have in this version the unmistakable basis of the Harklensian, and as the Harklensian is known to have been a revision of the Philoxenian, the identity of this version with the Philoxenian proper (as distinguished from the Philoxenian usually so-called, viz. the Harklensian revision) follows. We have then the materials for judging of Polycarp's merits as a translator, and we find reason to estimate them highly. The translation is in the main accurate and close without being servile. Dr. Scrivener (Intro. to N.T. p. 646, ed. 3) justly describes it as one which "well deserves careful study . . . of great interest and full of valuable readings," siding as it does frequently with the oldest Greek uncials. Here also we have material to determine the mutual relation between his work and Thomas's revision of it, and we conclude that the latter work is not (as has been taken for granted by many) a merely corrected re-issue of the earlier one, with merely linguistic alterations in the text and variants inserted on its margin; but is substantially a new version, proceeding on the lines of the former, but freely quitting them when the translator saw fit.
We are not informed what O.T. books were included in the work of Polycarp.
Moyses mentions only his version of the Psalms, which is lost. But we have conclusive
evidence that a Philoxenian Isaiah also existed; for a rendering of
Polychronius (4), brother of Theodore of Mopsuestia and bp. of Apamea on the Orontes in Syria Secunda. He belonged to a wealthy family of position at Antioch, and the literary character of his remains indicates that his early education was liberal and many-sided. A Polychronius was among the correspondents of Libanius (Epp. 27, 207, 228, etc.), but that he was the same is more than doubtful. That our Polychronius fell more or less directly under the influence of Diodore seems certain. Polychronius was probably younger than Theodore; at any rate his consecration as bp. was some ten years the later. In the see of Apamea he must have followed Agapetus, who succeeded Marcellus a.d. 398 (Theod. H. E. v. 27; Hist. Relig. § 3). He was still bishop when his brother died, a.d. 428 (cf. Theod. H. E. v. 40). But within the next three years he had died or otherwise vacated the see, for in the records of the council of Ephesus Alexander is bp. of Apamea (Mansi, iv. 1235, 1270). Both Le Quien (Oriens Christ. ii. 911) and Gams (Series Episc. p. 436) strangely omit Polychronius from their lists of the bps. of Apamea. The testimony of Theodoret, however, is unequivocal, and is that of the contemporary bishop of a neighbouring see. The city of Apamea was raised by Theodosius II. to metropolitan rank (Joh. Malal. Chronogr. xiv.; Migne, Patr. Gk. xcvii. 543) and the see attained a corresponding dignity. In the history of the church, however, the name of Polychronius occupies a comparatively insignificant place. Our knowledge of him is drawn almost exclusively from the scanty encomiums of Theodoret re-echoed by Cassiodorus and Nicephorus. We must be content to learn that, as bishop, he was characterized by the excellence of his rule, grace of oratory, and conspicuous purity of life (Theod. H. E. v. 40; cf. Cassiod. Hist. Tripart. x. 34; Niceph. xiv. 30).
It has been generally assumed that the bp. of Apamea is identical with the recluse of the same name in Theodoret's Religious History (§ 24). But such evidence as we possess points in an opposite direction.
As a disciple of the school of Antioch, Polychronius would naturally apply
himself to Biblical exegesis. No traces occur of any comments by him on N.T.,
but the catenae teem with scholia upon O.T. bearing his name. The following
have been ascribed to him: (1)
Of these remains the scholia on Proverbs, Canticles, and Jeremiah are of more than doubtful genuineness. Those on Proverbs and Canticles are in some MSS. ascribed to "Polychronius the Deacon," and all these collections are characterized by a partiality for allegorical and mystical interpretations quite alien to the instincts of the Antiochenes.
The style of Polychronius has been described (Bardenhewer, Polychronius, p. 36) as clear and concise, contrasting favourably with the loose and complex manner of his brother Theodore, a criticism which agrees with the verdict of Theodoret (supra). As an expositor Polychronius follows the historico-grammatical method of his school, condemning expressly the Alexandrian tendency to convert history into allegory. "His manner of exposition is scholarly and serious, breathing at the same time an air of deep piety." So Mai, who points out the fulness of historical illustration in his commentary on Daniel. His comments are based (the book of Daniel excepted) on the LXX., but he calls in the aid of Symmachus and Theodotion; and the frequency of his references to the Hebrew, as well as the remarkable fragment on the "obscurity of Scripture" among the extant fragments of his commentary on job, shew some acquaintance with that language. With regard to the canon, Polychronius assumes an independent attitude. Against his brother he stoutly maintains the historical character of the narrative of job, but discriminates between the Heb. Daniel and the Greek additions, refusing to comment upon the Song of the Three Children as not being in the original.
Of his doctrinal standpoint little can be learnt from his published remains. His temper was not controversial, and he has no place in the history of polemical theology—a circumstance which has saved him from the stigma of heterodoxy, but consigned his life and works to comparative obscurity.
Polycrates (1), bp. of Ephesus in the last decade of 2nd cent. When Victor of Rome sought to unify the practice of the whole Christian world in the matter of Easter celebration, he first asked for meetings of bishops in different places to report on the practice of their localities. This request was made in the name of his church, as we learn from the use of the plural in the reply of Polycrates. From every other place, as far as we can learn, the answer was that they celebrated the feast of our Lord's Resurrection on no other day than Sunday; but Polycrates, writing in the name of the bishops of Asia, declared that they had preserved untampered the tradition to celebrate only on the 14th day of the month, the day when the Jewish people put away their leaven. He appeals to the authority of the great luminaries which the Asian church could boast, and whose bodies lay among them, Philip, one of the twelve apostles, and his three daughters, John, who lay on our Lord's breast, a priest who wore the πέταλον, Polycarp of Smyrna, Thraseas of Eumenia, Sagaris, Papirius, Melito, all of whom had observed the 14th day, according to the Gospel, walking according to the rule of faith. Polycrates himself had followed the traditions of his kindred, seven of whom had been bishops before him, and had been confirmed in his view by his own study of the whole Scripture and by conference with brethren from all the world. Although his letter bore no signature but his own, he claims that it had received the assent of a great number of bishops (Eus. H. E. v. 24). For the sequel see IRENAEUS.
Pomponia Graecina, one of the earliest and most distinguished Roman converts. Tacitus (Annals, xiii. 32) tells us, referring to a.d. 57 or 58, that Pomponia Graecina, a distinguished lady, wife of the Plautius who returned from Britain with an ovation, was accused of some foreign superstition and handed over to her husband's judicial decision. Following ancient precedent, he heard his wife's cause in the presence of kinsfolk, involving, as it did, her legal status and character, and reported that she was innocent. She lived a long life of unbroken melancholy. After the murder of Julia, Drusus's daughter, by Messalina's treachery, for 40 years she wore only the attire of a mourner. For this, during Claudius's reign, she escaped unpunished, and it was afterwards counted a glory to her. This is the only notice of her in ancient literature. She came into prominence through De Rossi's discoveries in the catacomb of Callistus (Roma Sotterranea, ii. 360–364). De Rossi identified her with St. Lucina (of. Aubé, Hist. des perséc. t. i. p 180). Cf. for other notices Brownlow and Northcote's Roma Sott. t. i. pp. 82, 83, 278–282. De Rossi (op. cit. t. i. pp. 306–351) discusses the crypt and family of St. Lucina at great length (cf. also his Bullettino di Archeol. Crist. passim).
Pontianus (3), bp. of Rome from July (?) 21, 230, to Sept. 28, 235. These dates, given in the Liberian Catalogue, are probably correct, though later recessions of the Pontifical give them differently. The same record states that he was, with Hippolytus a presbyter, banished to Sardinia, which it describes as "nociva insula," implying possibly that he was sent to the mines there. His banishment doubtless took place under Maximinus, who succeeded Alexander after the assassination of the latter in May 235. The date, Sept. 28, 235 was probably that of his deprivation only.
His only episcopal act of which anything needs to be said is his probable
assent to the condemnation of Origen by Demetrius of Alexandria. Jerome (Ep.
ad Paulam, xxix. in Benedict. ed.; Ep. xxxiii. in ed. Veron.) says
of Origen: "For this toil what reward did he get? He is condemned by the bp.
Demetrius. Except the priests of Palestine
Pontitianus, a soldier, perhaps of the praetorian guard, an African by birth and a Christian, who indirectly contributed much towards the conversion of St. Augustine, who relates in his Confessions how one day, while he was at Milan with Alypius, Pontitianus came, as it seemed by accident, to visit his countrymen, and found on the table a book containing the writings of St. Paul, and having expressed some surprise, informed the friends that he was a Christian and constantly prayed to God both in public worship and at home. The conversation then turned upon Anthony the Egyptian monk, of whose history Pontitianus knew much more than they did. He told them how, when he was at Trèves, in attendance on the emperor, with three comrades he went to the public gardens. Having separated, two of them met again at the dwelling of a recluse, and found there an account of St. Anthony, which one read to the other until he was stirred to relinquish his military life and enlist in the service of God as a monk, and prevailed on his companion to join him. Pontitianus and the fourth member of the party coming up, the other two endeavoured to persuade them to follow their example, but without success. They returned to the palace while the disciples of St. Anthony remained behind. We hear no more of Pontitianus; for the sequel see AUGUSTINE (Aug. Conf. viii. 6, 7).
Pontius (2),
Porphyrius (4), patriarch of Antioch, a.d. 404–413, succeeded Flavian
(Socr. H. E. vii. 9), and is described in the dialogue which goes under
the name of Palladius as a man of infamous character, who had disgraced the
clerical profession by intimacy with the scum of the circus (Pallad. Dial.
p. 143). Although his character was notorious, by his cleverness and adroit
flattery he obtained considerable influence with the magistrates, and gained
the confidence of some leading bishops of the province. Flavian's death having
occurred almost contemporaneously with Chrysostom's exile, it became vitally
important to the anti-Flavian cabal to have the vacant throne of Antioch filled
with a man who would carry out their designs for the complete crushing of Flavian's
adherents. Porphyry was chosen. To clear the field Constantius, the trusted
friend of Chrysostom, whom the people of Antioch marked out as Flavian's successor,
was accused at Constantinople as a disturber of the public peace. By his powerful
influence with the party then dominant about the court, Porphyry obtained an
imperial rescript banishing Constantius to the Oasis. Constantius anticipated
this by fleeing to Cyprus (ib. 145). Porphyry then managed to get into
his hands Cyriacus, Diophantus, and other presbyters of the orthodox party who
were likely to be troublesome, and seized the opportunity of the Olympian festival
at Antioch, when the population had poured forth to the spectacles of Daphne,
to lock himself and his three consecrators, Acacius, Antiochus, and Severianus,
whom he had kept hiding at his own house, with a few of the clergy, into the
chief church, and to receive consecration at their hands. The indignant Antiochenes
next morning attacked the house of Porphyry, seeking to burn it over his head.
The influence of Porphyry secured the appointment of a savage officer as captain
of the city guards, who by threats and violence drove the people to the church
(ib. 147). Forewarned of his real character, pope Innocent received Porphyry's
request for communion with silence (ib. 141). Porphyry was completely
deserted by the chief clergy and all the ladies of rank of Antioch, who refused
to approach his church and held their meetings clandestinely (ib. 149).
In revenge Porphyry obtained a decree, issued by Arcadius Nov. 18, 404, sentencing
all who refused communion with Arsacius, Theophilus, and Porphyry to be expelled
from the churches, and instructing the governor of the province to forbid their
holding meetings elsewhere (Soz. H. E. viii. 24; Cod. Theod. 16,
t. iv. p. 103). His efforts to obtain the recognition of the Antiochenes proving
fruitless, while Chrysostom's spiritual power in exile became the greater for
all his efforts to crush it, Porphyry's exasperation drove him to take vengeance
on Chrysostom. Through his machinations and those of Severianus, orders were
issued for the removal of Chrysostom from Cucusus to Pityus, during the execution
of which the aged saint's troubles ended by death (Pallad. Dial. p. 97).
Porphyry's own death is placed by Clinton (Fast. Rom. ii. 552) in 413
(cf. Theod. H. E. iii. 5). He was succeeded by Alexander, by whom the
long distracted church was united. It is a misfortune that the chief and almost
only source for the character of Porphyry is the violent pamphlet of Palladius,
whose warm partisanship for Chrysostom unduly blackens all his opponents, and
refuses them a single redeeming virtue. That Porphyry was not altogether the
monster this author represents may be concluded from the statement of the calm
and amiable Theodoret, that he "left behind him" at Antioch "many memorials
of his kindness and of his remarkable prudence " (Theod. H. E. v. 35),
as well as by a still stronger testimony in his favour in Theodoret's letter
to Dioscorus, when he calls him one "of blessed and holy memory, who was adorned
both with a brilliant life and an acquaintance with divine doctrines"
Porphyrius (5), bp. of Gaza, a.d. 395–420. According to his biographer Mark, he was born at Thessalonica c. 352, of a good family. His parents were Christians, and took care to have him instructed in the Scriptures as well as in secular learning. When about 25 he retired to the desert of Scete in Egypt, which, at the end of 5 years, he left for Jerusalem, and passed another 5 years in a cavern near the Jordan. A painful disease, brought on by his austerities, compelled him to revisit Jerusalem, where he made the acquaintance of Mark, who became his devoted disciple and companion. By Porphyry's desire Mark visited Thessalonica, and turned the proceeds of Porphyry's share of his paternal property into money, the whole of which, on his return, Porphyry distributed to the poor and to various monasteries, supporting himself by manual labour. About his 40th year he. reluctantly received ordination from John, bp. of Jerusalem, who committed to his guardianship the sacred relic of the True Cross. After a presbyterate of three years, in 395 on the death of Aeneas he with still greater reluctance became bp. of Gaza, being consecrated by John of Caesarea, who had sent for him on the pretext of consulting him on some scriptural difficulty. The people of Gaza were then almost all pagan, and the position of a zealous Christian bishop was one of no small difficulty and even danger. The cessation of a severe drought at the beginning of the 2nd year of his episcopate, Jan. 326, was attributed to his prayers and those of the Christians, and caused the conversion of a number of the inhabitants. This was succeeded by other conversions, arousing great exasperation among the heathen population, which vented itself in a severe persecution. Porphyry endured their ill-treatment with the utmost meekness. At the same time he despatched his deacon Mark and his minister Borocas to Constantinople, who, through the powerful advocacy of Chrysostom, obtained the emperor's order to destroy the idols and close the temples. This was carried out by an imperial commissioner, who, however, it was asserted, was bribed to spare the principal idol named Marnas, and to wink at the entrance of the worshippers into the temple by a secret passage. To these events Jerome refers in a letter to Laeta (Hieron. H.E.. vii. p. 54). The idolaters still remained the dominant section, and were able to shut out Christians from all lucrative offices and to molest them in the enjoyment of their property. Porphyry took this so much to heart that he exhorted his metropolitan, John of Caesarea, to allow him to resign. John consoled him, and went with him to Constantinople to obtain an order for the demolition not of the idols alone, but of the temples themselves, arriving Jan. 7, 401. Chrysostom was then high in the empress Eudoxia's favour, and their suit was successful. The bishops reached Majuma, the port of Gaza, on May 1, and were followed in ten days by a commissioner named Cynegius, accompanied by the governor and a general officer with a large body of troops, by whom the imperial orders for the destruction of the temples were executed. In ten days the whole were burnt, and finally the magnificent temple of Marnas, and on the ground it occupied the foundations of a cruciform church were laid according to a plan furnished by Eudoxia, who also supplied the funds for its erection. The church was 5 years building, and was dedicated by Porphyry on Easter Day, 405 or 406, being called "Eudoxiana" after its foundress. Jerome refers to its erection (Hieron. in Esaiam, xvii. 1. vii. t. v. p. 86). The heathen population, irritated at the destruction of their sacred buildings and at the spread of Christianity in Gaza, raised a tumult, in which several Christians were killed, and Porphyry himself barely escaped with his life. We may certainly identify him with one of the two bishops of his name who attended the anti-Pelagian synod at Diospolis in 415 (Aug. in Julian. lib. i. c. 15). He died Feb. 26, 419 or 420. He is said to have been indefatigable in instructing the people of Gaza in a simple and popular style, based entirely on Holy Scripture. Migne, Patr. Lat. xlv. pp. 1211 ff.; Ceiller, Aut. eccl. vi. 329; Tillem. Mém. eccl. x. pp. 703–716.
Possidius, bp. of Calama, a town of Numidia, S. W. of Hippo, between
it and Cirta, but nearer Hippo (Aug. c. Petil. ii. 99; Kalma, Shaw,
Trav. p. 64). His own account represents him as a convert from paganism,
becoming on his conversion an inmate of the monastery at Hippo, probably
c. 390. Thenceforward he lived in intimate friendship with St. Augustine
until the latter's death in 430 (Possid. Vita Aug. praef. and cc. 12,
31). About 400 he became bp. of Calama. He seems to have established a monastery
there, and, probably early in his episcopate, consulted Augustine on (a)
the ornaments to be used by men and women, and especially earrings used as amulets;
(b) the ordination of some one who had received Donatist baptism (Aug.
Epp. 104, 4, and 245). In 401 or 402 a council was held at Carthage,
at which Possidius was present, and challenged in vain Crispinus, Donatist bp.
of Calama, to discuss publicly issues between the two parties. After this Possidius,
though he modestly conceals his own name, while going to a place in his diocese
called Figulina, was attacked by CRISPINUS,
a presbyter, and narrowly escaped alive (Aug. Ep. 103; Possid. Vit.
12). In 407 he was one of a committee of seven appointed by Xanthippus, primate
of Numidia, at the request of Maurentius, bp. of Tubursica, to decide a question,
of whose nature we are not informed, but which was at issue between himself
and the seniors of Nova Germania (Morcelli, Afr. Chr. iii. 34; Bardouin,
Conc. ii. 922; Bruns, Conc. i. 185). In 408 Possidius was again
in trouble and personal danger, in consequence of the disturbances at Calama
described above. In 409, on June 14, a council was held at Carthage, and a deputation
of four bishops, Florentinus, Possidius, Praesidius, and Benantus, was appointed
to request the protection of the emperor against the Donatists. On
Posthumianus (2), a friend of Sulpicius Severus of Gaul and Paulinus of Nola, was a native of Aquitania, and made at least two journeys to the East. After the first, when he made the acquaintance of Jerome at Bethlehem, he appears to have visited Campania to see Paulinus (S. Paulini, Epp. 16 in Migne. Patr. Lat. lxi. 227). He sailed from Narbonne in 401 or 402 on his second voyage, of which a full and interesting account is in bk. i. of the Dialogues of Sulpicius Severus (Patr. Lat. xx. 183), in which Posthumianus with Severus and Gallus are the speakers. In five days he reached Carthage, where he visited the tomb of St. Cyprian. Detained between Africa and Cyrene by bad weather, he landed to explore the country, which was inhabited by a very primitive tribe, who, however, were Christians, and was hospitably entertained by a priest. Alexandria was then convulsed by the quarrel between the patriarch Theophilus and the monks about the writings of Origen, and Posthumianus went on by land to Bethlehem, where he spent six months with Jerome, whom he praises highly both for virtue and learning. Posthumianus then returned to Alexandria, and thence went to the Thebaid, spending a year and seven months visiting its monasteries and hermitages. He penetrated into the Sinaitic peninsula, saw the Red Sea, and ascended Mount Sinai. After three years' absence he returned, taking 30 days from Alexandria to Marseilles. He may have been the priest of that name who was present at the death of Paulinus (Uranius, Ep. in Patr. Lat. liii. 861).
Potimiaena (June 28), one of the most celebrated martyrs at Alexandria in the persecution of Severus, being a virgin distinguished alike for her beauty, chastity, and courage. Eusebius (H. E. vi. 5) relates how she was cruelly tortured, and death finally inflicted by burning pitch poured slowly about her from feet to head. Her story is also given by Palladius (Hist. Laus. 3).
Pothinus (Photinus, Greg. Tur. Fotinus), martyr, first bp. of Lyons in the 2nd cent. Who consecrated him, and in what year, is unknown, though a desire to find an apostolic foundation has suggested to different writers the names of SS. Peter, John, and Polycarp His name suggests that he was a Greek. Of his episcopate we have no record beyond the account of his martyrdom by pagans, with 47 others, contained in the letter of the Christians of Lyons and Vienne to the churches of Asia and Phrygia, which Eusebius preserves. Oppressed with infirmities and more than go years old, he was dragged by soldiers before the tribunal, where he comported himself with dignity. To the question of the president what the Christians' God might be, he replied, "If thou wert worthy, thou shouldst know." The blows and ill-usage of the crowd as he was carried back to prison caused his death two days later. His successor was St. Irenaeus. Eus. H. E. v. x; Greg. Tur. Hist. Franc. i. 27; Mirac. lib. i.; de Glor. Mart. 49, 50 sqq.; Gall. Christ. iv. 4.
Praedestinatus. The author known by this name wrote an anonymous work, first pub. in 1643 from a MS. in the Cathedral Library of Rheims by Sirmond, who somewhat inappropriately gave it its title from those against whom it was directed, and several times reprinted, e.g. by Migne (Patr. Lat. liii.), and bk. i. by Oehler in his Corpus Haeresiologicum.
The author complains that men were passing themselves off as of the household of
Praxeas, a somewhat mysterious heretic about whom various theories
have been held. He was a Monarchian and Patripassian. Tertullian wrote a treatise
against him and places his scene of activity first of all at Rome, but never
mentions Noetus, Epigonus, Cleomenes, Sabellius or Callistus. On the other hand,
Hippolytus, who denounces these in his controversial works for the very same
tenets, never once mentions Praxeas as teaching at Rome or anywhere else. Some
have regarded Praxeas as simply a nick-name. Thus De Rossi (Bullet. 1866,
p. 70) identifies him with Epigonus, Hagemann (Gesch. der röm. Kirche.
§ 234) with Callistus. Döllinger however (Hippol. u. Kallist. § 198)
and Lipsius (Chronolog. der röm. Bisch. § 175) maintain that Praxeas
was a real person who first of all started the Monarchian and Patripassian heresy
in Rome, but so long before the age of Hippolytus that his name and memory had
faded in that city. They fix his period of activity in Rome during the earliest
years of Victor, a.d. 189–198,
or even the later years of his predecessor Eleutherus. This explanation, however,
seems to ignore the fact that Hippolytus must have been a full-grown man all
through Victor's episcopate, as he expressly asserts (Refut. ix. 6) that
he and Callistus were about the same age. Praxeas remained but a short time
in Rome. and the shortness of his stay offers a better explanation of Hippolytus's
silence. He then proceeded to Carthage, where he disseminated his views. Tertullian
(adv. Prax.) attacks the heresy under the name of Praxeas, the local
teacher, but was really attacking Zephyrinus and Callistus. The facts of his
life we gather from Tertullian's notices in c. 1. He was a confessor from Asia
Minor, where he had been imprisoned for the faith. Asia Minor was then the seed-plot
of Monarchian views. He came to Rome when the Montanist party had just gained
over the pope. Praxeas converted the pope back to his own opinion, which was
hostile to the Montanists. Most critics agree that the pope so converted by
Praxeas was Eleutherus: cf. Bonwetsch's Montanismus, § 174; Hilgenfeld's
Ketzergeschichte, p. 569. Dr. Salmon, however, maintains that it was
Zephyrinus. [MONTANUS.]
By this, says Tertullian, Praxeas did a twofold service for the devil at Rome,
"he drove away prophecy and he introduced heresy. He put to flight the Paraclete
and he crucified the Father." He then went to Carthage, where he induced some
to adopt his opinions. Tertullian opposed him prior to 202, according to Hilgenfeld
(l.c. p. 618), and converted Praxeas himself, who acknowledged his error
in a document extant among the Catholic party when Tertullian wrote. Praxeas
then seems to have disappeared from Carthage, while Tertullian joined the Montanists.
The controversy some years later broke out afresh, spreading doubtless from
Rome, and then Tertullian wrote his treatise, which he nominally addressed
Primasius, bp. of Adrumetum or Justinianopolis, in the Byzacene province of N. Africa. He flourished in the middle of 6th cent., and exercised considerable influence on the literary activity of the celebrated theological lawyer JUNILIUS, who dedicated to him his Institutes, which spread the views of Theodore of Mopsuestia in the West. Primasius first comes before us in a synod of his province in 541, the decrees of which are known only through Justinian's decrees confirming them, as given in Baronius, Ann. 541, n. 10–12. He was sent to Constantinople in connexion with the controversy on the Three Chapters c. 551. He assisted in the synod which pope Vigilius held against Theodore Ascidas and was still in Constantinople during the session of the fifth general council, but took no part in it, notwithstanding repeated solicitations (Mansi, ix. 199 seq.). He was one of 16 bishops who signed the Constitutum of pope Vigilius, May 14, 553. When, however, Vigilius accepted the decrees of the fifth council, Primasius signed them also. According to Victor Tunun. (Migne's Patr. Lat. t. lxviii. col. 959), other motives conspired to bring about this change. He was at first exiled to a convent, and then the death of Boethius primate of the Byzacene aroused his ambition to be his successor. He gained his point, but, returning home, his suffragans denounced him as guilty of sacrilege and robbery. He died soon afterwards. His writings (ib. pp. 407–936) embrace commentaries on St. Paul's Epp. and the Apocalypse; likewise a treatise (now lost), de Haeresibus, touching on some points which Augustine did not live to treat with sufficient fullness (Isid. HispaI.Vir. lll. xxii. in ib. lxxxiii. 1095; Cave, i. 525; Tillem. xiii. 927, xvi. 21). Our Primasius is sometimes confounded with bp. Primasius of Carthage. The best account of Primasius of Adrumetum is in Kihn's Theodor von Mopsuestia, pp. 248–254, where a critical estimate is formed "of the sources of his exegetical works. [CHILIASTS.] Cf. also Zahn, Forschungen, iv. 1–224 (1891).
Primianus, Donatist bp. of Carthage, successor to Parmenian, a.d. 392. Among many things charged against him by the Maximianists, they alleged that he admitted the Claudianists to communion and, when some of the seniors remonstrated with him, encouraged, if he did not even originate, a riotous attack upon them in a church in which some lost their lives. Further, that he was guilty of various acts of an arbitrary and violent kind, superseding bishops, excommunicating and condemning clergymen without sufficient cause, closing his church doors against the people and the imperial officers, and taking possession of buildings to which he had no right. (Aug. En. in Ps. 36, 20; c. Cresc. iv. 6, 7, and 7, 9, also 48, 58, and 50, 60; Mon. Vet. Don. xxxv. ed Oberthür.) At the proceedings before the civil magistrate, arising out of the decision of the council of Bagaia, Primian is said to have taunted his opponents with relying on imperial edicts, while his own party brought with them the Gospels only (Aug. Post Coll. xxxi. § 53). When the conference was proposed, he resisted it, remarking with scornful arrogance that "it was not fit that the sons of martyrs should confer with the brood of traditors" (Carth. Coll. iii. 116; Aug. Brevic. Coll. iii. 4, 4). As one of the seven managers at the conference, a.d. 411, on the Donatist side, he helped to delay the opening of the proceedings and to obstruct them during their progress, but showed no facility in debate (Brevic. Coll. ii. 30; Carth. Coll. i. 104). He passed a just sentence of condemnation on Cyprian, Donatist bp. of Tubursica, for an act of scandalous immorality (Aug. c. Petil. iii. 34, 40). See Dr. Sparrow Simpson, St. Aug. and Afr. Ch. Divisions (1910), p 52.
Priscillianus and Priscillianism. The Priscillianists, whose doctrines were Manichean and Gnostic in character, were organized as a sect by their founder Priscillian. The spread of the heresy was not wide either in time or space. The sect sprang up and flourished in Spain during the last third of the 4th cent. in the reigns of the emperors Gratian and Maximus. After the synod of Saragossa, 381, it ramified into Aquitaine, but never took deep root beyond the Pyrenees. Where the heresy first appeared in Spain is unrecorded. There it spread through most provinces, especially in cities. The agitation at Cordova, Merida, Avila, Astorga, Saragossa, Toledo, Braga, sufficiently indicates its prevalence and popularity. The council of Bordeaux, 384, followed by the violent measures of Maximus, intensified for a while the enthusiasm of Priscillian's adherents. But in 390, at the synod of Toledo, many leading Priscillianists recanted and were admitted to church communion. The sect continued to diminish in number. Pope Leo I. exerted himself vigorously to repress it. It lingered in Spain till the middle of the 5th cent. After the council of Toledo, 447, and that at Braga in Galicia, 448 especially held against them, they disappear from history. Priscillianism became a remembrance and a suspicion.
Marcus, a native of Memphis in Egypt, introduced the Gnostic and Manichean
heresies. Nothing is known of his life beyond his Egyptian origin, his coming
to Spain, and his teaching. Two of his followers were Agape, a Spanish lady,
and Helpidius, a rhetorician. Their convert was the layman Priscillian, whose
place of birth or residence is unknown. He was of good family, wealthy, and
well educated. He became at once an ardent proselyte; an apostle of the Oriental
doctrines. His
Among Priscillian's first and most devoted followers were two bishops, Instantius and Salvianus, in the S. of Spain. Adyginus, bp. of Cordova, was the first to oppose the rising sect. He reported the matter to Idatius, bp. of Emerita (Merida), and took counsel with him. Their conference led to an organized movement against the new errors. All S. Spain became agitated by the controversy. Idatius is blamed as too rough and violent. By intolerant severity he promoted rather than prevented the spread of the sect. Adyginus, dissatisfied with his colleague, became rather the protector of the Priscillianists and incurred thereby much reproach and odium. At length a synod was to be held at Caesar-Augusta (Saragossa) on the Ebro, a site sufficiently far north from the localities where the Priscillianists and the orthodox were in hostility to be neutral ground, and also having the advantage of nearness to Gaul. It was proposed to gather there the bishops of Spain and Aquitaine. The synod was held in 380. The Priscillianists did not venture to appear. In their absence their opinions were condemned. The four leaders, Instantius and Salvianus the bishops, Helpidius and Priscillian the laymen, were excommunicated. The bp. of Cordova fell under the lash of the leaders of the synod. He had received into terms of communion some of the heretics. The council anathematized all who shared or connived at the new errors of faith and practice. The task of promulgating the decrees and executing the ecclesiastical sentences was given to Ithacius, bp. of Sossuba. The important and lamentable result of the synod was the assumption by Ithacius of the leadership of the persecuting party.
A preconcerted counter-movement now began on the part of the Priscillianists. At the hands of Instantius and Salvianus, Priscillian received episcopal ordination. His see was Avila (Abila) on the Adaja, a tributary of the Douro, midway between Salamanca and Madrid (Hieron. de Script. Eccl.). This measure of defiance shewed the strength of his party. It led to further progress towards persecution. On behalf of the church authorities, Idacius and Ithacius applied to the secular government. Aid was brought against the heretics. Powers were asked for execution of the decree of the synod, and in 381 Gratian granted a rescript, excluding all heretics from the use of the churches and ordering them to be driven into exile. The Priscillianists were thus cut off from civil protection. Vigorous defensive measures were necessary to their very existence. An appeal was proposed by them to the two most eminent bishops of the West, Damasus of Rome and Ambrose of Milan. Their influence, it was hoped, might lead to a rescinding of the imperial decision. Instantius, Salvianus, and Priscillian went to Rome to clear themselves and their party in the papal court. On their way they penetrated into Interior Aquitaine, perhaps to try measures of conciliation among the bishops of that province, who had condemned them unseen and unknown at Saragossa: The seeds of the heresy were sown by them as they travelled. Elusa (Eluso) near Eauze, a town on the Gelise near Auch, is especially mentioned. All the church centres were, however, hostile to them. They were vigorously repulsed from Bordeaux (Burdegala), by the vigilance of bp. Delphinus. On their journey they were joined by many from Gaul whom they had infected with their errors. Euchrocia and her daughter Procula, amongst these, ministered of their substance to Priscillian and his colleagues. A promiscuous crowd of others, especially women, are mentioned. In consequence, injurious reports, probably calumnies, were vigorously circulated against Priscillian and his retinue.
On their arrival at Rome the Priscillianists were repulsed by pope Damasus. They retraced their steps to Milan, and found Ambrose, whose power and reputation were at their height, steadily opposed to them.
The Priscillianists put on a bold front and began aggressive measures against their assailants. The wealth of Priscillian and his followers was liberally employed. "The silver spears" were now in the hands of the partisans on both sides. Macedonius, the master of the offices (magister officiorum), was won over to the interests of Priscillian and his party. By his powerful influence a rescript from Gratian protecting them was obtained. The Priscillianists were to be restored to their churches and sees. Instantius and Priscillian, returning to Spain, regained their sees and churches. All things seemed turned in their favour. Idacius and Ithacius, though for the moment powerless, had not ceased to make a show of resistance. The Priscillianists charged them with causing divisions and disturbing the peace of the church, and Ithacius was compelled to fly. At Trèves resided the Caesar who ruled Gaul, Spain, and Britain. Ithacius escaped thither from Spain. Gregory, the prefect there, warmly espoused his cause and strove to bring the complaints of the orthodox bishops again before Gratian. The Priscillianists had, however, friends at court powerful enough to ward off the danger. The cause was taken out of the hands of Gregory and transferred to the court of Volventius the vicar of Spain.
An unlooked-for political change now came. The overthrow and assassination
at Paris of the unpopular Gratian, the usurpation of the purple by Clemens Maximus,
his proclamation as emperor by his soldiers in Britain, his triumphant entrance
into Gaul, with the consequent official changes, destroyed all the bright hopes
of the Priscillianists. The fortunes of their adversaries revived. On the arrival
of Maximus at Trèves in 384 Ithacius brought a formal accusation with heavy
charges against
At Trèves there was one at this crisis of the church whose prophetic insight saw the real significance of the issues at stake, Martin, bp. of Tours, whose influence was then at its height. Through his mediation between the contending parties, the trial of Priscillian was delayed, Maximus for a while yielding to his protests, even consenting to promise him that no life should be sacrificed. But at last St. Martin, at the call of other duties, was obliged to withdraw from Trèves. The emperor was now surrounded by other influences. By Idacius and Ithacius, ably supported by two bishops of a like stamp, Magnus and Rufus, powerful at court, Maximus was unremittingly urged to take severe measures.
The trial of the Priscillianists, once resolved upon, was soon brought about and they became a defenceless prey to their enemies. Their "appeal unto Caesar" was truly an appeal to a pitiless Nero. As a stroke of state policy nothing could be wiser in the eyes of the adherents of Maximus than their destruction. Both pagan and Christian authorities attribute mercenary motives to the emperor and state that the possessions of the rich Priscillian and of his followers excited his cupidity (Sulp. Sev. Dialog. iii. 9; Panegyr. of Lat. Pac. Drep. on Theodosius, Panegyr. Vet. xvi. 29). At the same time there could not be a more brilliant inauguration of the new reign than a vigorous assertion of orthodoxy on the lines of the now famous Theodosian decrees.
Priscillian and his chief followers were condemned to death by the imperial consistory at Trèves. Several others, after confiscation of their goods, were banished to the Scilly Isles, others into Gaul. Priscillian is recorded as the first of those who suffered death ("gladio perempti"). With him died two presbyters, lately become disciples, Felicissimus and Armenius, and Latronianus a poet and Euchrocia the rich and noble matron of Bordeaux. Instantius, deposed from his bishopric by the synod of Bordeaux, and Tiberianus were banished to the desolate Scilly Isles. Asarinus and Aurelius, two deacons, were executed. Tertullus, Potamius, and Johannes, as meaner followers who turned king's evidence, were temporarily banished within Gaul.
The immediate consequences were not reassuring to the persecuting party. At Trèves a violent strife arose between the bishops present on the merits of Priscillian's execution. Theognistes, a bishop of independent mind, boldly led the non-contents, refusing church communion to Ithacius and the others guilty of the judicial bloodshed. In Spain the Priscillianist enthusiasm was for a while intensified. The number of followers grew. The bodies of those who had suffered at Trèves were brought to Spain and their obsequies celebrated with great pomp. Priscillian, before revered as a saint, was now, says Sulpicius, worshipped as a martyr. Signs were not wanting, and terrified the orthodox,, that the Priscillianist society aimed at shrouding themselves under the guise of a secret religious association.
Additional severities were proposed. Maximus resolved to send military tribunes to Spain with unlimited powers. They were to investigate charges of heresy, examine heretics, take life and property from the guilty. They were men little likely to temper justice with mercy. At this juncture Martin of Tours returned to Trèves. No efforts could induce him to be reconciled to the promoters and abettors of the late executions. The persuasion and threats of the emperor failing to move him, he was dismissed the imperial presence in anger. Tidings reached Martin that the tribunes had been really sent to Spain. He hurried to the palace, though it was night, and agreed to unite with the bishops in church fellowship. The emperor yielded to his importunity and Martin's firmness and zeal on the side of humanity were rewarded. The tribunes were recalled and the peninsula spared the horrors of a religious proscription.
The schism continued some time between those that approved and those that condemned the severities against Priscillian. For 15 years the contention was extreme, and the merits of the controversy long continued to be canvassed. The violent means had certainly not extinguished the heresy, which seemed even to take deeper root in Spain. In 400 at a council at Toledo many Priscillianists came over and were readmitted to Catholic communion. Amongst these was Dictinnius, a Priscillianist bishop, author of The Scales (Libra), wherein Priscillianist opinions were expounded and advocated. In 415 a Spanish presbyter, Orosius, wrote to Augustine concerning the sect. A long letter of Augustine is extant, written to Ceretius, a bishop, respecting the apocryphal Priscillianist Scriptures, especially a hymn attributed to Christ. Forty years later Turribius, bp. of Astorga, wrote in sorrow and perplexity to pope Leo I., asking advice for dealing with these insidious and dangerous adversaries. Two councils pursuant to Leo's recommendation were held: one at Toledo in 447, the other at Braga in Galicia in 448, where Priscillianism was condemned with the usual anathemas. A last contemporary mention of the Priscillianists comes in combination with the Arians, in the Acts of the council of Braga, in 563.
No ancient writer has given an accurate account of the Priscillianist doctrine.
Our knowledge has to be gathered from the meagre accounts of their adversaries,
the correspondence of eminent men of the time, the acts and canons of councils,
the church histories, and a few verbal allusions in contemporary pagan
There are no authentic extant records of the Priscillianist writers. A fragment of a letter of Priscillian himself has come down to us in quotation (Orosii Common. in Aug. Op.). There are allusions to a multitude of apocryphal scriptures which they used, thus differing from most heretical sects in accepting all apocryphal and canonical books as scripture, explaining and adapting them to their purpose in a mystical manner.
Our clearest account of their tenets is in the controversial correspondence slightly later than Priscillian, between Leo the Great and Turribius, bp. of Astorga. The latter summed up the doctrines in 16 articles. Leo replied in a lengthy epistle, commenting seriatim on each proposition (Leo, Ep. xv.).
(1) Their wild cosmical speculations were based on the bold Gnostic and Manichean conceptions of a primeval dualism. The two opposite realms of light and darkness, in eternal antagonism, were their basis.
(2) Their anti-materialism led them very far from the sublime simplicity of Scripture. Perplexed by the insoluble problem of the origin of sin, they indulged in most fantastic dreams and myths.
(3) The astrological fatalism which pope Leo condemned so sternly as subversive of all moral distinctions was a striking peculiarity (Leo, Ep. xv. 11–12). They believed the 12 signs of the Zodiac to have a mysterious supremacy over the members of the body.
(4) Their Christology is difficult to gather. If they held a Trinity at all, it was but a Trinity of names. Their adversaries accused them of Arianism and Sabellianism. Leo sharply criticizes their application and interpretation of the Scripture attributive of the Redeemer, "the Only-begotten."
(5) Their rigid asceticism resulted directly from their idea of the innate evil of matter. Marriage was proscribed; austerities of all sorts required.
(6) Their moral system plainly deserves the charge of dissimulation. Holding
an esoteric and exoteric doctrine, they, with some other theosophic sects, affirmed
falsehood allowable for a holy end; absolute veracity only binding between fellow-members.
To the unenlightened they need not always and absolutely state the whole truth.
This looseness of principle they supported by Scripture, distorting, e.g.,
Priscus (11), St., 30th archbp. of Lyons, has been the subject of much controversy. Gregory of Tours, the historian, his contemporary, brings against him the gravest charges. According to the Hist. Franc. (iv. 36), he set himself, with his wife Susanna, to persecute and destroy those who had been the friends of his predecessor St. Nicetius, out of malice and jealousy, and never wearied of declaiming against his memory. The Vitae Patrum (viii. 5) also has an instance of his contempt for the same prelate, whose chaplain he is said to have been. On the other hand, he is numbered by the church among the saints. He was present at numerous councils, the 4th of Paris in 573, Châlons in 579, Mâcon in 581 or 583, 3rd of Lyons in 581, another at Lyons in 583, Valence in 584 or 585, and the 2nd of Mâcon in 585, at some of which he presided, and at the last was honoured in the preface with the dignified title, very rare in the West, of patriarcha (Mansi, ix. 949; Ceillier, xi. 896). For these and other reasons the Bollandists (Acta SS. Jun. vi. 120–127) refuse credence to Gregory's charges.
Privatus (2), once bp. of the important but shortlived city of Lambaesis in Numidia, the present Tazzût or Tezzulot (Momms.). He was condemned for heresy and multa et gravia delicta, by 90 bishops at a council under Donatus, bp. of Carthage (Cypr. Ep. 59, xiii.; 10), and apparently under the Roman bishopric of Fabian (a.d. 240, Morcelli). Apparently the council was held at Lambaesis, and afterwards Donatus and Fabian issued letters condemnatory of Privatus and his opinions.
In 250 Privatus visited Rome, and Cyprian, apprehensive of his influence, warned the clergy against him. They replied (Ep. xxxvi. 4) that they had already detected him in an attempt to obtain litterae (communicatoriae) from them fraudulently.
He presented himself (vetus haereticus) and desired to be heard on
behalf of the party who took the lax view as to the lapsi, at the 2nd
council Id. Mai., 252, and, on being rejected,
Probus (4), Sextus Anicius Petronius (Corp. Inscrip. vi. i, n. 1752), a member of one of the most illustrious families in Rome, consul with Gratian in a.d. 371, and four times pretorian prefect of Italy, Illyricum, the Gauls, and Africa. He had also been proconsul in Africa in 358 (Cod. Theod. xi. 36; xiii.). He was appointed pretorian prefect of Italy and Illyricum in 368 (Ammian. xxvii. 1). During his tenure of office he chose St. Ambrose, then a young advocate, as one of his council, and afterwards appointed him governor of Liguria and Aemilia with the rank of consular. On this occasion Probus uttered the words, afterwards considered prophetic, "Go, act not as a judge but as a bishop"; and many years later he sent one of his servants, who was possessed with a devil, to be healed by him (Paulinus, Vita Ambr. 5, 8, 21, in Migne, Patr. Lat. xiv. 28, 29, 34). Probus continued prefect of Italy until Valentinian died in 374. He appears as pretorian prefect of Italy in 380, and as pretorian prefect in 383–384 (Cod. Theod. vi. 28 ii.; xi. 13 i.; vi. 30 vi.). After the murder of Gratian in 383 he acted as regent to Valentinian II. in Italy, accompanying him and his mother Justina in their flight to Thessalonica on the invasion of Maximus in 387 (Socr. H. E. v. 11; Soz. H. E. vii. 13). He died before the end of 394 (Claudian. in Prob. et Ol. Cons. 31) at the age of nearly 60, after having received baptism (Corp Inscrip. vi. 1, p. 389). It may be owing to his Christianity that Ammianus (xxvii. 11) paints him in such unfavourable colours, a remarkable contrast to the glowing panegyric of Claudian and Ausonius (Ep. 16). All agree as to his immense wealth and boundless liberality. His wife Anicia Faltonia Proba belonged to the Anician house, and their sons Probinus and Olybrius had the unique honour of being consuls together in 395. Six letters of Symmachus, who was his intimate friend (Epp. i. 56–61), are addressed to him (Tillem. Emp. v. 42, 72).
Prochorus (Πρόχορος), the name
of one of the seven deacons in
Under his name has been preserved an apocryphal History of the Apostle John, first published in the Greek text by Michael Neander in the appendix to the 3rd ed. of his Graeco-Latin version of Luther's Short Catechism, along with a Latin trans. by Sebastian Castalio (Catechesis Martini Lutheri parva graeco-latina postremum recognita, Basileae, 1567, pp. 526–663).
The narrative begins with the parting of the apostles and St. John's mission into Asia. In punishment for a first refusal to go by sea John suffers shipwreck, but arrives safely at Ephesus, accompanied by Prochoros his disciple. Here he takes service in a public bath; restores to life the owner's son, who has been slain by a demon, destroys the image of Diana (Artemis) and expels the demon which had harboured there; is banished himself, but soon returns to be again exiled to Patmos by command of the emperor. On the voyage thither he restores a drowned man to life, stills a tempest, and heals a sick guardsman. The greater part of the subsequent narrative is occupied with the wondrous deeds of the apostle in his banishment, his victorious encounters with demons and sorcerers, his refutation of a learned Jew in a public dispute, numerous miracles of healing and raising from the dead, and triumphant issues out of every conflict in which his persecuting enemies involve him. After a residence in Patmos of 15 years he has converted almost the whole island. Receiving permission to return to Ephesus, he first retires to a solitary place in the island (κατάπαυσις) and there dictates his gospel to Prochoros, and when finished leaves it behind as a memorial of his work in Patmos. He then goes by ship to Ephesus, and dwells there in the house of Domnus, whom he had formerly in his youth raised to life. After residing 26 years more at Ephesus he buries himself alive. Prochoros and six other disciples dig his grave, and when he has laid himself in it, cover him with earth. On the grave being subsequently reopened, the apostle has disappeared.
This writing of the alleged Prochoros is, in its main contents at least, in no way a recension of the old Gnostic Acts of John, but the independent work of some Catholic author. Though the writer makes some use of the Gnostic Acts, he can hardly have known them in their original text. Its purpose seems to be to supplement the Ephesian histories of the apostle which already existed in a Catholic recession by a detailed account of his deeds and adventures in Patmos. The author can have had no local interest in its composition. His notions of the situation, size, and general characteristics of the island, which he certainly never saw, are most extraordinary. In constructing his narrative he has made only partial use of older materials. By far the most of these narrations of the pretended Prochoros are free inventions of his own. None betray any leaning towards Gnosticism. The author shews no tendency to ascetic views except where he draws from older sources; and even in discourses attributed to the apostle the theological element is quite subordinate. He takes no notice of the Apocalypse, and, in opposition to the older tradition, places the composition of the gospel in Patmos. The account given of this is certainly not derived from the Gnostic Περίοδοι.
The date of composition cannot be later than the middle of 5th cent., since
it is made use of, not only in the Chronicon Paschale (pp. 761, 470,
ed. Bonn; cf. Zahn, pp. 162 sqq.), but also in the accounts of the apostles
attributed to Dorotheus, Hippolytus, and others. The terminus a quo is
the end of the 4th or beginning of the 5th cent., since, from that time onwards
and not before, Catholic writers appear to have known the Gnostic histories
of the apostles. With this, moreover; agrees the fact that the author can assume
a universal diffusion of Christianity in Ephesus and the Aegean Archipelago.
It is more difficult to determine the place of composition. The
Proclus (1) (Proculus), a Montanist teacher, and probably the introducer of Montanism into Rome at the very beginning of the 3rd cent. For the account given by Tertullian (adv. Prax. 1) of the apparently favourable reception the new prophesying at first met with at Rome, and its subsequent rejection, see MONTANISM. Proclus was publicly opposed by Caius, commonly called a Roman presbyter, and the record of their disputation, though now lost, was read by Eusebius, and is mentioned by several other writers. [CAIUS.] Pseudo-Tertullian states (Haer. 21) that the Montanists were divided into two sections by the Patripassian controversy, Proclus leading the section whose doctrine on that subject agreed with that of the church, and Aeschines the opposite section. This schism among the Montanists is mentioned also by Hippolytus (Ref. viii. 19).
We can scarcely be wrong in identifying Proclus the Montanist with the Proculus whom Tertullian in his tract against the Valentinians (c. 5) calls "Proculus noster, virginis senectae et Christianae eloquentiae dignitas." He there refers to him as one who, like Justin Martyr, Miltiades, and Irenaeus, successfully confuted heresy. He is also named as a leader of the Montanists by Pacian (Ep. ad Sympron.), and no doubt it is his name which is disguised as Patroclus in the MSS. of Theodoret (Haer. Fab. iii. 2).
Proclus (2), St., patriarch of Constantinople. The friend and disciple of Chrysostom, he became secretary to Atticus the patriarch, who ordained him deacon and priest. Sisinnius, the successor of Atticus, consecrated him bp. of Cyzicus, but the people there refused to receive him, and he remained at Constantinople. On the death of Sisinnius, the famous NESTORIUS succeeded, and early in 429, on a festival of the Virgin, Proclus preached the celebrated sermon on the Incarnation inserted in the beginning of the Acts of the council of Ephesus. When Maximianus died on Thur. before Easter, 434, Proclus was, by the permission of Theodosius, immediately enthroned by the bishops at Constantinople. His first care was the funeral of his predecessor, and he then sent both to Cyril and John of Antioch the usual synodical letters announcing his appointment, both of whom approved of it. In 436 the bishops of Armenia consulted him upon certain doctrines prevalent in their country and attributed to Theodore of Mopsuestia, asking for their condemnation. Proclus replied (437) in the celebrated letter known as the Tome of Proclus, which he sent to the Eastern bishops asking them to sign it and to join in condemning the doctrines arraigned by the Armenians. They approved of the letters, but from admiration of Theodore hesitated to condemn the doctrines attributed to him. Proclus replied that while he desired the extracts subjoined to his Tome to be condemned, he had not attributed them to Theodore or any individual, not desiring the condemnation of any person. A rescript from Theodosius procured by Proclus, declaring his wish that all should live in peace and that no imputation should be made against any one who died in communion with the church, appeased the storm. The whole affair shewed conspicuously the moderation and tact of Proclus. In 438 he transported to Constantinople from Comana, and interred with great honour in the church of the Apostles, the remains of his old master St. Chrysostom, and thereby reconciled to the church his adherents who had separated in consequence of his condemnation. In 439, at the request of a deputation from Caesarea in Cappadocia, he selected as their new bishop Thalassius, who was about to be appointed pretorian prefect of the East. In the time of Proclus the Trisagion came into use. The occasion is said to have been a time when violent earthquakes lasted for four months at Constantinople, so that the people were obliged to leave the city and encamp in the fields. Proclus died most probably in July 446. He appears to have been wise, moderate, and conciliatory, desirous, while strictly adhering to orthodoxy himself, to win over those who differed from him by persuasion rather than force.
His works (Migne, Patr. Gk. lxv. 651) consist of 20 sermons (some
of doubtful authenticity), 5 more pub. by Card. Mai (Spic. Rom. iv. xliii.
lxxviii.), of which 3 are preserved only in a Syriac version, the Greek being
lost; 7 letters, along with several addressed to him by other persons; and a
few fragments of other letters and sermons. Socr. H. E. vii. xxvi., and
passim; Theophan. sub an. 430; Tillem. Mém. eccl. xiv.
704; AA. SS.
Procopius (8) Gazaeus, Christian sophist, temp. Justin and Justinian (518–565). Of his life we know only that he was the preceptor of Choricius the sophist. His fame rests on his Scripture commentaries. These, though diffuse, are but abridgements of the collections he had made (see his Prolog. to the commentary on Gen.); his profession of belief as to the nature of the Triune God, and the importance, authority, and interpretation of Scripture, is very satisfactory. His style is highly polished and concise. He must be distinguished from his contemporary sophist, PROCOPIUS (9) OF CAESAREA. His collected works are pub. by Migne, Patr. Gk. lxxxvii. in 3 parts, but his commentaries have also appeared separately. Of more doubtful authenticity and probably belonging to Procopius Caesarensis, though commonly attributed to P. Gazaeus is Panegyricus in Imp. Anastasium (Gk. and Lat.) in Corp. Script. Hist. Byz. (Bonnae, 1829), pp. 489 seq. and Migne u.s. pt. iii.; Descriptio Basilicae Sanctae Sophiae (Gk. and Lat.) Migne, ib.; and Menodia in S. Sophiam terraemotu collapsum (Gk. and Lat.) in Migne, ib. pt. ii. (Cellier, Aut. Sacr. xi. 176 seq.; Cave, Hist. Lit. i. 504; Fabricius, Bibl. Graec. vi. 258; vii. 535; viii. 375; ix. 447; L. Eisenhofer, Procopius von Gaza, Freiburg i/Br. 1897.)
Procopius (9) of Caesarea, Byzantine historian.
We meet him first c. 527, when he was sent by Justinian to accompany Belisarius, as secretary and privy councillor, in his expeditions against the Persians. In 533 he was with him in Africa, warring against the Vandals, and, after their subjection, was left behind to reduce the conquered into order. A mutiny of the soldiers drove him in 536 to Sicily, which Belisarius was then engaged in reducing, and he accompanied the latter into Italy in his campaign against the Goths. In 542 Procopius returned to Constantinople, where he seems to have remained to the end of his life, devoting himself mainly to writing a history of the expeditions, in which he had borne no unimportant part.
It is a question whether he was a Christian or a heathen. He speaks of the church of St. Sophia at Constantinople as the temple of the great Christ of God (τὸ ἱερὸν τοῦ μεγάλου Χριστοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ, de Bell. Vandal. i. 6). He describes Jesus as the Son of God Who went about clothed with a human body, shewing that He was the Son of God both by His sinless life and His superhuman deeds (de Bell. Pers. ii. 12). Christians are in his eyes those who have right opinions respecting God (de Bell. Vandal. i. 21). The Virgin Mary is often mentioned under the name θεοτόκος (e.g. de Aedif. v. 7). The Hellenic religion is alluded to as impiety (ib. vi. 4). On the other hand, he often alludes alike to Christians and heretics as if he occupied a calm position superior to them both (de Bell. Pers. i. 18). The controversies of the church had done much to alienate him from doctrinal Christianity; and, though he does speak at times as if he had embraced some of its distinct tenets, it is hardly possible to think that he had done so in the sense of regarding them as an express revelation of divine truth to man.
His works consist of a history of the Persian war from 408 to 549; a history of the war with the Vandals in Africa from 395 to 545; a history of the Gothic wars in Italy from 487 to 574; a work de Aedificiis Justiniani Imp.; and a work entitled Anecdota or a secret history of Justinian, the empress Theodora, Belisarius, his wife Antonina, and others of the court. This last, intended for publication only after the author's death, is described by Cave in the strongest terms of reprobation, as written to shew the court of Justinian as no better than a diabolorum lerna, and as exhibiting such audacity, falsehood, calumny, and charges of unheard-of crimes, that it has been doubted whether Procopius really wrote it. (See Schröckh, vol. xvi. p. 168, etc.)
As to the value of the three works first mentioned there can be no doubt. Procopius had enjoyed most favourable opportunities of acquainting himself with the events he describes. Gibbon draws largely on the "sober testimony of Procopius," and also describes him as "the gravest historian of the times" (c. xxxviii.).
De Aedificiis is throughout a tribute to the glory of Justinian. It is devoted to a description of the great buildings, temples, forts, castles, bridges, monasteries, and structures of every description erected by Justinian in all the different parts of the Roman empire.
The works of Procopius may be consulted with advantage for information on such points as the condition of the nations and tribes of the Abasgi, Bruchi, Alani, Franks, Goths, Huns, Persians, Vandals; the wars of Belisarius, his character and life; geographical notices of towns, rivers, seas, mountains, and countries over a widespread area; the names of the bishops, and the ecclesiastical occurrences of his time, etc. The best ed. is that of Dindorf in the Corpus Script. Hist. Byz., with the Latin trans. of Maltritus.
Proculus, Montanist. [PROCLUS.]
Proculus (7), bp. of Marseilles, at the council of Aquileia, a.d. 381, where he joined in condemning the errors of Palladius and Secundinianus (Ambros. Ep. viii. pp. 916 (786), 935 (802), 939 (805), ed. Migne). At the council of Turin, a.d. 399, or more probably 401, though Fleury places it as late as 404, Proculus claimed the primacy as metropolitan over the churches not only of his own province, but also of Nabonensis Secunda. The council, while ruling that the bishop of the civil metropolis of a province should be regarded as the metropolitan, sanctioned the claim of Proculus for his own life, in consideration of his age and high reputation (Bruns, Conc. ii. 114; Baron. vol. v. 397, 43; Fleury, H. E. xxi. 52). His high character is acknowledged by St. Jerome in his letter to Rusticus, a.d. 411 (Ep. 125, 20); but pope Zosimus seems to have had a strong feeling against him, and in 417 decreed that Patroclus, bp. of Arles from 412, was entitled to rank as metropolitan. Whether our Proculus was the Gallic bp. of that name to whom St. Augustine wrote in 427 is not quite clear. Tillem. vol. x. pp. 698, 699; Ceillier, vii. pp. 528–537.
Prodicus, a Gnostic teacher of 2nd cent., concerning whom trustworthy
information is very scanty. He is not mentioned by the principal writers on
heresies, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Epiphanius, or Philaster. Tertullian twice mentions
him (Scorpiace 15; adv. Prax. 3), both times in company with Valentinus,
in such a way as to suggest that he regarded the two heretics as of the same
school. In the first passage Prodicus and Valentinus are spoken of as teaching
that Christ did not wish His disciples to confess Him publicly if that would
expose their lives to danger; in the second they are described as introducing
in opposition to the Creator, not a single rival god like Marcion, but a multiplicity
of gods. Our only other trustworthy information about Prodicus is in three notices
by Clement of Alexandria. The first (Strom. i. 15, p. 359) states that
those who followed the heresy of Prodicus boasted of possessing secret books
of Zoroaster. Apparently in Clement's time Prodicus was dead, but a sect founded
by him still in existence. Strom.. vii. 7, p. 854 states that his followers
objected to the practice of prayer. Clement does not state their grounds of
objection. The most characteristic notice of the sect is (ib. iii. 4,
p. 525) that his followers who claim to be Gnostics (falsely so called) declare
that they are by nature children of the first god, and privileged by their noble
birth
For further information we have to come down to the 5th cent. to Theodoret (Haer. Fab. i. 6), who seems to have no knowledge of Prodicus except from Clement, whom he quotes, mixing up, however, some of the things which Clement says about other licentious Gnostic sects; e.g. it seems an unauthorized combination of Theodoret's to connect Prodicus with Carpocrates, and we may reject as equally arbitrary Theodoret's assertion that he founded the sect of the Adamites, of which Theodoret would have read in Epiphanius (Haer. 52).
Prosper (4), St., a native of Aquitaine, not certainly known to have
been in holy orders; probably born c. 403. About 426–429 he removed to
Marseilles, where he lived as a monk until 440. Some time between 420 and 427
John Cassian put forth in his Collationes a doctrine concerning grace
and free will contrary to that taught by St. Augustine. This doctrine was taken
up warmly by many monks at Marseilles, and both Prosper and Hilary (as to whom
see further on), afraid lest a doctrine they believed erroneous should become
prevalent among the monks, were thinking of writing to Augustine to request
him to explain some of his statements. In the meantime came out Augustine's
Correptione et Gratia, by which Prosper hoped all doubts would be settled.
But those who thought differently only became more obstinate in their opposition.
Although Prosper had never seen Augustine, he had written to him by Leontius,
a deacon, and received a reply, but neither letter nor reply has survived. He
now wrote again to him in 428, as also did Hilary, and his reply to these letters
is contained in the consecutive treatises de Praedestinatione Sanctorum
and de Dono Perseverantiae, written either in 428 or 429 (see Aug.
Epp. 225, 226; and Opp. vol. x. pp. 947–1034, ed. Migne). [AUGUSTINE.]
Augustine died a.d. 430, and the opponents of his doctrine in Gaul professing
willingness to abide by the decision of the Roman pontiff, Hilary and Prosper
went to Rome and brought back a letter from Celestine I. to the Gallic bishops,
Venerius of Marseilles, Marinus, Leontius of Fréjus, Auxentius of Nice, Auxonius
of Viviers, and Arcadius of Venice. In this he speaks of Hilary and Prosper
as men "quorum circa Deum nostrum solicitudo laudanda est," and reproved, but
without effect, the indiscretion and ill-informed zeal of their opponents (Coelest.
Ep. xxi. 1, 2). To this letter are subjoined in some editions a series
of so-called decisions of the apostolic see concerning grace and free will,
which, however, cannot be regarded as authentic. When Leo I. returned from his
mission into Gaul, a.d. 440, to be made pope, he persuaded Prosper to accompany
him to Rome, and employed him as his secretary (notarius). Photius says
that he confuted the Pelagians at Rome in the time of Leo, and a MS. of the
monastery of Corbey adds, but without mention of authority, that he was sent
by him on a similar errand into Campania to oppose Julian of Eclanum. Gennadius
says that he was the real author of the epistle of Leo against Eutyches concerning
the incarnation of Christ. The chronicle of Marcellinus shews him alive in 463.
Fulgentius (ad. Mon. i. c. 30) speaks of him as "eruditus et Sanctus";
Photius (Biblioth. 54) as one who was truly a man of God, but with no
other title than Πρόσπειρός τις, who confuted
the Pelagians in the time of Leo. Gennadius, no friend to him, speaks of him
(de Scr. Ecc. 84) as "sermone scholasticus et assertionibus nervosus"
(Butler, Lives of Saints, June 25; Ceillier, vol. x. p. 278). The letter
of Prosper to Augustine describes the view taken at Marseilles and elsewhere
concerning predestination. Those who adopted it, he says, believe that mankind
has sinned in Adam, and that without God's grace there can be no salvation for
any one. God offers salvation to all, so that they who attain faith and receive
baptism are in the way of being saved. But before the creation of the world
God foreknew who would believe and be saved, and predestined them to His kingdom,
being called by grace and worthy of being chosen and of going out of life sound
in faith. No man, therefore, need despair of salvation, but this selection on
God's part makes human exertion needless either for recovery from sin or for
progress in holiness. Thus a doctrine of fatal necessity is introduced. They
also think that men can by their own merit, by praying, beseeching, knocking,
attain that state of grace in which we are born anew unto Christ. Infants dying
without baptism will be saved or not according as God foreknows what their conduct
would have been if they had grown up. Christ died for the whole race of mankind,
but some miss this salvation because they are known beforehand to have no inclination
to receive it. They also deny that the merits of saints proceed from divine
grace, and that the number of the elect can be either increased or diminished,
and they assert that the only way in which a man is called either to repentance
or to progress in holiness is by the exercise of his own free will. They thus
place obedience before grace, and the first step towards salvation in him who
is to be saved, not in Him Who saves. Great difficulties arise, Prosper says,
in his attempts to convince the holders of these opinions of their errors, from
his own want of ability and from the great and acknowledged sanctity of their
lives, a remark which he probably intends especially of Cassian; and also from
the elevation of some of them to the highest office in the church. He therefore
begs Augustine to explain (a) how Christian faith can escape division
through these disputes; (b) how free will can be independent of prevenient
grace; (c) whether God's foreknowledge is absolute and complete; (d)
whether foreknowledge depends in any way on human purpose, and whether there
can be any good which does not proceed from God; (e) how those who despair
of their own election can escape carelessness of life. He asks him to explain
all this in a way consistent with God's previous ordinance of vessels of honour
and dishonour. One of these men, Hilary, bp. of Arles, is known to Augustine
as an admirer of his doctrine and as wishing to compare his own view with his
The letter of Prosper was accompanied or very soon followed by one on the same subject by Hilary, concerning whom three opinions have been held: (1) That he was the bp. of Arles mentioned by Prosper; (2) that he was a lay monk of Gaul; (3) that he was the Hilary who wrote to Augustine from Syracuse, a.d. 414. That he was a lay monk appears tolerably clear. Augustine replied in the de Praed. and de Don. Persev., which are really consecutive volumes of one work.
About the same time Prosper wrote an answer on the same subject to a friend named Ruffinus or Rufinus, about whom nothing is known except that Prosper addresses him as Sanctitas tua, perhaps implying a member of a religious community. He wrote partly to vindicate himself from unfavourable reports as to his doctrine, partly to direct his attention to the writings of Augustine and clear them from the accusation of denying free will and setting up Manichean doctrine. The line of argument against Pelagian or semi-Pelagian views is much the same as in the letter to Augustine, but he also mentions the cases of Cornelius and Lydia as instances of persons who had been led by God's grace into the way of eternal life, and as not by any means favouring the Pelagian theory. Why all men are not saved is a mystery of God's, not explicable by, human understanding, and of which we may be thankful to be ignorant (Ep. ad Rufin.; for a long account of which see Ceillier, vol. x. 279–284).
Prosper also wrote or compiled several works in prose and verse.
I. VERSE.—The longest is the poem de Ingratis, a term by which he describes those who teach erroneous doctrine about grace, viz. the Pelagians and semi-Pelagians. It is explained clearly in v. 685:
It consists of 1002 lines with a short elegiac preface, and is divided into four parts. A theological treatise in verse rather than a poem, it describes accurately the history of the Pelagian doctrine, whose author it calls "coluber Britannus," and mentions the treatment his opinions met at Rome, in the Eastern church and in Africa through the influence mainly of Augustine, "the light of the age." The manner in which the Roman church is spoken of is worthy of notice, v. 40:
Though without any claim to high rank as poetry, and exhibiting, though in a less degree than does Paulinus, the degenerate standard of its age in language and versification, it treats its subject with well-sustained vigour and generally with clearness, and now and then expresses theological truths, though perhaps with severity, yet with remarkable force and terseness. Ampère condemns what he considers its violence, its hard, melancholy, and desponding tone, amounting sometimes "to a pale reflection of hell." He also points out a similarity in its sentiment to some works of Pascal and the Port-Royalists, which he contrasts unfavourably with the tone of Bossuet in his essay on the fear of God (Hist. litt. de France, vol. ii. c. 16, pp. 38–58).
There are other poems of an epigrammatic kind, generally regarded as genuine works of Prosper, though doubted by some editors. Two of them, doubted by Garnier, are addressed to a maligner (obtrectatorem) of St. Augustine. Another, entitled Conjugis ad Uxorem, is in some edd. of Paulinus's works, but is quoted by Bede in his treatise de Arte Metrica as the work of Prosper Tiro. It consists of 16 lines of Anacreontic metre, followed by 98 elegiac lines, describing the glory of the Christian life and having some passages of considerable force and beauty both of thought and expression. It was evidently composed during the confusion and disaster caused by the barbarian invasions, hence c. 407, but there is no evidence to shew that Prosper of Aquitaine was ever married, and if not besides the improbability arising from its date, the poem is not likely to be his composition.
II. PROSE.—(1) Responsiones
pro Augustino ad Capitula Gallorum. A statement under 15 heads of the objections
of the Gallic bishops to the doctrines of St. Augustine on Predestination, with
answers to each. (2) Responsiones ad Capitula Objectionum Vincentianarum.
A similar work in 16 chapters. The objections express, in a manner harsh, revolting,
and unfair, the possible results of predestinarian doctrine carried to its extreme
point. (3) Responsiones ad Excerpta Genuensium.—Some clergymen of Genoa
had misunderstood various passages from the two treatises of St. Augustine,
de Praedestinatione Sanctorum, and de Dono Perseverantiae, and
to them Prosper addresses a courteous explanation, quoting passages cited by
them and adding his own replies, gathered in some cases from the words of Augustine,
and in one case pointing out an egregious blunder made by them in quoting as
his opinion words intended to express an opponent's objection. (4) Contra
Collatorem. John Cassian had written a book entitled Spiritual Conferences
(Collationes), 17 in number, in the 13th of which, entitled de Protectione
Dei, he condemned severely Augustine's doctrine on predestination. This
is defended by Prosper partly by arguments drawn from Scripture and the nature
of the case, and partly by the authority of the churches of Rome, the East,
and Africa. He warns his adversary of his near approach to the precipices of
Pelagianism, and expresses the hope that his doctrine may be condemned by the
present pontiff Sixtus (432–440), as it had been by those before him. The book
must have been published between those dates. (5) An Exposition of Pss. c.
to cl., (omitting cvii. [cviii.]), taken substantially and often verbally,
though much abridged, from St. Augustine's Enarrationes in Psalmos; not
a mere servile curtailment, but a fair and judicious representation, executed
with great skill, of the Augustinian work, together with some additions of Prospers
own, probably published c. 435. (6) Book of Sentences taken from the
Works of St. Augustine, 392 in number, put together, probably, originally
as a manual
(6 a) The Chronicle, probably the best known of the works of Prosper, is attributed to him without hesitation by Cassiodorus, Gennadius of Marseilles, Victorius, and Isidore, though Pithou and Garnier doubted it. It extends from the earliest age to the capture of Rome by the Vandals, a.d. 455, and consists of three parts: (1) To a.d. 326, founded, as it states, on that of Eusebius, and though much abridged, treating the subject with some independence. (2) From 326 to 378, which uses similarly Jerome's continuation of Eusebius, with both additions and omissions. (3) From 378 to 455. As might be expected, predominance is given to ecclesiastical events, especially such as concern the rise and fall of heretical doctrines. The Chronicle arose out of an endeavour to fix the date of Easter, for which purpose Prosper constructed a Paschal cycle now lost.
(b) Chronicle of Tiro Prosper. Besides the Chronicle just described, another much shorter and relating to the latest period only, bearing the name of Prosper, was edited by Pierre Pithou in 1588 from MSS. in the library of the monastery of St. Victor at Paris. It is difficult to believe that the two Chronicles could be by the same writer, or if they were, to understand why he published both, as must have been the case, about the same timer It is much more probable that Prosper of Aquitaine and Tiro Prosper, despite an apparently mistaken statement of Bede, were different persons.
The best ed. of Prosper's collected works, by Desprez and Desessarts (Paris, 1711), contains all the works rightly attributed to Prosper, together with others not belonging to him, and various pieces relating to the semi-Pelagian controversy. It is revised and reprinted in Migne's Patr. Lat. vol. li. See L. Valentin, St. Prosper d’Aquitaine (Paris, 1900).
Proterius, St., patriarch of Alexandria, was presbyter and church-steward
under Dioscorus, and left in charge of the church when Dioscorus went to the
council of Chalcedon. After Dioscorus was deposed by that council, the emperor
Marcian ordered a new election to the see. The suffragan bishops, except 13
detained at Constantinople by a resolution of the council (Chalced. c. 30),
were assembled in synod; and the chief laymen of Alexandria came as usual to
express their mind and assent to the prelate's choice (cf. Liberat. Breviar.
c. 14, and Evagr. ii. 5). There was great difficulty in reaching a conclusion;
for the majority of the Alexandrian church people were profoundly aggrieved
by the action of the council. In their eyes Dioscorus was still their rightful
"pope," the representative of Cyril and of Athanasius. Ultimately, however,
opposition to the imperial mandate was felt impracticable. It was resolved to
elect, and then all favoured Proterius, who was consecrated and enthroned (a.d.
452); but the passions of the Dioscorian and anti-Dioscorian parties broke .out
at once into tumultuous dissension, which Evagrius likens to the surging of
the sea. Proterius sending Leo the usual announcement of his elevation, Leo
asked some definite assurance of his orthodoxy (Leo, Ep. 113, in
Proterius had troubles with his own clergy. Not long after the council a
priest named Timotheus and a deacon named Peter (nicknamed Mongus) refused to
communicate with him, because in his diptychs he ignored Dioscorus and commemorated
the council of Chalcedon. He summoned them to return to duty; they refused,
and he pronounced in synod their deposition (Liberat. c. 15; Brevic. Hist.
Eutych. or Gesta in causa Acacii, in Mansi, vii. 1062). Four or five
bishops and a few monks appear to have actively supported them, and to have
been included in their condemnation and in the imperial sentence of exile which
followed (Ep. Aegypt. Episc. ad Leonem Aug. in Mansi, vii. 525). The
monks in Egypt, as elsewhere, were generally attached to the Monophysite position,
which they erroneously identified with the Cyrilline. They took for granted
that the late council had been practically striking at Cyril through Dioscorus;
and that Christ's single personality was at stake. Thus, besides those monks
who had overtly taken part with Timotheus and Peter, others apparently had suspended
communion with the archbishop; and Marcian had addressed them in gentle and
persuasive terms, assuring them that the doctrine of "one Christ," symbolized
by the term Theotokos, had been held sacrosanct at Chalcedon, and exhorting
them therefore to join with the Catholic church of the orthodox, which was one
(Mansi; vii. 481). But the schism, once begun, was not thus to be abated; the
zealous seceders raised a cry, which has practically never died out, that the
Egyptian adherents
Prudentius, Marcus (?) Aurelius Clemens, the chief Christian poet of early times, born a.d. 348 (Praef. 24, cf. Apotheosis, 449), somewhere in the N. of Spain, near the Pyrenees (Peristeph. vi. 146). His name, education, and career imply that he was of good family; he was educated in rhetoric and law, and his poems shew an exact knowledge of the Latin classical poets, especially Virgil, Ovid, Horace, and Juvenal; he seems to have known little Greek and no Hebrew. He speaks of his early life as stained with much sinfulness, but must have been held in high respect, for after practising as an advocate, he twice held an important civil office, and was at last raised to some high position at the emperor's court (cf. Kayser, p. 254 n.; Brockhaus, p. 16 n.; Faguet, p. 17). Late in life he received some deep religious impression, in consequence of which he gave up public life. Some expressions of his seem to imply that he joined a religious society (Cath. ii. 45; iii. 56; cf. Psych. 551–573). He has no longer any money to relieve the poor; the only offering he can make to God is his poetry (Epil. 10). To this and to prayer he devoted his life, seeking to spread among the educated classes a correct knowledge of Christianity, or, like a "Christian Pindar," to sing the triumphs of the martyrs on their festal days and so win them greater honour. At some period of great anxiety to himself he visited Rome; as he passed Imola he poured out his soul in prayer before the picture of St. Cassian in the church (Perist. x. 103, 104). At Rome his anxiety was increased by illness; and he implored the intercession of St. Hippolytus (xi. 127). His prayer was answered. At Rome he was deeply impressed with the memorials of the martyrs in the catacombs and churches (xi.) and composed his poem on the deaths of SS. Peter and Paul (xii.). There he probably became acquainted with the poems of pope Damasus, which influenced some of his own. Returning to Spain, he wrote his poems on St. Cassian (ix.) and St. Hippolytus, requesting his bishop to introduce the observance of the latter saint's festival into Spain (xi.) In 403 or 404 he wrote the second book contra Symmachum; and in 405 published an edition of his poems, with a preface shewing that all his extant works, except the Dittochaeon and perhaps the Psychomachia, were then written. Of his later life and death nothing is known.
His character, judging from his writings, was very lovable. He was a loyal Roman, proud of the empire, seeing in its past conquests and capacity for government a preparation for the kingdom of Christ, and looking for greater conquests under the banner of the cross (Perist. ii. 1–35, 413–484, x. passim; c. Symm. i. 415–505, ii. 577–771). He has a great fondness for art, wishing to keep even pagan statues if regarded only as ornaments (c. Symm. i. 505). He had an intellectual horror of heresy, though with a personal tenderness for heretics (ib. ii. Prel.). He was loyal to all church customs and ordinances, and had a strong appreciation of spiritual truth; see his lofty conception of the Nature of God (Cath. iv. 7–15; Apoth. 84–90; Ham. 27 seq.; c. Symm. i. 325; Perist. x. 310), of the True Temple (Cath. iv. 16–21; c. Symm. ii. 249; Apoth. 516), the True Worship (Perist. x. 341), the True Nobility of Birth (ib. 123), the True Riches (ib. ii. 203), the True Fast (Cath. vi. 201–220), the True Reward (c. Symm. ii. 750). He shews a pious tenderness of spirit (cf. Apoth. 393), kissing the sacred books (ib. 598) and the altar (Perist. ix. 100), and a deep personal humility which does not venture to contend with Symmachus (i. 609); which offers his verses to Christ, though they are but the "earthen vessel" (Epil. 29) of a "rustic poet" (Perist. ii. 574, x. 1); which has no merit in itself, but pleads for the intercession of the saints that he may be transferred from Christ's left hand to His right on the judgment day (ib. ii. 574, vi. 162, x. 1136), content if he be saved from the fires of hell and gently purified for the lowest place among the saved (Ham. 931). (Authorities—his own works, especially the Preface, and Gennadius, de Vir. Ill. c. 13).
Works.—His extant works are (a) lyrical, (b) apologetic
or didactic, (c) allegorical; their most remarkable characteristic being
their variety. All the poems have a considerable literary value; they are written
on the whole in good classical Latin, with many new words needed for church
purposes and with a touch of archaic forms and words characteristic of this
period. The prosody is fairly correct. The lyrical poems spew great originality
in the metres used, and are influenced both in form and phrase by Horace, Ambrose,
and Damasus.
From the first his poems were held in great honour; they are quoted with high praise by Sidonius Apollinaris, Avitus, Leo, Isidore, Rabanus Maurus, Alcuin, etc. In the middle ages the Psychomachia and the Cathemerinon were special favourites, and the MSS. of them are very numerous. The best eds. of the poems are those of Areval, 1788 (reprinted in Migne, lix., lx.); Chamillard (in the Delphin classics, with useful index), 1687; Obbar, 1845; Dressel, 1860. The Apotheosis is separately printed in Hurter, Patrum Opuscula Selecta, xxxiii. Translations of selected poems were made by F. St. J. Thackeray (1890); a study of the text by E. O. Winstedt in Class. Rev. 1903; a metrical study by E. B. Lease (Baltimore, 1895); and an excellent monograph by Brockhaus, A Prudentius ins einer Bedeutung für die Kirche seiner Zeit (Leipz. 1872). We give a fuller account of each poem.
A. Lyrical. (a) Cathemerinon (i.e. καθημερίνων ὕμνων), described in the Pref. 37, 38; a collection of hymns for the hours of the day and for church seasons. Though necessarily too long for public worship, extracts were made at least as early as 9th cent., and are found frequently in the Mozarabic Liturgy (cf. v. vi. vii. ix. x.), and a few in the Roman and Salisbury breviaries; on Tues., Wed., Thurs. at Lauds (i. ii.), Compline at Christmas (ix.), Compline on Good Friday (vi.), Easter Eve (v.), Epiphany, the Holy Innocents, and the Transfiguration (xii.). (Daniel, i. 119, and Kayser, Gesch. d. Kirchenhymnen, 275–336.)
(b) Peristephanon (i.e. περὶ στεφάνων, de Coronis Martyrum) described in Pref. 42; a collection of 14 lyrical poems, all (except viii. which is an inscription for a baptistery) in honour of martyrs. The choice of the martyrs is inspired by circumstances of the poet's life; the details perhaps taken from existing Acta Martyrum. Half are connected with his own native church of Spain (i. ii. (?) iii.–vi. xiii.), the rest are saints whom he found specially honoured at Rome (ii. vii: x. (?) xi. xii.) or on his journey thither (ix.).
B. Apologetic (referred to in Pref. 39). (a) Apotheosis = ἀποθέωσις, perhaps The Deification of Human Nature in Christ (cf. Pref. 8, 9, and 176, 177; c. Symm. ii. 268). The writer deals with Patripassian, Sabellian, Ebionite, and Docetic errors on our Lord's Nature.
(b). Hamartigenia = ἀμαρτιγενεία A treatise on the origin of sin; discussed in a polemical argument against Marcion. The poem falls into two parts. (1) 1–639. God is not the creator of Evil. The existence of good and evil does not justify Marcion's theory of two Gods, for unity is essential to our conception of God. (2) 640–931. God permits evil but does not sanction it. The whole object of the Incarnation was to save man from evil (640–669). The cause of evil is man's free will, but this was needed to secure moral goodness and his power of ruling creation. The thought is mainly based on Tertullian, adv. Marcionem. The language shews reminiscences of Vergil, Persius (384), and Juvenal (763). Like the other poems, it is full of O.T. illustrations, mystically applied (Pref. 409, 564, 723). The full description of hell and paradise, and also the graphic portraiture of Satan, are especially noteworthy as the earliest in Christian literature, and so probably of great influence upon later art and literature. Both Dante and Milton may indirectly be indebted to them.
(c) Libri c. Symmachum (described in Pref. 40, 41). In 384
Symmachus had presented a petition to Valentinian II. for the restitution of
the altar of Victory in the senate-house, which had been removed by Gratian,
and also of the incomes of the vestal virgins. Through the influence of St.
Ambrose (Epp. 17, 18) this had been refused. In 392 the altar was restored
by Eugenius; in 394 again removed by Theodosius, After his death the heathen
C. Allegorical.—Psychomachia =
Ψυχομαχία, De Compugnantia Animi
(Gennadius) (the Spiritual Combat). The Preface consists of a mystical application
of
D. The Dittochaeon, διττόχαιον, (?) δίττος, ὀχή, the double food, or double Testament, stands by itself, and can scarcely be called a poem. It comprises 49 sets of 4 verses on scenes from O. and N. T. They are dry and jejune, and chiefly interesting as apparently composed to describe a series of paintings. See Lanfranchi, Aur Prud. Clem. Opp. 1896, 1902, 2 vols. (Turin).
Pseudo-Chrysostomus. Opus Imperfectum in Matthaeum.—Among the
works which have been ascribed to Chrysostom is a commentary on St. Matthew's
Gospel. It is divided into 54 homilies; but this division does not proceed from
the author, and (32, 132
When the controversial passages had been expurgated, there was nothing to
excite orthodox suspicions in our writer's language about our Lord's divinity.
The Arians were not Unitarians, their doctrines, on the contrary, being open
to the charge of Ditheism. Accordingly our writer uses very high language concerning
our Lord, speaks of Him as "our great God and Saviour," as does also Maximinus,
whose doctrine is in accurate accordance with that of the present work. His
formula is "Deus genitus de ingenito Deo." Sometimes it is "unigenitus Deus"
(μονογενὴς θεός). If in his controversial
passages he is eager to argue that the Son, "to Whom all things were delivered
by the Father," can neither be identical with the Father nor equal to Him, he
is equally energetic in repelling the doctrine that He was mere man; and the
heresy of the Homoousians is not more reprobated
Naturally a better side of Arianism is exhibited in this work than elsewhere,
in the main not controversial but exegetical and practical, written when all
court favour had long been lost, and when the sect met from the state with nothing
but persecution. How much there was to recommend the book to a religious mind
is evident from the fact that it passed so long as Chrysostom's. The work itself
makes no claim to such authorship; the writer is evidently addressing persons
who knew him, and to whom he had no motive for trying to pass himself off as
other than he was. He had also written commentaries on St. Mark (49, 211) and
St. Luke (1, 23; 9, 56). Fragments of ancient Arian homilies on St. Luke have
been published by Mai (Bib. Nov. Vet. Pat. iii.), but they have no resemblance
to this work. Many favourable extracts from this commentary could be given to
justify the estimation in which it was so long held: e.g. the whole comment
on the text "Seek and ye shall find" (Hom. 17). But possibly the book was commended
to medieval readers less by its merits than by what most modern readers would
count its faults, for, utterly unlike Chrysostom, this writer constantly follows
the mystical and allegorical method commonly connected with Alexandria. In this
style he shews remarkable ingenuity. E.g. the name Bathsheba, or, as
he reads it, Bersabee, he finds in Hebrew denotes "seven wells." He deduces
from
The writer shews a strong preference for the ascetic life. He remarks (24, 135) that when the disciples said "If the case of the man be so with his wife it is not good to marry," our Lord did not contradict them or say it was good to marry. He holds (1, 24), that conjugal union is bad and in itself a sin; and although on account of God's permission it ceases to be sin, yet it is not righteousness. In the beginning of the world men married sisters—a sin excusable at the time on account of the fewness of men. Afterwards this was forbidden, but a man was allowed to have more wives than one; then, as population increased, this too was forbidden, but a man was allowed to have one wife; "now that the world has grown old we know what is well-pleasing in God's sight, though on account of incontinent men we dare not say it." Some hard language concerning women will be found (24, 135). Yet to those who will not take his counsel he gives advice concerning the choosing and ruling of a wife. He regards the apostle's permission of a second marriage as but licence given on account of the hardness of men's hearts, a second marriage in itself being but "honesta fornicatio." This is quoted as Chrysostom's in the Decretum of Gratian (par. 2, caus. 31, quaest. 1, 9). The writer owns there was more continence in the dominant church than in his own sect, but is not any more disposed therefore to condone that church's heresy. A heretical sect is no more a church than an ape is a man. If you see a man who does not worship God in truth doing what seem to you good works, do not believe your eyes and say he is a man of good life, but believe God, Who says "An evil tree cannot bring forth good fruit." If you call him good you make Christ a liar; you only see the outside, God sees the heart. The works of a man who does not care to believe rightly can spring from no good motive, for it is better to believe rightly than to act rightly. Faith without works is dead, but still it is something; works without faith are nothing at all. The foolish virgins had the lamps of right faith, but not the oil of good works to burn in them; but what avails the oil of good works to Jews or heretics who have no lamps wherein to light it? He will not even own the baptism of heretics as valid.
It has been questioned whether the original language of this commentary were
Greek or Latin, but it appears to us that it was certainly Latin. A translator
may conceivably, indeed, have modified the language "Jesse Latino sermone refrigerium
appellatur" (p. 16), or "in graeco non dicit 'beati pauperes' sed 'beati egeni'
vel 'beati mendici'" (9, 56). But there are other passages where the argument
turns on the use of Latin; e.g. (53, 223) money passing from hand to
hand—"usu ipso multiplicatur, unde dicitur usura ab usu," or (7, 53) where an
explanation is suggested why, at the call of the apostles, Peter and his brother
are described as "mittentes retia," John and his brother "retia componentes,"
"quia Petrus praedicavit evangelium et non composuit, sed Marcus ab eo praedicata
composuit; Joannes autem et praedicavit evangelium et ipse composuit." The commentator,
however, clearly uses Greek authorities. From such he must have derived his
explanation (49, 205) why the commandments are ten—"secundum mysterium nominis
Jesu Christi quod est in litera iota, id est perfectionis indicio" (see also
i, 23). He knew no Hebrew, though he lays great stress on the interpretation
of Hebrew names, making use for this purpose of a glossary which we cannot identify
with that used by any other writer. It must have been from the work of some
Oriental writer that he came by the name of Varisuas as that of a heretic (48,
199), for Barjesus seems plainly intended. He does not use Jerome's Vulgate,
but a previous translation. Thus (
Besides the Scriptures he uses the Shepherd of Hermas (33, 142), but
acknowledges that it was not universally received; the Clementine Recognitions
(20, 94; 50, 212; 51, 214), the Apostolic Constitutions or Canons
as he calls them (13, 74; 53, 221). The first of these passages does not appear
in our present text of the Constitutions; the second is from bk. viii.,
which Krabbe gives good reason for thinking an Arian addition to the previously
known work. In the latter half of the 4th cent. the Arians appear to have made
active use of literary forgery. In their interests was made the longer edition
of the Ignatian epistles, which Zahn has conjecturally attributed to Acacius
of Caesarea. Interpolations of Arian tendency were also made in the Clementine
Recognitions. Our writer used Josephus. He had also, besides the Ascension
of Isaiah, another O.T. apocryphal book (not the book of Jubilees),
from which he learned the names of Cain and Abel's sisters, fuller details about
the sacrifice of Isaac, was enabled to clear Judah from the guilt of incest
in his union with Tamar, etc. He had further N.T. Apocrypha, which, though not
absolutely authoritative, might, in his opinion, be read with pleasure. These
related in full detail the story of the Magi, compendiously told by St. Matthew,
telling how they had learned to expect the appearance of the star from a book
preserved in their nation, called the book of Seth, and had in consequence for
generations kept a systematic look-out for this star. Probably the same book
told him that Joseph was not present when the angel appeared to Mary, and related
how our Lord conferred His own baptism on John the Baptist. Directly or indirectly
the writer was much indebted to Origen, and there may be traces of acquaintance
with two or three other anti-Nicene fathers. His fanciful interpretations of
Scripture, though including some few of what may be called patristical commonplaces,
seem to be mostly original. With reference, however, to the question of authorship,
it is important to determine whether his coincidences with St. Augustine are
purely accidental. He is certainly no follower of Augustine. He has little in
common with that father's comments on the same passages of St. Matthew, and
differs in various details, e.g. (49, 205) he follows Origen's division
of the Commandments, making "Honour thy father and mother" the fifth, and (p.
218) counting it as belonging to the first table; yet he appears to have been
acquainted with Augustine's Enarrationes on the Psalms, as he has scarcely
a quotation from the Psalms which does not shew some resemblance to Augustine's
comment on the same passage; e.g. (4, 43) in
Our author lays claim to no great antiquity. He says (52, 218) that the time since our Lord's ascension had been nearly as long as the life of an antediluvian patriarch. Accordingly Mill (Praef. N.T.) fixes his date a.d. 961. In favour of the late date there is the use of the medieval word "bladum" for corn, though we do not know the exact date when such words crept into popular language. But a very strong argument for an earlier date is that the author's studies appear all to have lain in Christian literature earlier than the middle of the 5th cent.; and that he appears to know nothing of any of the controversies in the Christian church after that date. Making all allowance for the narrowing influence of a small sect, we find it hard to believe that the type of Arianism which existed at the time specified could have been preserved in such complete purity two or three centuries later. Our author does not appear to have lived in an Arian kingdom outside the limits of the Roman empire. He draws illustrations (30, 130) from the relative powers of the offices praefectus, vicarius, consul; from the fact that a "solidus" which has not the "charagma Caesaris" is to be rejected as bad (38, 160). When he wrote, heathenism was not extinct, as appears from the end of Hom. 13 and from what he says (10, 13) as to the effect on the heathen of the good or bad conversation of Christians. All things considered, we are not disposed to date the work later than the middle of the 5th cent., which would allow it time to grow into such repute in an expurgated form as to pass for Chrysostom's with Nicolas I. If so early a date can be assigned to it, we have at once a claimant for its authorship in the Arian by Maximinus, who held a conference with St. Augustine. The Opus Imperfectum was written by an Arian bishop at a distance from his people, as Maximinus then was. The doctrine of the two writers is identical, and there are points of agreement in what Maximinus says as to the temporal penalties to which the expression of his opinions was liable, and as to the duty, notwithstanding, of confessing the truth before men. Maximinus, while in Africa, could hardly help making some acquaintance with the writings of St. Augustine, and might very conceivably adopt his exegesis of particular passages, though on the whole slightly regarding his authority.
Publius (3), a solitary, commemorated by Theodoret in his Religiosa
Historia, c. v., born at Zeugma, on the Hellespont, of a family of
Pulcheria (2), Sept. 10, daughter of the emperor Arcadius and sister and guardian of Theodosius II. She practically ruled the eastern empire for many years. For her secular history see D. of G. and R. Biogr. She was only two years older than her brother, whose education she superintended, having been born Jan. 19, 399. She was declared Augusta and empress July 4, 414, and at once entrusted with the management of affairs. She was learned and vigorous, could speak and write Latin and Greek, personally investigated the affairs of state, directed much attention to religion, and brought up her brother in the strictest orthodoxy (Soz. H. E. iv. 1). She was a correspondent of St. Cyril during the Nestorian controversy, and two letters are still extant from him written in 430, requesting her assistance (see Mansi, iv. 618–883). In 450 she had a long correspondence with pope Leo and his archdeacon Hilarius on the subject of Eutyches and the Monophysite heresy. We possess also an epistle of hers addressed to the Palestinian monks and another to one Bessa, abbess of a convent at Jerusalem, both in defence of the council of Chalcedon. Bishops and clergy from every part of the empire appealed to her and on every subject. Theodoret (Ep. 43) wrote in 445 about the taxation of his episcopal city of Cyrrhus; the clergy of Ephesus, in 448, concerning the episcopate of Bassianus. She had in early life taken a vow of virginity in conjunction with her sisters Arcadia and Marina. In 450 she was obliged to assume the government of the empire, and feeling herself incompetent for the task married Marcian, an eminent general. She reigned till her death, Feb. 18, 453. She convoked and assisted at the fourth general council of Chalcedon. Her devotion to the culture of relics was very great. She transported to Constantinople those of St. Chrysostom with great pomp in 438, and of the 40 martyrs of Sebaste in 446 (Soz. H. E. ix. 2). Ceillier (viii. 471, 533, x. 20, 67, 213–226) gives fully her religious history. Hefele's Councils (Clark's trans. t. iii.) gives details of her action against Nestorius and Eutyches.
Purpurius, bp. of Limata, or Liniata, some place in Numidia, a truculent ruffian, mentioned both by Optatus and Augustine as a sample of the leaders of the Donatists (Morcelli, Afr. Chr. i. 205). For some cause unknown he murdered his own nephews in the prison of Mileum, and when taxed with the crime threatened the same to any who stood in his way (Opt. i. 13; Aug. Brevic. Coll. iii. 15, 27 ; c. Gaud. i. 16, 17; c. Cresc. iii. 27, 30). This had taken place before the council of Cirta, a.d. 305. Purpurius was also dishonest, for of the money distributed by Lucilla in bribes (a.d. 311) his share amounted to 100 folles. At some time, perhaps soon after 313, when Christian worship was made legal and heathenism became unpopular, advantage appears to have been taken by some of the "baser sort" of Christians to plunder the heathen temples, and Purpurius carried off some cups from the temple of Serapis, probably of Carthage. This theft was brought to light at the inquiry held by Zenophilus, a.d. 320. But the result of the inquiry is unknown, as the MS. is imperfect (Mon. Vet. Don. iv. pp. 172, 173, ed. Oberthür).
Q
Quadratus (3), the author of an apology for the Christians, presented to the emperor Hadrian (regn. 117-138). Eusebius (H. E. iv. 3) says the work was still in circulation in his time and that he himself was acquainted with it. He quotes one sentence which proves, as he observes, the great antiquity of the work. Quadratus remarks that the Saviour's miracles were no transient wonders, but had abiding effects. Those who had been cured or raised from the dead did not disappear, but remained for a considerable time after the Saviour's departure, some even to the times of Quadratus himself. Accordingly Quadratus is called a disciple of the apostles by Eusebius in his Chronicle, under the 8th year of Hadrian according to the Armenian, the 10th according to the Latin.
St. Jerome twice (de Vir. Ill. 19; Ep. 70,
ad Magnum) identifies the apologist with
Quadratus, bp. of Athens, and states that the
apology was presented when Hadrian visited
Athens and was initiated in the Eleusinian
mysteries. On chronological grounds we
must reject this identification. For it is
improbable that any one contemporary with
subjects of our Lord's miracles should survive
to 170. We may doubt also whether the
apologist resided at Athens. A writer against
the Montanists (ap. Eus. H. E. v. 17) contrasts
the behaviour of the Montanist prophetesses
with that of those recognized in the church as
prophets, e.g. the daughters of Philip, Ammia,
and Quadratus. Eusebius evidently understood
the reference to be a Quadratus of whom
he speaks (H. E. iii. 37) under the reign of
Trajan, and who is apparently the apologist.
His Apology seems to have survived until 6th cent., for several passages were quoted in controversy between the monk Andrew and EUSEBIUS (86) (Phot. Cod. 162). Cf. Zahn, Forschungen (1900), vi. 41; Harnack; Gesch. der Alt.-Chr. Lit. i. 95; ii. 1, 269–271.
R
Rabbûlas, bp. of Edessa, 412–435. Chief
authorities: (1) a panegyric in Syriac, compiled
soon after his death by a contemporary cleric,
himself a native of Edessa, extant in a MS. of
6th cent., of which Bickell has furnished a
German trans. in Thalhofer's Ausgewählte
Schriften der Kirchenväter (vol. x. pp. 56–68);
(2) the later and less trustworthy biography
of Alexander, the founder of the Acoemetae.
According to the panegyrist, Rabbûlas was
born in Kenneschrin, known by the Greeks as
Chalcis in Osrhoene, of rich and noble parentage.
His father was a heathen priest, his
mother a Christian. He received a liberal
education, and was well versed in pagan
literature. From his father he inherited a
considerable fortune, and was chosen prefect
of his native city. He was still a heathen
and for a long time resisted his mother's
entreaties to become a Christian. He took,
however, a Christian wife. Various instrumentalities
contributed to his conversion.
The panegyrist attributes it to his intercourse
with Eusebius of Chalcis and Acacius of
Beroea, and to two remarkable miracles witnessed
by him. The biographer of Alexander
ascribes it to Alexander's influence and teaching.
Both accounts probably are substantially
true. On his conversion he went on
pilgrimage to Jerusalem and was baptized in
the Jordan, having previously renounced his
property and manumitted his slaves. His
wife, daughters, and all the females of his
household embraced the religious life, and
Rabbûlas retired to the monastery of St.
Abraham at Chalcis. The see of Edessa
being vacant in 412 by the death of Diogenes,
Rabbûlas was appointed by a synod meeting
at Antioch. Edessa was famous for its
intellectual activity. Rabbûlas became the
leading prelate of the Oriental church, regarded,
according to the exaggerated language
of the biographer of Alexander, as "the
common master of Syria, Armenia, Persia,
nay of the whole world." The panegyrist
describes him as having steadily opposed the
doctrines of Nestorius from the very first.
The church of Edessa, with the East generally,
followed the teaching of Diodore of Tarsus and
Theodore of Mopsuestia, in which those doctrines
were virtually contained, and
IBAS, a
presbyter of his church, who would have
personal knowledge, says that Rabbûlas was
no exception. By degrees, however, Rabbûlas
veered round, and ended as the most uncompromising
opponent of Theodore's teaching,
using his utmost endeavours to bring
about the suppression of his works.
(Ep. ad Marium, Labbe, iv. 666; Liberat.
Breviar. c. 10, Labbe, v. 752.) His separation
from Theodore's school of doctrine was strongly
exhibited in the winter preceding the
council of Ephesus, 430–431, in a letter to
Andrew of Samosata, upbraiding him for
having attacked Cyril, a fragment of which is
printed by Overbeck among the Syriac documents
in his ed. of Ephrem Syrus (Oxf. 1865).
>From Andrew's reply and from Theodorus
Lector (lib. ii. p. 565) we learn that Rabbûlas's
fiery zeal for orthodoxy had led him to
anathematize Andrew before his congregation
at Edessa; and according to the panegyrist,
Rabbûlas, when visiting Constantinople,
preached in the presence of Nestorius and
denounced his doctrine. After this it is surprising
to find Rabbûlas at the council of
Ephesus, joining the Orientals in their opposition
to Cyril. His signature appears to the
letter to the clergy and laity of Hierapolis
(Baluz. col. 705) and to that addressed to the
deputies of the Orientals to Constantinople
(ib. 725), in both of which the heretical nature
of Cyril's teaching is asserted. From this
vacillation Rabbûlas speedily recovered. A
visit to Constantinople in the winter after the
council, 431–432, enabled him to confer with
Nestorius's successor, the wise and pious
Maximian, and confirmed him in opposition to
the Nestorian doctrine, which he returned to
his diocese determined to eradicate. This was
no easy task. The defenders of Nestorius
claimed to be disciples of Diodore of Tarsus and
Theodore of Mopsuestia, whose names were
revered throughout the East. To denounce
Nestorianism and accept Cyril's anathemas
was to repudiate the theologians whom they
had been taught to venerate as infallible
guides. Rabbûlas saw clearly that the evil
must be attacked at his source in the works of
Diodore and Theodore. He called to his aid
the strong will and unscrupulous pen of Cyril.
We have a letter from Rabbûlas to Cyril
(Labbe, v. 469), denouncing Theodore as the
author of the heresy of Nestorius, which
denied that Mary was truly the mother of God.
Cyril, in his reply, of which a fragment is
preserved (ib.), lauded Rabbûlas for his zeal
in expelling the blasphemy of Nestorius, and
indicated Theodore, though guarding himself
from mentioning so revered a name, as "the
Cilician," from whose root this impiety proceeded.
The suppression of these writings,
so fatal to his own system of doctrine, became
a chief object with Cyril. An extension of the
imperial decree was obtained which included
"the sacrilegious books" of Diodore and
Theodore under the condemnation previously
passed on the writings of Nestorius (ib. v.
471, cf. iii. 1209). The letter of Ibas to
Maris describes the violent conduct of Rabbûlas,
ὁ πάντα τολμῶν,
in publicly anathematizing
Theodore and seeking out his works for
destruction (ib. iv. 663). Rabbûlas's violence
is also described in a letter of Andrew of
Samosata to his metropolitan, Alexander of
Hierapolis, shortly after Easter, 432, complaining
that Rabbûlas was dealing with a high
hand in Edessa, openly anathematizing
Theodore's teaching of one nature in Christ,
and excommunicating all who refused to accept
the Cyrillian dogmas or who read Theodore's
Rabbûlas, also, with Acacius of Melitene, wrote to warn the Armenian bishops of the Nestorian heresy in the writings of Diodore and Theodore. In their perplexity they summoned a synod, and dispatched two presbyters to Proclus (who in Apr. 434 had succeeded Maximian as patriarch of Constantinople), entreating him to indicate which was the orthodox teaching. Proclus replied in his celebrated "Tome" on the Incarnation, wherein he condemned Theodore's opinions without naming him, a precaution counteracted by the officiousness of the bearers of the document (Liberat. Breviar. c. 10, ap. Labbe, v. 752; Garnerii Praef. in Mar. Merc. p. lii. ed. Par. 1673). The fiery Rabbûlas did not long survive this letter. His death is placed Aug. 7, 435, after an episcopate of 23 years.
Nearly all his few surviving works were printed by Overbeck in the original Syriac text, in his ed. of Ephrem Syrus (Oxf. 1865), pp. 210–248, 362–378. They include the scanty remains of the 640 letters which, according to his biographer, he wrote to the emperor, bishops, prefects, and monks. See also Bickell's Ausgewählte Schriften, pp. 153–271.
Radegundis, St., born in 519, queen of Clotaire I. and founder of the nunnery of Sainte-Croix, at Poictiers. Her father was a Thuringian prince named Bertharius. Her austerities were so incessant that it was commonly said the king had wedded a nun (Venant. Fort. Acta S. Rad. c. i.). Abhorring the married state from the first, she seems to have finally decided to escape from it upon her husband's treacherous murder of her brother. Withdrawing to Noyon on the pretext of some religious observance, her urgency overcame the hesitation of bp. Medardus to make her a deaconess. She then escaped from her husband's territory to the sanctuary of St. Martin of Tours, and thence to St. Hilary's at Poictiers. Here she founded her monastery within a mile or two of the city; finally, with the consent of Clotaire, clerks were sent to the East for wood of the true cross to sanctify it, and the rule of SS. Caesarius and Caesaria of Arles was adopted. Here the rest of her life was spent, first as abbess, then as simple nun under the rule of another. We have full information about the beginnings of this institution from the two Lives of Radegund, one by Venantius Fortunatus, her intimate friend (Patr. Lat. lxxii. 651), the other by one of her nuns called Baudonivia (ib. 663); and also from the fact that in Gregory's time, after Radegund's death, the attention of all France was drawn to the spot by the scandalous outbreak of a body of the nuns, headed by Chrodieldis, a natural daughter of king Charibert I. After a residence of about 37 years she died Aug. 13, 587, and was buried by Gregory of Tours (de Glor. Conf. c. cvi.).
Reccared (the uniform spelling in coins and inscriptions), younger son of LEOVIGILD by his first marriage. For his parentage and life till the death of his father see LEOVIGILD and HERMENIGILD. Between Apr. 12 and May 8, 586 (Hübner, Insc. Hisp. n. 155; Tejada y Ramiro, ii. 217), he succeeded his father without opposition, having been already associated with him in the kingdom. He first allied himself to his stepmother Goisvintha, the mother of Brunichild and grandmother of Childebert II. By her advice he sent ambassadors to Childebert and to his uncle GUNTRAMNUS (2), the Frankish king of Burgundy, proposing peace and a defensive alliance. The former alone were received.
Then followed the great event of Reccared's reign, his conversion from Arianism to Catholicism. We can only conjecture whether, as Dahn supposes, his motives were mainly political, or whether he yielded to the influence of the Catholic leaders such as Leander or Masona. In Jan. 587 he declared himself a Catholic, and, convening a synod of the Arian bishops, induced them and the mass of the Gothic and Suevic nations to follow his example. Some Arians did not submit quietly, and 587–589 saw several dangerous risings, headed by coalitions of Arian bishops and ambitious nobles. Perhaps, from the geographical situation, the most formidable was that of Septimania, headed by bp. Athaloc, who, from his ability, was considered a second Arius. Amongst the secular leaders of the insurrection the counts Granista and Wildigern are named. They appealed for aid to Guntram, whose desire for Septimania was stronger than his detestation of Arianism, and the dux Desiderius was sent with a Frankish army. Reccared's army defeated the insurgents and their allies with great slaughter, Desiderius himself being slain (Paul. Em. 19; J. Bicl.; Greg. T. ix. 15). The next conspiracy broke out in the West, headed by Sunna, the Arian bp. of Merida, and count Seggo. Claudius, the dux Lusitaniae, put down the rising, Sunna being banished to Mauritania and Seggo to Galicia. In the latter part of 588 a third conspiracy was headed by the Arian bp. Uldila and the queen dowager Goisvintha, but they were detected, and the former banished.
Reccared, after his conversion, had again
sent to Guntram and Childebert in 587. The
implacable Guntram refused his embassy,
asking how could he believe those by whose
machinations his niece Ingunthis had been
Third Council of Toledo.—This, the most important of all Spanish councils, assembled by the king's command in May, 589. On May 4 the king shortly declared his reasons for convening them, and the next three days were spent in prayer and fasting. Reccared's address, read to the assembly by a notary, contained an orthodox confession of belief. He declared that God had inspired him to lead the Goths back to the true faith, from which they had been led astray by false teachers. Not only the Goths but the Suevi, who by the fault of others had been led into heresy, he had brought back. These noble nations he offered to God by the hands of the bishops, whom he called on to complete the work. He then anathematized Arius and his doctrine, and declared his acceptance of Nice, Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon, and all other councils that agreed with these, and pronounced an anathema on all who returned to Arianism after being received into the church by the chrism, or the laying on of hands; then followed the creeds of Nicaea and Constantinople and the definition of Chalcedon, and the tomus concluded with the signatures of Reccared and Baddo his queen. It was received with general acclamation. Its praises of Reccared, its numerous scriptural quotations, and the clearness with which the Catholic and Arian doctrines are defined shew that it was composed by a theologian, probably bp. Leander or abbat Eutropius, who had the chief management of the council (Jo. Bicl.). One of the Catholic bishops then called on the bishops, clergy, and Gothic nobles who had been converted to declare publicly their renunciation of Arianism and their acceptance of Catholicism. They replied that though they had done so already when with the king they had gone over to the church, they would comply. Then followed 23 anathemas directed against Arius and his doctrines, succeeded by the creeds of Nice and Constantinople and the definition of Chalcedon, the whole being subscribed by 8 Arian bishops with their clergy, and by all the Gothic nobles. The bishops were Ugnas of Barcelona, Ubiligisclus of Valencia, Murila of Palencia, Sunnila of Viseo, Gardingus of Tuy, Bechila of Lugo, Argiovitus of Oporto, and Froisclus of Tortosa. The names of at least six shew their Gothic descent. Five come from sees within the former Suevic kingdom, probably shewing that Leovigild, after his conquest, had displaced the Catholic by Arian bishops. Reccared then bid the council with his licence to draw up any requisite canons, particularly one directing the creed to be recited at the Holy Communion, that henceforward no one could plead ignorance as an excuse for misbelief. Then followed 23 canons with a confirmatory edict of the king. The 1st confirmed the decrees of previous councils and synodical letters of the popes; the 2nd directed the recitation of the creed of Constantinople at the communion; by the 5th the Arian bishops, priests, and deacons, who had been converted, were forbidden to live with their wives; the 7th directed the Scriptures should be read at a bishop's table during meals; by the 9th Arian churches were transferred to the bishops of their dioceses; the 13th forbade clerics to proceed against clerics before lay tribunals; the 14th forbade Jews to have Christian wives, concubines, or slaves, ordered the children of such unions to be baptized, and disqualified Jews from any office in which they might have to punish Christians—Christian slaves whom they had circumcised, or made to share in their rites, were ipso facto free; the 21st forbade civil authorities to lay burdens on clerics or the slaves of the church or clergy; the 22nd forbade wailing at funerals; the 23rd forbade celebrating saints' days with indecent dances and songs. The canons were subscribed first by the king, then by 5 of the 6 metropolitans, of whom Masona signed first; 62 bishops signed in person, 6 by proxy. All those of Tarraconensis and Septimania appeared personally or by proxy; in other provinces several were missing. The proceedings closed with a homily by Leander on the conversion of the Goths.
The information for the rest of Reccared's reign is most scanty. He is praised by Isidore for his peaceful government, clemency, and generosity. He restored various properties, both ecclesiastical and private, confiscated by his father, and founded many churches and monasteries. Gregory the Great, writing to Reccared in Aug. 599 (Epp. ix. 61, 121), extols him for embracing the true faith and inducing his people to do so, and for refusing the bribes offered by Jews to procure the repeal of a law against them. He sends him a piece of the true cross, some fragments of the chains of St. Peter, and some hairs of St. John Baptist. Reccared died at Toledo in 601, after reigning 15 years, having publicly confessed his sins. He was succeeded by his son Leova II., a youth of about 18. Dahn, Könige der Germanen., v.; Helfferich, Entstehung und Geschichte des Westgothen-Rechts; Gams, Kirchengeschichte von Spanien, ii. (2).
Remigius (2) (Remi), St.,
archbp. of Rheims and called the Apostle of
the Franks (c. 457–530), holds an
important position in Western
history and is honoured as one of the 3 great
patron-saints of France. His exact part in
winning Clovis and his Franks to orthodox
Christianity, and so probably deciding the
belief of Western Europe, is not easy to define,
since Gregory's account, written considerably
later than the events, is plainly not to be
trusted for details, and an earlier Life which
apparently existed (see Greg. Tur. Hist.
Franc. ii. 31) was lost before the 9th cent.
Some think that Clovis was convinced by
the exhortations of Remigius or Clotilda, or
both, some that he saw his advantage in the
partizanship of the orthodox clergy in his
struggle with the Arian Burgundians and
Visigoths.
[CLOVIS.]
At any rate, it was a
happy event for orthodoxy that a man with
force of character to impress a barbarian like
The references in Gregory of Tours (Hist. Franc. ii. 27, 31, viii. 21, ix. 14, x. 19; Hist. Epit. xvi.; de Glor. Conf. lxxix.), Sidonius Apollinaris (Ep. ix. 7), and Avitus (Collat. Episc. sub init.; Patr. Lat. lix. 387), comprise all that is historical about him. History and myth are mingled in the exhaustive notice of the Bollandists (Oct. 1, 59–187).
Rhodo (1), a Christian writer of the end of the 2nd cent., our knowledge, of whom now exclusively depends on the account of his writings, and some extracts from them in Eusebius (H. E. v. 13). He was a native of Asia, converted to Christianity at Rome by Tatian, as he himself says in a treatise against Marcion addressed to Callistion. In it he tells of the sects into which the Marcionites split up after Marcion's death, and gives an interesting account of an oral controversy held by him with the Marcionite APELLES, then an old man. He mentions a book of "Problems" published by Tatian, intended to exhibit the obscurity of the Holy Scriptures, and promise to give the solutions; but Eusebius does not seem to have met with this work. He also wrote a treatise on the Hexaemeron. Through a lapse of memory Jerome (de Vir. Ill.) speaks of him as author of the anonymous treatise against the Montanists from which Eusebius makes extracts (H. E. v. 16).
Romanianus, a wealthy citizen of Tagaste, possessing there and at Carthage a house and other property. He shewed great kindness towards Augustine in his early life, which he did not fail in later days gratefully to acknowledge. In a passage of the second book against the heathen philosophers Augustine relates with pathetic simplicity how when he was but a boy and in poverty arising no doubt from his father's "spirited" disregard of expense, he found in Romanianus a friend who provided him a home and pecuniary help in his studies at Carthage, and shewed him what he valued more than these—friendship and kindly encouragement. After the death of Augustine's father in 371, Romanianus received him into his house at Tagaste as his honoured guest, and though, in a patriotic spirit, he tried to dissuade him from returning to Carthage, when he saw that his youthful ambition desired a wider range than his native town could afford, he supplied him with the necessary means. Nor, as Augustine mentions with special gratitude, was he offended at a neglect to write, but passed over it with considerate kindness (Aug. Conf. ii. 3, vi. 14; c. Acad ii. 2; Ep. 27, 4). Romanianus had a son Licentius, who may have been a pupil under Augustine while he was teaching rhetoric at Carthage, but of this there is no evidence, though he undoubtedly was 10 or 12 years later at Milan. Romanianus appears to have had another son, Olympius, frequently mentioned in the various discourses composed by Augustine at Cassiciacum near Milan, who received baptism at the same time as Augustine, and who afterwards became bp. of Tagaste, of which place he was certainly a native, and of a rank in life agreeing entirely with that of Romanianus (Aug. Conf. vi. 7). Like Augustine himself, perhaps in some degree through his influence, Romanianus fell into the prevailing errors of Manicheism, which, however, he appears to have cast off, though without adopting as yet the true philosophy of the gospel, by the time when, as we gather from the description of Augustine, he visited him at Milan in 385. He had gone thither on important business, and entered with some warmth into the scheme of a life in common of 10 members. In 386, while Augustine was with his friends in the house of Verecundus at Cassiciacum, and meditating the great change of life which he made in 387, he composed 4 discourses, dedicating to Romanianus the one against the academic philosophers, entreating him to abandon their doctrines, and declaring his own intention to abide by the authority of Christ, "For," says he, "I find none more powerful than this" (c. Acad. i. x ; iii. 20; Retract. i. 1–4). Some time during the 3 years following the conversion of Augustine Romanianus became a Christian, thus drawing still closer the intimacy between Augustine and himself and his family. The same year Augustine addressed to Romanianus his book on true religion (c. Acad. ii. 3, 8 ; de Ver. Rel. 12; Ep. 27, 4; 31, 7). We find Augustine also writing, A.D. 395, to Licentius, entreating him in the most affectionate manner to shake off the bonds in which he was held by the world, to visit Paulinus at Nola and learn from him how this was to be accomplished (Aug. Ep. 26, 3). This letter he followed up by one to Paulinus, introducing to him Romanianus, the bearer of the letter, and commending Licentius to his attention (Ep. 27, 3, 4, 6). In 396 Paulinus wrote to Romanianus congratulating the church of Africa on the appointment of Augustine as coadjutor-bp. of Hippo, and expressing the hope that the trumpet of Augustine may sound in the ears of Licentius, to whom he wrote both in prose and in verse, exhorting him to devote himself to God (Paulin. Epp. vii. viii.).
Romanus (7), a solitary, born and brought up at Rhosus, who retired to a cell on the mountains near Antioch, where he lived to extreme old age, practising the utmost austerities. Theodoret describes him as conspicuous for simplicity and meekness, attracting to his cell by the beauty of his character large numbers, over whom he exercised a salutary influence (Theod. Hist. Relig. c. xi.).
Romanus (9), St., a celebrated hymn writer of the Eastern church, who is said to have written more than 1,000 hymns, of the kind called κοντάκια, a form which he probably invented. It perhaps derives its some what disputed name from the legend as to its origin, found in the Synaxasion of St. Romanus's day (Menaea, Oct. 1), which says that the Blessed Virgin appeared to him, and commanded him to eat a roll (κοντάκιον) which she gave him, and that, obeying, he found himself endowed with the power of composing hymns. If he was the first who wrote κοντάκια, it is an argument in favour of placing him (as do Pitra and the Bollandists) in the reign of Anastasius I. (491–518) rather than of Anastasius II. (713–719).
Rufinus (3), Tyrannius, of Aquileia, the translator of Origen and Eusebius, the friend of Jerome and afterwards his adversary; a Latin ecclesiastical writer of some merit, and highly esteemed in his own time; born c. 345 at Concordia in N. Italy; baptized at Aquileia c. 371; lived in Egypt some 8 years and in Palestine about 18 (371–397); ordained at Jerusalem c. 390; in Italy, mostly at Aquileia, 397–408; died in Sicily, 410.
Sources.—The works of Rufinus himself, especially his Apology (otherwise Invectives), two books, against Jerome; Hieron. Apology against Rufinus, three books; Id. Chronicle, Ol. 289, An. 1, A.D. 378; Id. Epp. 3–5, 51, 57, 80–84, 97, 125, 133; Id. Pref. to Comm. on Ezk. and Jer. bk. i; Paulin. Epp. 28, 40, 46, 47; Aug. Epp. 63, 156; Pallad. Hist. Laus. 118; Gennad. de Script. Eccl. c. 17; Sid. Apoll. lib. iv. Ep. 3; Gelasius in Concil. Rom. (Patr. Lat. lix. col. 173).
Literature.—Rufinus's career has usually been treated as an appendage to that of Jerome. There is a full Life of Rufinus by Fontanini (Rome, 1742), reprinted by Migne in his ed. of Rufinus (Patr. Lat. xxi.)—minute and exhaustive in details and in fixing dates; a shorter account by Schoenemann, Bibliotheca Historico-Literaria Patrum Lat. (Lips. 1792) is also reprinted by Migne.
Works.—The genuine original works of
Rufinus still extant are: A Dissertation on
the Falsification by Heretics of the Works of
Origen, prefixed to his trans. of Pamphilus's
Apology for Origen; A Commentary on the
Benedictions of the Twelve Patriarchs (
Early Life: Concordia and Aquileia.—His parents were probably Christians, since there is no trace of other than Christian associations in his writings. His mother did not die till his sojourn in Rome in 398 (Hieron. Ep. lxxxi. x). He was not baptized till c. 371. That he made the acquaintance of Jerome in early life is shewn by his request to him when about to go into Gaul, c. 368, to copy out for him the works of Hilary upon the Psalms and upon the councils of the church (Ep. v. 2). Either before or about the time of the return of Jerome from Gaul, Rufinus had gone to Aquileia and embraced a monastic life ("in monasterio positus," Rufin. Apol. i. 4). There, about 30 years before he wrote his Apology against the attacks of his former friend, Rufinus was baptized (ib.) by Chromatius and his brother Eusebius (then respectively presbyter and deacon), and Jovinus the archdeacon, all of them ascetic friends, and all subsequently bishops. This must have been at the close of his stay at Aquileia ("Ille modo se lavit," Hieron. Ep. 4, A.D. 374).
Life in the East: Egypt.—We do not know
how long the company of friends lived together
at Aquileia, nor what caused its dissolution.
But when the "subitus turbo" drove
Jerome to the East, Rufinus left Italy in the
company of Melania for Egypt and visited
the monasteries of Nitria (Pallad. Hist. Laus.
118; Hieron. Ep. iii. 2 ), where Rufinus
apparently intended to remain. But the
church of Alexandria was then in a state of
trouble. Athanasius died in 372, and his
successor, the Arian Lucius, acting with the
successive governors of Alexandria, came as
a wolf among the sheep (Ruf. H. E. ii. 3;
Socr. iv. 21–23 ; Soz. vi. 19). Rufinus himself
was thrown into prison, and afterwards, with
many other confessors, banished from Egypt
(H. E. ii. 4; Apol. ad Anastasium,
2, "In carceribus, in exiliis"), but must have
returned as soon as the stress of the persecution
abated. In Egypt he saw and heard
Didymus, who wrote for him a book on
the questions suggested by the death of infants
(Hieron. Apol. iii. 28), and whom he
praises in his Ecclesiastical History (ii. 7).
He also was a pupil of Theophilus, afterwards bp.
of Alexandria (Hieron. Apol. iii. 18).
He saw
also the hermits, whose teaching he prized
still more—Serapion and Menites and Paulus;
Macarius the disciple of Anthony, and the
other Macarius, Isidore, and Pambas. On
their teachings he says he attended earnestly
and frequently; and he afterwards described
them in his Historia Monachorum. After
6 years he went to Jerusalem. Whether
Melania had been with him in Egypt is not
certain, though Palladius implies that he was
her companion throughout. Certainly he
now settled with her on the Mount of Olives.
But it would seem that, "after a short interval,"
he returned to Egypt again for 2 years
(Apol. ii. 22). Melania's settlement at
Jerusalem is placed by Jerome in his Chronicle
in 379, i.e. according to the present or
Dionysian computation in 377. We may place
Rufinus's final settlement there with her in
379. There is, however, some reason to
believe they made one more journey to
Egypt; for Palladius states, as a fact he had
heard from Melania, that she had, been present
at the death of Pambas, which occurred after
Palestine.—For 18 or 20 years, reckoning either from 377 or 379 to 397, Rufinus lived on the Mount of Olives. He was ordained either by Cyril or more probably by John (made bishop 383). He built cells at his own expense ("meis cellulis," Apol. ii. 8A) for monks, who occupied themselves in ascetic practices and learned pursuits. Palladius, who was at Jerusalem and Bethlehem for some time before he went to Egypt in 388, says of Rufinus: "He was a man of noble birth and manners, but very strong in following out his own independent resolutions. No one of the male sex was ever gentler, and he had the strength and calmness of one who seems to know everything"; and tells us that, in common with Melania, Rufinus exercised an unbounded hospitality, receiving and aiding with his own funds bishops and monks, virgins and matrons. "So," he says, "they passed their life, offending none, and helping almost the whole world." Jerome also, early in their stay at Jerusalem, spoke of Rufinus with highest praise, mentioning in his Chronicle (sub ann. 378) that "Bonosus of Italy, and Florentius and Rufinus at Jerusalem, are held in special estimation as monks"; and when he settled in Palestine in 386 had frequent literary intercourse with Rufinus and his monks. Rufinus records that Jerome was once his guest at the Mount of Olives (ib.); and Jerome acknowledges (ib. iii. 33) that, to 393, he had been intimate with him.
In 394 Epiphanius, bp. of Salamis, came to Jerusalem, and in the dissension which arose between him and John, bp. of Jerusalem, Rufinus was the leader of the clergy who supported John, Jerome siding with Epiphanius, the consequence being an alienation between Jerome and Rufinus. This estrangement was but temporary. Jerome speaks frequently of their "reconciliatas amicitias" (Ep. lxxxi. 1; Apol. iii. 33). In 397, the year when Rufinus quitted Palestine, they met (probably with many friends on both sides) at a solemn communion service in the Church of the Resurrection, joined hands in renewal of friendship, and, on Rufinus's setting out for Italy with Melania, Jerome accompanied him some little way, perhaps as far as Joppa.
Italy, 397–409.—Melania returned to Italy in order to promote ascetic practices in her family. Rufinus, whom Paulinus speaks of as being to her "in spiritali viâ comitem," returned in her company. His mother was still living, and he wished to see his relations and Christian friends again (Hieron. lxxxi. 1; Apol. ii. 2). After a voyage of 20 days they arrived at Naples in the spring of 397. Thence they went to visit Paulinus at Nola, all the nobles of those parts and their retinues accompanying them in a kind of triumph (Paulin. Ep. xxix. 12). Melania, who was connected, probably, by ties of property with Campania, since Palladius speaks of her successors Pinianus and Melania living there (Hist. Laus. 119), after staying with Paulinus some time, went on to Rome, where her son Publicola and his wife Albina and her granddaughter Melania with her husband Pinianus were living. Rufinus went to the monastery of Pinetum near Terracina, of which his friend Ursacius or Urseius was the abbat, and there stayed probably for a year, from early spring 397 till after Lent 398.
He had brought many works of the Eastern
church writers which were but little known
in Italy; and his friends were eager to know
their contents. Rufinus, having used Greek
more than Latin for some 25 years, at first
declared his incompetence (Apol. i. ii),
but by degrees accepted the task of translation,
which occupied almost all the rest of his life.
He began with the Rule of Basil, which
Urseius desired for the use of his monks.
Next, probably, he translated the
Recognitions of Clement.
[CLEMENTINE
LITERATURE.]
Paulinus begged his assistance in the interpretation
of the blessing upon Judah in
Rome.—The first two books Περὶ Ἀρχῶν, with the preface, were first published probably in the winter of 397-398; the other two, having been translated during Lent 398, were carried by Rufinus to Rome, whither Macarius had already gone, when he went to stay with Melania and her family. During his stay Apronianus, a noble Roman, was converted, partly through Rufinus, who addresses him as "mi fili." The friends of Melania were, no doubt, numerous. Pope Siricius also (elected in 385 when Jerome had himself aspired to the office) was favourable to Rufinus. But the expectations formed by Rufinus in his preface were realized at once. Many were astonished at the book of Origen, some finding even in Rufinus's version the heresies they connected with the name of Origen; some indignant that these heresies had been softened down. Jerome's friends at first were dubious. Eusebius of Cremona, who came to Rome from Bethlehem early in 398 (Hieron. Ap. iii. 24), lived at first on friendly terms with Rufinus and communicated with him (Ruf. Apol. i. 20). But Jerome's friends Pammachius, Oceanus, and Marcella resented the use made of their master's name and suspected Rufinus's sincerity. According to his account, Eusebius, or some one employed by him, stole the translation of the last two books of the Περὶ Ἀρχῶν, which were still unrevised, from his chamber, and in this imperfect state had them copied and circulated, adding in some cases words he had never written (Ap. i. 19; ii. 44). But, being in uncertainty as to the value of the translation, Pammachius and Oceanus sent the books and prefaces to Jerome at Bethlehem, who sat down at once, made a literal translation of the Περὶ Ἀρχῶν, and sent it to his friends with a letter (84) written to refute the insinuations through which, as he considered, Rufinus's preface had associated him with Origenism. He sent them also a letter (81) to Rufinus, protesting against his "fictae laudes," but refraining from any breach of friendship. When these documents arrived in Rome, affairs had changed. Rufinus had gone; pope Siricius had died (date in Fagius Nov. 29, 398); the new pope Anastasius was ready to listen to friends of Jerome; Rufinus the Syrian, Jerome's friend, had arrived in Rome (Hieron. Ap. iii. 24) and with Eusebius of Cremona had gone through the chief cities of Italy (Ruf. Ap. i. 21) pointing out all the heretical passages in Origen. Rufinus, a little before the death of pope Siricius, had obtained from him letters of recommendation ("literae formatae"), to which he appealed afterwards as shewing he was in communion with the Roman church (Hieron. Ap. iii, 21). At Milan he met Eusebius in the presence of the bishop, and confronted him when he read heretical passages from a copy of the Περὶ Ἀρχῶν received from Marcella and purporting to be Rufinus's work (Ruf. Ap. i. 19). He then went to Aquileia, where bp. Chromatius, who had baptized him 27 years before, received him.
Aquileia.—Here he soon heard that Jerome's translation of the Περὶ Ἀρχῶν, though intended only for Pammachius and his friends, had been published, and that Jerome's letter against him was in circulation. Of this letter he received a copy from Apronianus (Apol. i. 1); but Pammachius kept back the more friendly letter addressed to Rufinus himself. This act of treachery, which Jerome subsequently in his anger at Rufinus's Apology brought himself to defend (Hieron. Apol. iii. 28), caused Rufinus and Jerome to assail each other with fierce invectives. For that controversy and for the letters of pope Anastasius to Rufinus and John of Jerusalem, and Rufinus's letter of apology, see JEROME. We pass on to the last decade of Rufinus's life.
His friends at Aquileia were eager as those at Pinetum had been for a knowledge of the Christian writers of the East; and Rufinus's remaining years were almost entirely occupied with translation, though several of his original works belong also to this period. The translations have no great merit, but on the whole are accurate, with no need for omissions and paraphrases as in the Περὶ Ἀρχῶν. They were undertaken in no distinct order, but according to the request of friends. Rufinus wished to translate the Commentaries of Origen on the whole Heptateuch, and only Deuteronomy remained untranslated when he died. The Commentary on the Romans, however (see preface), and several others, besides other works, intervened.
The Exposition of the Creed is of importance, as a testimony to the variations in the creeds of the various churches (that of Aquileia having "Patrum invisibilem et impassibilem," "in Spiritu Sancto," and "hujus carnis resurrectionem" as distinctive peculiarities), and from its intrinsic merits and as shewing the influence of Eastern theology, harmonized by a sound judgment, on Western theology.
The History is on a par with those of Socrates and Sozomen, exhibiting no conception of the real functions of history nor of the relative proportion of different classes of events, yet dealing honestly with the facts within the writer's view. It was trans. into Greek, and valued in the East, as his trans. of Eusebius, of which it is a continuation, was in the West (Gennad. de Script. Eccl. xvii.).
The History of the Egyptian monks presents
many difficulties. It is distinctly attributed
Rufinus had not, like Jerome, any large range of literary knowledge, and his critical powers were defective. He quotes stories like that of the Phoenix (de Symbolo, ii) without any question. He had no doubt of the Recognitions being the work of Clement, and he translated the sayings of Xystus the Stoic philosopher, stating, without futher remark, that they were said to be those of Sixtus, the Roman bishop, thus laying himself open to Jerome's attack upon his credulity.
The Apology is well composed and more methodical than that of Jerome. Its reasoning is at least as powerful, though its resources of language and illustration are fewer. His efforts for peace and refusal to reply to Jerome's last invectives, though the temptation offered by a violent attack in answer to a peaceful letter was great, shews a high power of self-restraint and a consciousness of a secure position.
Last Years.—The years at Aquileia were uneventful. The letter of Anastasius which told him of the rumours against him at Rome and requested him to come there to clear himself, drew from him the Apologia ad Anastasium, a short document of self-defence not lacking in dignity. He enjoyed the friendship of Chromatius, at whose request he consented to cease his strife with Jerome, though Jerome, adjured by the same bishop, refused to do so (Hieron. Apol. iii. 2). He enjoyed the friendship of the bishops near him, Petronius of Bologna, Gaudentius of Brixia, Laurentius, perhaps of Concordia, for whom he wrote his work upon the Creed. Paulinus of Nola continued his friendship; and Augustine, in his severe reply to Jerome, who had sent him his work against Rufinus, treats the two men as equally esteemed, and writes: "I grieved, when I read your book, that such discord had arisen between persons so dear and so intimate, bound to all the churches by a bond of affection and of renown. Who will not in future mistrust his friend as one who may become his enemy when it has been possible for this lamentable result to come to pass between Jerome and Rufinus?" (Aug. Ep. 73 ad Hieron.).
Last Journey and Death.—Chromatius had died in 405, and Rufinus's thoughts turned again to Melania and to Palestine. He joined Melania in Rome in 408 or 409, Anastasius having been succeeded in 403 by Innocent, who had no prejudice against him. Owing to Alaric's invasion, they left Rome, with Albina, Pinianus, and Melania the younger (Pallad. Hist. Laus. 119), and resided in Campania and Sicily. Rufinus records that he was in the "coetus religiosus" of Pinianus on the Sicilian coast, witnessing the burning of Rhegium across the straits by the bands of Alaric, when he wrote the preface to the translation of Origen's Commentary on Numbers. Soon after writing this he died.
The cloud on the reputation of Rufinus due to Jerome's attacks has unduly depressed the general estimation of his character. In the list of books to be received in the church promulgated by pope Gelasius at the Roman council, in 494 (Migne's Patr. Lat. lix. col. 175), we read: "Rufinus, a religious man, wrote many books of use to the church, and many commentaries on the Scripture; but, since the most blessed Jerome infamed him in certain points, we take part with him (Jerome) in this and in all cases in which he has pronounced a condemnation." With this official judgment may be contrasted that of Gennadius in his list of ecclesiastical writers (c. 17): "Rufinus, the presbyter of Aquileia, was not the least among the teachers of the church, and in his translations from Greek to Latin shewed an elegant genius. He gave to the Latins a very large part of the library of Greek writers. . . . He also replied in two volumes to him who decried his works, shewing convincingly that he had exercised his powers through the insight given him by God and for the good of the church, and that it was through a spirit of rivalry that his adversary had employed his pen in defaming him." See Ruf. Comm. in Symb. Apost. ed. by Rev. C. Whitaker, Lat. text, notes, and trans. with a short hist. of Ruf. and his times (Bell). A trans. by Dean Fremantle of the works of Rufinus is in the Lib. of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers.
Rufinus (4), a Roman presbyter at the end of 4th cent.; an admirer of Jerome he espoused his cause in the Origenistic controversy and against Rufinus of Aquileia. Eusebius of Cremona, sent by Jerome to Rome in 398, reported the kindness of Rufinus, who wrote to Jerome to ask an explanation of the judgment of Solomon. This Jerome gives him, making the false and true mothers to be the Synagogue and the Church. Jerome speaks of him with gratitude and respect, hoping he may not only publicly defend him, but in private judge him favourably (Ep.74, ed. Vall.).
Rufinus (5), a friend of Jerome; known as the Syrian, to distinguish him from (3) and (4), both his contemporaries. He was one of the company of Italians settled at Bethlehem with Jerome; and in 390 was sent by him to Rome and Milan in the cause of their friend Claudius, who was accused of a capital offence (Hieron. Ep. lxxxi. 2; cont. Ruf. iii. 24).
This Rufinus is doubtless the one mentioned
by Celestius (Aug. de Pecc. Orig. c. 3 )
as having been known by him at the house of
Pammachius at Rome and having asserted there
S
Sabas (2), a Gothic martyr under Athanaric, king of the Goths towards the end of 4th cent. His Acts seem genuine, and contain many interesting details of Gothic life in the lands bordering on the Danube. Thus village life, with its head men and communal responsibility, appears in c. ii. After various tortures he was drowned in the Musaeus, which flows into the Danube. The Acts are in the form of an epistle from the Gothic church to that of Cappadocia, whither Soranus, who was "dux Scythiae," had sent his relics (Ruinart. Acta Sincera, p. 670; AA. SS. Boll. Apr. ii. 88; Ceill. iv. 278; C. A. A. Scott, Ulfilas, Apostle of the Goths, 1885, p. 80). The topography of the region where he suffered is exhaustively treated in the Sitzungsberichte der Wiener Akad. 1881–1882, t. xcix. pp. 437–492, by Prof. Tomaschek, of Graz University.
Sabas, (6), St., abbat in Palestine and founder of the laura of St. Sabas; born in 439, near Caesarea in Cappadocia. When 8 years old he entered a neighbouring monastery, and at 18 went a pilgrimage to the holy places at Jerusalem, where he entered the monastery of St. Passarion. At 30 he established himself as an anchorite in a cavern in the desert. Several persons joining him, he laid the foundations of his monastery on a rock on the Kidron river, where it still remains. (Cf. Murray's Handbook for Syria, p. 229.) He was ordained priest by Sallustius, patriarch of Constantinople, in 491. Several Armenians united themselves soon after to this community, which led to Sabas ordaining that the first part of Holy Communion should be said in Armenian, but the actual words of consecration in Greek. In 493 the monastery had increased so much that he built another at a short distance. He was sent as an ambassador to Constantinople in a.d. 511, by the patriarch ELIAS, to counteract the influence of Severus and the Monophysites with the emperor Anastasius; and again by Peter, patriarch of Jerusalem, in 531, to ask from the emperor remission of the taxes due by Palestine and help to rebuild the churches ruined by invasion. He died Dec. 5, 531, aged 91 years. His Life was written by Cyril of Scythopolis. [CYRILLUS (13).] Copious extracts from it are in Ceillier, xi. 274–277, and Fleury, H. E. lib. vii. §§ 30–32. The whole Life is in Coteler, Monument. t. iii.
Sabbatius (2), ordained by Marcianus as Novatianist bp. of Constantinople, seceded, before 380, from the main body of that sect, with two others, Theoctistes and Macarius, maintaining that Easter ought to be celebrated on the same day and in the same manner as by the Jews. He also complained that unworthy persons were admitted to the Novatianist communion, thus finding the same fault with the Novatianists that they did with the church. He became bishop of a small sect, called after him Sabbatiani, whose baptism was recognized in the 7th canon of the 2nd general council. Sozomen (H. E. vii. 18) gives a long account of his secession.
Sabellianism, the Eastern name for the movement designated Patripassianism
in the West. It formed a portion of the great Monarchian movement, and can only
be rightly understood in connexion therewith. We can trace its rise back to the
age of Justin Martyr. In his Apol. i. § 63 he refers to those "who affirm
that the Son is the Father," and condemns them—a condemnation which he repeats in
his Dialogue with Trypho, § 128 (cf. Bull's Defence of Nic. Creed,
t. i. 138, t. ii. 626 ; Judgm. Cath. Ch. iii. 198). The 2nd cent. was the
age of Gnosticism, of which one of the essential principles was the emanation theory,
which places a number of aeons, emanations from the Divine Being, intermediate between
God and the Creation. The champions of Christian orthodoxy were led, in opposition,
to insist strenuously upon the Divine Monarchy, God's sole, independent, and absolute
existence and being. Thus we find Irenaeus writing a treatise
περὶ μοναρχίας c. 190, addressed to
a Roman presbyter, Florinus, who had fallen away to Gnosticism. Asian Gnosticism
regarded the Son and the Holy Ghost as aeons or emanations (cf. Tertull. cont.
Prax. c. 8). Christians had to shew that the existence of the Son and the Holy
Ghost could be reconciled with the Divine Monarchy. Some therefore adopted the view
which Dorner calls Ebionite Monarchianism, defending the Monarchy by denying the
deity of Christ. Others identified the Persons of the Godhead with the Father, a
theory which was called Sabellianism, though that name is not derived from the original
inventor of this view. Sabellianism, in fact, was one of the mistakes men fell into
while groping their way to the complete Christological conception. It was in the
2nd cent. an orthodox reaction against Gnosticism, as in the 4th cent. the Sabellianism
of Marcellus of Ancyra was a reaction against Arianism. Tertullian expressly asserts,
in the opening of his treatise against Praxeas, that this heresy had sprung out
of a desire to maintain orthodoxy. The Roman church was one of the chief stages
whereon the controversial struggle was waged. The visit of Origen to Rome, some
time in 211–217, must have introduced him to the controversy, as abundant references
to it and refutations of it are in his writings. The materials for tracing the development
of Sabellian views during the 3rd cent. are very defective. Novatian on the Trinity
(cc. 12, 18, 21, 22) treats it as an acknowledged heresy, using the same Scripture
arguments as Justin Martyr in his Dial. cum Tryph. §§ 126–129. Novatian is
the earliest author who distinctly calls this view the Sabellian heresy. The controversy
next emerges into the full light of day in N. Africa c. 260. It permeated
very largely the district of Pentapolis in Libya, under the leadership of two bishops
of that district, Ammon and EUPHRANOR.
Dionysius of Alexandria wrote against their teaching, whereupon he was accused of
heresy to Dionysius of Rome. The documents bearing on the dispute between
We add a brief exposition of this heresy. One section of the Monarchian party (see supra) guarded the Monarchy by denying any personal distinctions in the Godhead, and thus identifying the Father and the Son. But Christ is called the Son of God, and a son necessarily supposed a father distinct from himself (Tertul. cont. Prax. c. 10). They evaded this difficulty by distinguishing between the Logos and the Son of God. The Logos was itself eternally identical with God the Father. The Son of God did not exist till the Incarnation, when the Eternal Logos manifested its activity in the sphere of time in and through the man Christ Jesus. "In O.T.," says Sabellius, "no mention is made of the Son of God, but only of the Logos" (Athan. Orat. iv. § 23). The Sonship is a mere temporary matter, however (cf. Greg. Nys. cont. Sabell. in Mai's Coll. Nov. Vett. Scriptt. t. viii. pt. ii. p. 4), and when the work of man's salvation is completed the Logos will be withdrawn from the humanity of Christ into that personal union and identity with the Father which existed from eternity, while the humanity will be absorbed into the original Divine nature. All this was summed up in the distinction drawn between the λόγος ἐνδιάθετος and the λόγος προφορικός. Here Sabellianism merged into Pantheism. The ultimate end of all things, according to Sabellius, was the restoration of the Divine Unity; that God, as the absolute Μονάς, should be all in all. If, then, the absorption of Christ's humanity into the absolute Μονάς was necessary, much more the absorption of all inferior personal existences. Neander points out that this system presents many points of resemblance to the Alexandrian-Jewish theology. Epiphanius, indeed, expressly asserts (Haer. lxii. c. 2) that Sabellius derived his system from the apocryphal Gospel of the Egyptians, which stated that Christ had taught His disciples, as a great mystery, the identity of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. This Gospel insisted upon the element of Sabellianism most akin to Pantheism, viz. that all contrarieties will be finally resolved into unity. Thus, according to it, Christ replied to the question of Salome when His kingdom should come, "When two shall be one, and the outer as the inner, and the male with the female; when there shall be no male and no female." Neander (H. E. t. ii. pp. 317–326, Bohn's ed.) gives the clearest exposition of this heresy and its connexion with kindred systems.
Sabellius, heretic, after whom the sect of the Sabellians was called (see preceding art.). The known facts of his history are but few. All 4th-cent. writers follow Basil in saying that he was born in Africa. The scene of Sabellius's activity was Rome, where we find him during the episcopate of pope Zephyrinus, a.d. 198–217. >From the statement of Hippolytus, he was apparently undecided in his views when he came to Rome, or when he first began to put forward his views at Rome, for the silence of Hippolytus about his birthplace suggests that it may have been Rome. In Refut. ix. 6, Hippolytus says that Callistus perverted Sabellius to Monarchian views. Hippolytus argued with him and with Noetus and his followers (ib. iii.). Sabellius, convinced for a time, was again led astray by Callistus. In fact, during the episcopate of Zephyrinus, Callistus, Sabellius and the pope seem to have united in persistently opposing Hippolytus. Soon after his accession Callistus (a.d. 217) excommunicated Sabellius, wishing to gain, as Hippolytus puts it, a reputation for orthodoxy and to screen himself from the attacks of his persistent foe. Sabellius thereupon disappears from the scene. He seems to have written some works, to judge from apparent quotations by Athanasius in his 4th treatise against Arianism.
Sabina (1), Poppaea, empress, 2nd wife of Nero. Like certain members
of the Flavian family, it is very highly probable, though not absolutely certain,
that Poppaea was a Christian. She was almost certainly a Jewish proselyte, as the
language of Josephus, Θεοσεβὴς γὰρ ἦν (Ant.
xx. 8, 11) almost implies. The fact that her body was embalmed and not burnt after
the Roman custom (Tac. Ann. xvi. 6) has been urged to shew that she had embraced
a foreign religion. Certainly at least twice (Jos. l.c., and Vita,
3) she exerted her influence with Nero in favour of the Jews (see Lightfoot,
Philipp. 5 note). It has even been conjectured that it was through her that
the Christians and not Jews were selected as the victims to suffer for the burning
of Rome. A romantic theory was put forward by M. Latour St. Ybars of a rivalry between
the Jewish Poppaea and Acte the former
Sabinus (10), bp. of Heraclea in Thrace, and a leader of the party and sect of Macedonius. He was the author of a collection of the Acts of the councils of the church from the council of Nicaea to his own time, which was much used by Socrates in his Eccl. Hist., who speaks of it as untrustworthy, because Sabinus was an unscrupulous partisan, and omitted, and even wilfully altered, facts and statements adverse to his views and interests (cf. Socr. op. cit. i. 8; ii. 15). Socrates shews how Sabinus tries to disparage the fathers of Nicaea in the face of the contrary evidence of Eusebius, and makes no mention whatever of Macedonius, lest he should have to describe his evil deeds. Baronius (ad ann. 325, xxxix., ad ann. 344, iii. etc.) speaks strongly of Sabinus's unscrupulous handling of history, calls him "homo mendacissimus," and suggests that Sozomen gives a garbled account of the election of Athanasius, "ex officina Sabini." Cave (Hist. Lit. i. 411) fixes the date at which Sabinus flourished as c. 425.
Salamanes (2), a solitary of Capersana, a village on the right bank of the Euphrates, who shut himself up in a cell on the opposite bank, having neither door nor window. Once a year he dug himself out, obtained food for the next year, and returned, having spoken with none. His diocesan, desiring to confer orders on so distinguished an ascetic, had the cell wall broken down and laid his hands upon him, Salamanes neither consenting nor dissenting. With equal passiveness he allowed himself to be transferred to another cell across the river by the inhabitants of the village, and to be taken back again by his former neighbours (Theod. Hist. Relig. c. xix.).
Salvianus (3), priest of Marseilles, a writer whose works illustrate most vividly the state of Gaul in 5th cent. The one external authority for his Life is Gennadius, de Scriptt. Eccles. c. 67, who gives a list of his writings. In 429 St. Hilary of Arles, in a sermon on St. Honoratus, describes him as "the most blessed man Salvianus the presbyter." His own expressions (de Gub. Dei, vi. 72) indicate that he was born in Gaul, probably at Trèves, the manners and customs of which place he knew intimately and reproves sharply. He, or at least some of his relations, resided at Cologne, occupying a respectable position in that city. When a young man he married Palladia, daughter of Hypatius, and had one daughter Auspiciola, after whose birth Salvianus and his wife adopted the monastic life. This greatly incensed Hypatius, who retired to a distant region, refusing any communication with them for 7 years. Ep. iv. is a very earnest appeal by Salvianus, his wife, and daughter, for a renewal of the love and friendship of Hypatius, with what success we are not told. Salvianus was in extreme old age when Gennadius wrote, and was held in the highest honour, being expressly termed "Episcoporum Magister," and regarded as the very type of a monk and a scholar. His writings are important from a social, political, and ecclesiastical point of view. In the de Gub. Dei he gives a lively picture of the social changes in the empire due to the iniquitous fiscal system in vogue. Thus lib. v. cc. 4–9 shew clearly the cause of brigandage, the origin of the serf system, and the evils of vast estates. In iv. 14 he refers to the crowds of Syrian merchants in all the cities of Gaul, a fact which the discovery of Syrian, Assyrian, and other Oriental inscriptions in France has amply confirmed (cf. Le Blant's Ins. chrét. de la Gaule, diss. Nos. 225, 557, and 613). He helps us to understand the interruption of intercourse between Roman and British Christianity in 5th and 6th cents. The empire was gradually surrounded by a ring fence of hostile states, all barbarous, and several of them heretical, which served as a retreat from the power, and a barrier to the religion, of Rome. For a cent. and a half the new kingdoms of the Franks and Burgundians afforded ample employment for Rome's missionary zeal without troubling with the regions beyond. The treatise against avarice is a laudation of the ascetic life and of almsgiving; he even in bk. i. seriously discusses whether a man should leave any property at all to his sons. Ceillier (x. 359) devotes a lengthened notice to Salvianus, with a full analysis of his writings.
The latest ed. of his works is that in the Corp. Eccl. Scriptorum of the Vienna Academy, t. viii. (Vindob. 1883), ed. by Fr. Pauly.
Salvina (Silvina), daughter of the Moorish chief Gildo, count of Africa. The Christian virtues which, according to Jerome and Chrysostom, distinguished the ladies of Gildo's family, were in strong contrast with brutal and savage vices which rendered his name detestable. While still a girl, Salvina was transferred by Theodosius to his own court, as a pledge of the loyalty of her father and of the province of Africa which he governed. She was brought up with the young members of the imperial family, and married c. 390 Nebridius, the son of the empress's sister, who had been educated with his cousins, the future emperors, Arcadius and Honorius. Nebridius, dying soon after, left her with a son, Nebridius, and a daughter (Hieron. Ep. ix.). She devoted herself to God's service, and, as her husband had done, protected the Oriental churches and ecclesiastics at the court of Arcadius. Her fame having spread to Palestine, Jerome, though a stranger, wrote her a letter—the arrogant tone of which might well have offended, if the coarseness had not shocked her. The young widow and her children then formed one household with her mother, Gildo's widow (he had died a.d. 398), and her paternal aunt at Constantinople (Hieron. Ep. 9; de Serv. Virg.; Ep. 11 ad Geront. ad fin.). Salvina's ardent piety speedily attached her to Chrysostom. She became one of his deaconesses, equalling Olympias and Pentadia in devotion to him. She remained with him to the last, and, together with the above-named and Procula, took a final farewell of him in the baptistery of the cathedral the night of his final expulsion (Pallad. p. 90).
Salvius (3), Donatist bp. of Membrasa (Medjez el Bab), one of the
12 ordainers of
Salvius (5) (Sauve), St., bp. of Alby, an intimate friend of Gregory of Tours, who gives the story of his early life from his own lips. He had been an advocate, and had led an active and worldly life though unstained by the passions of youth. After his conversion he entered a monastery to embrace a new life of poverty, austerity, and worship. In time the monks made him abbat, but craving for still higher sanctity, he withdrew to a solitary cell, where, after a fever, he fell into a sort of trance, and was laid out for dead. While unconscious he was conducted by two angels to heaven, and shewn the glory of it, but not permitted to remain, as work still awaited him on earth. The account of this Dantesque vision, which Gregory calls God to witness he heard from the bishop's own lips, is interesting (Hist. Franc. vii. 1). The authenticity of this chapter has, however, been questioned (see Boll. Acta SS. Sept. iii. 575, 576). As bishop Salvius indignantly scouted the heretical and somewhat crude views on the Trinity which king Chilperic wished to force upon the church (ib. v. 45). He was at the council of Braine in 580, and while bidding farewell to Gregory there, he pointed to the king's palace and asked him if he saw aught above it. Gregory could see nothing but the upper story just built at Chilperic's command. Then Salvius, drawing a deep sigh, said: "Video ego evaginatum irae divinae gladium super domum hanc dependentem," and after 20 days the two sons of the king were no more (v. 51). When Mummolus carried off some of the flock of Salvius as prisoners, he followed and ransomed them at his own cost; and when Alby was almost depopulated by a plague that ravaged S. France, he refused to desert the city (vii. 1). He died c. 584, being succeeded by Desideratus (vii. 22).
Samson (1) (Sampson), Welsh saint, bp. of Dôl. His legend is obscured by the admixture of several traditions. The materials for his Life are of their kind very abundant.
Taking the Life in Lib. Land. as a type of the British tradition as distinguished from the Gallican, Samson was son of Amwn Ddu, prince of Armorica in the 5th cent. Born in Glamorganshire, educated by St. Illtyd at Llantwit Major, ordained deacon and priest by St. Dubricius, he became for three and a half years abbat of St. Peirio or Piro's monastery on an island near Llantwit; some say at Llantwit. Afterwards he lived in a desert near the Severn, was consecrated by St. Dubricius and others to the episcopate, though, according to the common Celtic custom, without reference to a specific see, and in course of time proceeded to Armorica, where he became the deliverer of the captive prince Judual, and died at Dôl (Lib. Land. 305). Thus far, and excluding the miraculous elements, the tradition is generally consistent and complete, though some Welsh traditions bring him back to die at Llantwit. To this are added several fictions, probably of the 12th cent., traceable to Geoffrey of Monmouth and to Girald. Cambr. The monumental inscribed stones to SS. Illtyd and Samson found in the churchyard of Llantwit Major cannot be of this early date; the Samson there mentioned must have lived in the 9th cent., and the lettering would agree with that date. Haddan and Stubbs, Counc. i. 626–628; Rees, Welsh SS. 181, 255).
Sarbelius (1) (Sharbil). Syriac Acts of Sarbelius and other Edessan martyrs are in Cureton's Antiq. Mon. Syr. (1864), and a Latin trans., with abundant illustrative matter, was pub. by Moesinger (Innsbruck, 1874). According to them, Sarbelius was chief priest of the idol-worship of Edessa. Trajan, in the 15th year of his reign (also described as the 3rd of Abgarus, the 7th king, and the 416th of the era of Alexander the Great), commanded the rulers of the provinces to see that sacrifices and libations were renewed and increased in every city, and to punish with torture those who refused to take part. Barsimaeus, the bp. of the Christians, accompanied by a priest and deacon, thereupon waited on Sarbelius and warned him of his responsibility in leading so many to worship gods made with hands. They briefly told him of the doctrine concerning our Lord's Incarnation and death, taught by Paluth, the disciple of Addai the apostle, and believed in by the earlier king Abgarus. Sarbelius was at once converted, baptized that night, and made his appearance next day clad in his baptismal robes. A great multitude, including some chief men of the city, were converted with him. The Acts then relate how the governor Licinius brought Sarbelius before him and commanded him to sacrifice. As each form of torture was tried without success, Licinius ordered a new and more severe one, 18 being described. Finally, Sarbelius was put to death with new tortures, being partially sawn asunder and then beheaded, his sister Barbea being martyred with him. There are separate Acts of Barsimaeus, evidently by the same hand. They relate how he, after the martyrdom of Sarbelius, was brought before the tribunal and similarly tortured. But a letter, ordering persecution to cease, arrived from Trajan, who had been convinced of the excellence of Christian morality and of the general agreement of their laws of conduct with the imperial laws.
These Edessan Acts acquired very considerable celebrity. Moesinger published an Armenian translation, and Sarbelius is commemorated in the Greek Menaea and the Latin Martyrologies under Jan. 29 and Oct. 15. There is also a Thathuel, commemorated Sept. 4, whose story is identical with that of Sarbelius. Moesinger argued that the extant Acts were written by a contemporary of Sarbelius and were historically trustworthy; but his arguments are too weak to deserve serious refutation. Two marks of fiction are obvious: the extravagant amount of tortures alleged, and the familiarity of Sarbelius with N.T., which would have been noteworthy in a Christian of long standing in a.d. 105, but is incredible in a newly-made convert. He is made to quote the Gospels several times, the Psalms, and Romans. We may ascribe the Acts to the latter part of 4th cent. They are probably later than Eusebius, who shews no knowledge of the story; but are largely employed in a sermon, printed by Moesinger, by James of Sarug (d. 522). There is a strong family likeness between the Acts of Sarbelius and those of Habibus, and of Samona and Guria, also given in Cureton's work. Since the latter martyrs are said to have suffered under Diocletian, the former Acts, which seem to have the same origin. are at least no earlier.
Saturninus (1). In the section of his work commencing I. 22 Irenaeus gives
a list of heretics, apparently derived from Justin Martyr. The first two are the
Samaritan heretics, Simon and Menander; the next, as having derived their doctrines
from these, Saturninus and Basilides, who taught, the former in the Syrian Antioch,
the latter in Egypt. Irenaeus says that Saturninus, like Menander, ascribed the
ultimate origin of things to a Father unknown to all; and taught that this Father
made angels, archangels, powers, authorities, but that the world and the things
therein were made by a certain company of seven angels, in whom no doubt we are
to recognize the rulers of the seven planetary spheres. He taught that man was the
work of the same angels. They had seen a brilliant image (εἰκών)
descend from the Supreme Power, and had striven to detain it, but in vain; for it
immediately shot back again. So they encouraged each other: "Let us make man after
the image and after the likeness" (κατ᾿ εἰκόνα καὶ καθ᾿ ὁμοίωσιν,
The same creation myth is reported by Irenaeus (I. xxx. 5) to have been included in the system commonly known as Ophite; and literary dependence of the two stories is clear from the common use of the word σκαρίζο. But according to the Ophite story it is not the Supreme Power, but Ialdabaoth, the chief of the creative company, who bestows the breath of life; and these angels say, as in Genesis, "Let us make man after our image." We may count Saturninus as the originator of the myth, for the Ophite version has marks of less simplicity and originality.
Saturninus further taught that the God of the Jews was one of the seven creator angels. He and his company were in constant warfare with Satan and a company of evil angels. So, likewise, there were two distinct species of men, the bad ever aided by the demons in their conflicts with the good. Then the Supreme Father sent a Saviour to destroy the power of the God of the Jews and the other Archons; and to save those who had the spark of life in them—that is to say, the good. This Saviour had no human birth or human body, and was only a man in appearance.
Saturninus ascribed the Jewish prophecies, some to the creator angels and some to Satan. This is one of several points of coincidence between the reports given by Irenaeus of the teaching of Saturninus and of the Ophites. These do not ascribe any of the prophecies to Satan, but Irenaeus (§ 11) gives the scheme according to which they distributed them among the several angels. Saturninus does not appear to have left any writings. His sect is named by Justin Martyr (Trypho, 35) and by Hegesippus (Eus. H. E. iv. 22). No later heresiologist appears to know anything about him beyond what he learned from Irenaeus; and Irenaeus probably derived all his knowledge from Justin Martyr.
Saturninus (2) (Sernin), St., martyr, first bp. and patron of Toulouse. According to his Acta, published by Surius (Nov. 29) and by Ruinart after careful revision in his Acta Sincera (pp. 128–133), Saturninus came to Toulouse in the consulship of Decius and Gratius (a.d. 251), apparently from Rome (cf. Venant. Fort. Misc. ii. 12, Migne, Patr. Lat. lxxxviii. 101). Here his preaching so exasperated the people that they put him to a shocking death by binding him to a bull, which they infuriated by goads. There were two other traditions current in early times—one that Saturninus was sent into France by St. Clement at the end of the 1st cent., the other that his mission was from the apostles themselves. The former is in Gregory of Tours (de Glor. Mart. i. 48), and the latter is as old as Venantius Fortunatus, if the Passio S. Dionysii is rightly ascribed to him (Migne, u.s. 579), and appears in many other ancient sources (see Ceillier, ii. 111 n.). Sidonius Apollinaris celebrated his martyrdom in Sapphic stanzas (Ep. ix. 16). Venantius Fortunatus has some verses on the same event, the wonder-working virtues of his tomb (Misc. ii. 11, Migne, u.s. 99), and on the beautiful church built towards the close of 6th cent. by Launibodes on the spot where he was bound to the bull and which came to be known as du Taur or du Taureau (ii. 12, col. 100).
Saturninus (21), 8th bp. of Arles, a pillar of Arianism in the West. In
the winter of 353 he presided at the council of Arles, which, in the presence of
Constantius, condemned Athanasius and sentenced Paulinus of Trèves to deprivation
and exile. About this time Hilary, bp. of Poictiers, appeared on the scene, and
was henceforth in the West the champion
Scapula, a proconsul of Africa, with whom Tertullian remonstrated for his persecution of the Christians; not because the Christians feared martyrdom, but solely because their love for their enemies made them desire to save them from the guilt of shedding innocent blood. Tertullian recounts the temporal calamities which had overtaken former persecutors of the Christians, and denounces the injustice of punishing men pure in life and loyal, and whose innocence the magistrates fully acknowledge by their evident unwillingness to proceed to extremities and by their exertions to induce the accused to withdraw their confession. If, as had been done in another province, the Christians of Carthage were to present themselves in a body before the proconsul's tribunal, the magistrate, he says, would find before him thousands of every age, sex, and rank, including many leading persons, and probably relations and intimates of his own friends, and might well shrink from severities which would decimate the city. The tract is later than the emperor Severus, of whom it speaks in the past tense.
The Scapula addressed was probably Scapula Tertullus, one of the ordinary consuls in 195. The usual interval between consulship and proconsulship was 15 to 20 years; this also would place the proconsulship not very long after Severus died on Feb. 9, 211.
Scillitan Martyrs, 12 martyrs at Carthage (one of them Felix) from the African town of Scillita. According to their Acta, one of the women, Donata, when they were called upon by the consul, Saturninus, to sacrifice, replied, "We render honour to Caesar as Caesar, but worship and prayers to God alone." On receiving their sentence they thanked God. It was Ruinart's theory that the Scillitan Martyrs suffered under Sept. Severus between 198 and 202. M. Léon Renier, an eminent French archaeologist, however, noticed that the first line of the received codices of the Acts of these martyrs gave the names of the consuls for the year of the martyrdom very variously, a fragment published by Mabillon (Vet. Analect. t. iv. p. 155) reading, "Praesidente bis Claudiano consule." He therefore suggested that the word "bis" ought to follow a proper name indicating a second consulship, and that the word "consule" ought to be replaced by "consulibus." Finding, moreover, in the Fasti the names Praesens II. and Condianus as consuls for 180, he proposed that the first line of our Acts should be read, "Praesente bis et Condiano Consulibus." Then in 1881 Usener, a Bonn professor, published a hitherto unknown text of these Acts from a Greek MS. in the Bibl. Nat. of Paris, dating from the end of 9th cent., and explicitly naming the very two consuls Renier suggested, Praesens II. and Condianus. There is no mention of Severus. It quite correctly speaks of one emperor, since Commodus on July 17, 180, was sole emperor. The proconsul of Africa is Saturninus. He continues the policy of the previous reign, which is not yet modified by the domestic influences which led Commodus to favour the Christians. In 177 persecution had raged at Lyons. It was now the turn of Africa. Usener regarded the Gk. text discovered by him as a translation from Latin. Aubé, viewing the Gk. text of Usener as an original document and the source of all the Latin texts, replied to Usener's arguments, pointing out that Greek was largely spoken at Carthage in the latter half of 2nd cent., and urging many critical considerations from a comparison of the Latin and Greek texts which seem to support his view. For a further discussion of the question see Aubé and Usener. To the Biblical critic these Acts in both shapes are interesting, as indicating the position held by St. Paul's Epp. in 180 in the N. African church. The proconsul asked the martyr Speratus what books they kept laid up m their bookcases? He replied, Our books, or, as the Latin version puts it, the four Gospels of our Lord Jesus Christ, and in addition the Epistles of Paul the holy man. Etude sur un nouveau texte des Actes des Martyrs Scillitains (Paris, 1881); cf. Lightfoot's Ignatius, t. i. p. 507.
Sebastianus (2), Jan. 20, military martyr at Rome under Diocletian. He was of Milan, where he commanded the first cohort. He confessed Christ, and was shot (apparently) to death with arrows in the camp. He was celebrated in the time of St. Ambrose (Enarr. in Ps. 118, No. 44), and is the favourite saint of Italian women, and regarded as the protector against the plague. His symbol is an arrow.
Secundinus (11), a poet, a contemporary and correspondent of Sidonius Apollinaris (Ep. v. 8) who apparently highly esteemed Secundinus as a writer of hexameter verse on minor subjects, such as royal hunting parties and marriages. Secundinus afterwards attempted satire, and Sidonius highly commends a composition in hendecasyllabic metre, urging him to continue this kind of composition. It appears (Ep. ii. 10) that some of his hexameters were inscribed upon the wall of the basilica built at Lyons by Patiens (bishop c. 451–491), and he may have been one of the many minor poets who flourished at Lyons in the latter half of 5th cent.
Secundus (1), Gnostic of 2nd cent., a disciple of Valentinus, and apparently
one of the earliest of that teacher's successors, since he is the first of that
school of whom Irenaeus gives an account (I. xi. 2). Irenaeus reports two things
as peculiar in his teaching: (1) he divided the primary Ogdoad into two Tetrads,
a right-hand and a left-hand one, the one being called light, the other darkness;
(2) he did not allow the Sophia out of whose passions, according to the Valentinian
theory, the material world took its origin to have been one
Secundus (4), bp. of Tigisis, a fortified town of Numidia, in the neighbourhood
of Lambese and Thamagada (Procop. Vandal. ii. 13). The persecution under
Diocletian appears to have reached its height in Feb. 304, and on May 19 Paulus,
bp. of Cirta, committed the act of "tradition" which partly gave rise to the proceedings
in which Secundus became conspicuous. Paulus soon died, and some 11 or 12 bishops
met at Cirta on
When, on the death of Mensurius, bp. of Carthage, a.d. 311, Caecilian was appointed to succeed him, Secundus was sent for in haste to preside at a meeting of 70 malcontents at Carthage, and their factious opposition resulted in the schismatic appointment of Majorinus (Opt i. 19; Aug. Parm. i. 5). The case was brought up afresh at the conference of 411. Tillem. vi. 5–14; Morcelli, Afr. Chr. ii. 194–207; Ribbek, Aug. und Don. pp. 52–57, 69; Sparrow Simpson, St. Aug. and Afr. Ch. Divisions (1910), p. 32.
Sedulius (1), a 5th-cent. poet, of whose life very few details are known. The only trustworthy information is given by his two letters to Macedonius, from which we learn that he devoted his early life, perhaps as a teacher of rhetoric, to heathen literature. Late in life he became converted to Christianity, or, if a Christian before, began to take a serious view of his duties. Thenceforward he devoted his talents to the service of Christ, living as a priest (cf. i. 7–9), in close intercourse with a small body of religious friends (pref.). He gives us a charming account of this group: Macedonius, the father and life of the whole; Ursinus, the reverent priest spending his life in the service of the King of Heaven; Laurence, the wise and gentle, who has spent all his money on the poor; Gallicanus, another priest, not learned, but a model of goodness and loyalty to church rule; Ursicinus, combining the wisdom of age with the brightness of youth; the deaconess Syncletica, of noble birth and nobler life, a worthy temple of God, purified by fasting, prayer, and charity, learned and liberal; and lastly Perpetua, the young pure matron, perpetual in fame and purity as in name. Sedulius, too, longed to devote his talent to God and to strengthen his own spiritual life by exhorting others. He yearned to tell the heathen of the wonders of the Gospel, and wrote the Carmen Paschale to invite then to share the Gospel feast. This was dedicated to Macedonius, and afterwards, at his request, was translated into prose (Opus Paschale). The works shew a character of much humility (cf. i. ad fin.), of tenderness of heart (v. 96), of warm gratitude (Carm. Pasch. pref.), and of keen susceptibility to criticism (Opus Pasch. pref.).
These are the only certain facts. Even his date is uncertain. He refers to St. Jerome as a well-known student, and his work is praised by a decree of pope Gelasius in 495 or 496. Syncletica may have been a sister of Eustathius, who lived early in 5th cent. Hence the date of Sedulius must be c. 450. A mass of information about him is in later writers, but much of it arises from a confusion with Sedulius the Scotchman. The best authenticated account makes him a native of Rome who studied philosophy in Italy, became an antistes (i.e. probably a presbyter) and wrote his book in Achaia. The internal evidence as to these details is very slight: his friends bear Latin names almost entirely; he is in the presence of educated idolaters and takes special pains to argue against sun-worship; but these indications are very vague. His works became popular very soon. They were edited by an editor of Vergil, T. Rufius Asterius (consul a.d. 494)—perhaps in consequence of the importance attached to them by the pope's decree. They are mentioned with praise by Venantius Fortunatus (viii. 1) and Theodulf of Arles; were commented on, perhaps by Remi of Auxerre (9th cent.), and frequently quoted and imitated by the writers of the middle ages. Areval quotes 16 MSS. dating from cents. vii. to xvi.; since then more than 40 editions have been printed, and special prominence was given to him by German writers last century.
(1) Carmen Paschale, "a poem in honour of Christ our Passover," consists
of five books. Bk. i. is an introductory appeal to the heathen to give up idolatry
and listen to the deeds of the true God. Bks. ii.–v. describe in full detail the
miracles of the Gospel and the Lord's Prayer. In the earlier part the narratives
of SS. Matthew and Luke are pieced together in chronological order. Throughout the
ministry to the final entry into Jerusalem Sedulius follows St. Matthew, with a
few insertions from SS. John and Luke; then adds a succession of miracles from SS.
Mark and Luke, without regard to chronology, (iv. 59–221), and the chief incidents
of St. John's Gospel; from the entry into Jerusalem to the end he mainly follows
St. John. As a rule the details of the scenes are given slightly and followed by
frequent comment, sometimes dogmatical (e.g. on the Nature of the Trinity,
i. 16–20, 281 sqq., ii. 171, the Fatherhood of God, ii. 234, the Priesthood of Christ,
iv. 207, etc.), at other times pointing out the typical meaning of Scripture, both
of O.T. (i. 102–109, 127, 142, 152, iii. 202, iv. 170) and N.T.; e.g. the
number of the evangelists and of the apostles (Prol. to lib. ii.; iii. 172), the
number and nature of the gifts of the Magi (ii. 95), the dove
The style is rhetorical but pleasant, with considerable terseness and power of antithesis; and fairly correct in prosody, shewing considerable acquaintance with classical authors. The reference to Origen (Opus Pasch. pref.) and the play on Elias and ἥλιος (i. 170) imply some knowledge of Greek; of Latin authors he knew Terence, Juvenal, and specially Vergil, from whom be frequently borrows; possibly, too, the poem of Juvencus. There is a growing frequency in the use of leonine rhymes. For an analysis with a discussion of its sources and theology see Leimbach, Ueber den Christlichen Dichter Sedulius (Goslar, 1879).
(2) Opus Paschale.—This prose translation mainly follows the Carmen faithfully, but adds illustrations and fills up gaps. It is preceded by another interesting letter to Macedonius.
(3) Elegia.—An elegiac poem of 110 lines, corresponding in subject to the Carm. Pasch. It describes the effect of the Incarnation in contrast to the work of Adam, and Christ as the antitype of the types of O.T.
(4) Hymn.—"A solis ortus cardine." This may be called a lyrical expression of the Carmen. It is a call to praise Christ with a description of the chief facts of His birth, life, and death. It is an alphabetical, hymn in iambic dimeters with four-lined strophes. It shews a growing tendency to rhyme and a careful attempt to avoid any conflict between accent and quantity. Two extracts have been widely used in church services, viz. A–G in Lauds for Christmas week; and H, I, L, N, which celebrate the adoration of the Magi, the baptism, and the miracle at Cana, on the feast of Epiphany. These sections are in Daniel Thes. i. p. 143, and with a full German commentary in Kayser, pp. 347–383.
(5) Cento Virgilianus "de Verbi Incarnatione" is sometimes ascribed to Sedulius (e.g. by Bähr), but is only found in one Corbey MS., and there only follows the other poems without being ascribed to Sedulius. It is in Martene, Vett. Scr. Coll. ix. p. 125.
The most available edd. are Migne, Patr. Lat. xix.; a text of the poetical works by J. Looshorn (Munich, 1879); of the Carm. Pasch. in Hurter's Op. Selecta, xxxiii.; and Huemer's ed. of the whole (Vienna, 1885).
Senochus (1), St., a presbyter of great reputation. for sanctity near Tours; born c. 536 in a district near Poictiers called Theiphalia, which had been for many years settled by a Scythian or Tartar race, to which he belonged. He became a Christian, and in some ruined buildings by Tours built himself a cell, at a spot where an old oratory existed, in which St. Martin, according to tradition, had been wont to pray. St. Euphronius, then bp. of Tours, consecrated it afresh, and ordained Senoch a deacon. Here with a little company of three he practised the greatest austerities, but aspiring to higher sanctity, afterwards shut himself in a solitary cell. In 573 Gregory became bp. of Tours, and received a visit from him. Soon after Senoch went to see his kinsfolk in Poitou, and came back, according to Gregory, so puffed up with spiritual pride that the bishop had to reprove him. He consented, at Gregory's persuasion, to forego his absolute solitude, that the sick might be healed by his virtues. He died, aged about 40, c. 576. He had redeemed many from captivity or healed or fed them, and miracles were attributed to his corpse. Greg. Tur. Hist. Franc. v. 7; Vitae Patrum, c. xv.; de Glor. Conf. c. xxxv.; Boll. Acts SS. Oct. x. 764 sqq.
Senuti, an anchorite whose history was investigated by E. Revillout in a paper on the Blemmyes (Mém. de l’Acad. des Inscr. 1874, sér. 1, t. viii. p. 395 ), and still more elaborately in a series of articles in the Revue de l’hist. des religions (1883), Nos. 4 and 5. He was born about the middle of 4th cent. His father was a farmer in Egypt, and Senuti fed his sheep in boyhood. But it was an age when every enthusiast devoted himself to the monastic life. He attached himself to the monastery of Panopolis near Athrebi in Upper Egypt, where he soon attained such fame for sanctity and orthodoxy that Cyril would only set out for the council of Ephesus if he had the company of Senuti and Victor, archimandrite of Tabenna. Zoega, Cat. MSS. Coptic Mus. Borg. p. 29, gives us Cyril's account of this affair. Senuti's conduct at the council of Ephesus, as described by his disciple and successor Besa fully justifies the charges of outrageous violence brought by the Nestorian party against their opponents. A lofty throne was in the centre of the hall with the four gospels on it. Nestorius entered with pomp, flung the gospels on the floor, and seated himself on the throne. This enraged Senuti who, snatching up the book, hurled it against the breast of Nestorius with vigorous reproaches. Nestorius demanded who he was, and what brought him to the council, being "neither a bishop, nor an archimandrite, nor a provost, but merely a simple monk." "God sent me to the council," replied Senuti, "to confound thee and thy wickedness." Amid the plaudits of his adherents Cyril at once invested him with the rank and robe of an archimandrite. His career was now marked by miracle. He was wafted on a cloud to Egypt. His fame was everywhere established, and Roman commanders sought his assistance. Thus c. 450 the dux of Upper Egypt, Maximin, hurrying to repel a terrific invasion of the Blemmyes, before he would advance sought the presence of Senuti, who gave Maximin his girdle to wear whenever he joined battle. According to the Coptic MSS. Senuti followed Nestorius with bitter persecution to the last, even offering him personal violence when he lay dying in Egypt.
Senuti lived to be a heretic in the opposite extreme from Nestorius. After the council of Chalcedon he became a Monophysite and a violent partisan of the patriarch Dioscorus of Alexandria, dying under Timotheus Aelurus aged 118 years.
Serapion (1), bp. of Antioch, reckoned 8th in succession,
a.d. 190–203 (Clinton), succeeding
Maximin in the 11th year of Commodus (Eus. H. E. vi. 12; Chron.),
was a theologian of considerable literary activity, the author
Serapion (3), a penitent of Alexandria, who fell during the Decian persecution. Dionysius of Alexandria uses his case as an argument against the Novatianist schism, to which his correspondent, Fabius of Antioch, was inclined. Serapion lived a long life without blame, but had sacrificed at last. He often begged for admission to the church, but was refused. He was then taken sick, being three days without speech. When he awoke to consciousness he dispatched his grandson for a presbyter, who was sick and unable to come, but sent a portion of the consecrated Eucharist, telling the boy to moisten it and drop it into Serapion's mouth, who then died in peace. Reservation of the Sacrament must then have been practised in Alexandria. No argument, however, for communion in one kind can be drawn from this, as doubtless the bread had been dipped in the Eucharistic wine, according to Eastern fashion (see Bingham's Antiq. lib. xv. c. v.). Eus. H.E. vi–44.
Serapion (9), surnamed Scholasticus, bp. of Thmuis in Egypt. He was a friend of St. Athanasius and St. Anthony of the desert, and occupied a position of some importance in 4th-cent. theological struggles. Anthony bequeathed one of his sheepskin cloaks to Serapion and the other to Athanasius (Vita S. Anth. in Opp. S. Athan., Migne, Patr. Lat. t. xxvi. col. 971). Serapion's literary activity was considerable. St. Jerome (Catal. No. 99) mentions several of his writings, as his treatise contra Manichaeos, his de Psalmorum Titulis (now lost), and some epistles. His work against the Manicheans, described by Jerome as "Egregium librum," and noticed by Photius (Cod. 85), was for the first time printed in its original form by Brinkmann in 1894. It had previously been mixed up with a similar work by Titus of Bostra. In its restored form it is a valuable argument against Manicheism. Two letters by him were pub. by Cardinal Mai—one a consolatory letter to bp. Eudoxius, who had been tortured; the other censuring some monks of Alexandria. In Texte und Untersuchungen (Leipz. 1898) Wobbermin published a dogmatic letter "on the Father and the Son," and 30 liturgical prayers, the 1st and 15th of which are the work of Serapion. They have been reprinted, with valuable notes and discussions, by F. E. Brightman in the Oxf. Journ. of Theol. Studies, 1899–1910, under the title of The Sacramentary of Serapion of Thmuis, and an English trans., ed. by bp. Wordsworth of Salisbury, has been pub. by S.P.C.K.
Serapion (11), surnamed Sindonites from the linen or cotton clothing
he always wore; an Egyptian monk in the time of Palladius. Though uneducated, he
knew the Scriptures by heart. Some of his sayings are recorded in the Verba Seniorum
(Rosweyd, Vit. Pat. lib. v libell. vi. § 12, libell. xi. 31), and in the
Apophthegmata Patrum (Coteler. Gr. Ecc. Monum. i. 685, 686) there
is an account of his visit to a lewd woman, whom he brought to repentance. His missionary
zeal led him to travel, but in more than apostolic poverty, and he even sold his
volume of the gospel to relieve a destitute person, a circumstance alluded to by
Socrates (iv. 23), though without naming Serapion. Once he sold himself as a slave
to a theatrical company, and once to a Manichean family, with a view to converting
them from their errors. He visited Athens and Sparta. At Rome he met Domninus, a
disciple of Origen (Pallad. Laus Hist. 83, 84; Vit. Joan. Eleemos.
c. 22 in Rosweyd, lib. i.). He died, aged 60, c. 400, not at Rome as stated
in the Latin version of the Lausiac History, but in the desert, as in Heraclides
(Paradis. c. 24) and the Greek of Palladius. The Greeks honoured his memory
on May 21, the Menaea erroneously calling him
ὁ ἀπὸ Σείδονος, belonging to Sidon. He may
be the Serapion of
Serapion (14), a solitary, of Scete, and leader of the Anthropomorphites against the festal epistle of Theophilus, patriarch of Alexandria. The monks of Scete, with the one exception of Paphnutius, an abbat, rejected the orthodox view as to God's nature. Serapion, however, was converted by the efforts of Photinus, an Oriental deacon. Cassian tells us that an abbat Isaac explained to him in connexion with Serapion's conversion that the Anthropomorphite heresy was simply a relic of paganism. Pious men like Serapion had been so long accustomed to an image that without a material notion of God their prayers seemed objectless. Cassian, Collat. x. 16; Ceill, viii. 176.
Serapion (16), bp. of Heraclea, an Egyptian by birth, ordained deacon
by Chrysostom (Socr. H. E. vi. 4), and by him made archdeacon of the church
of Constantinople (Soz. H. E. viii. 9). His character as drawn by contemporary
historians is most unfavourable. Presuming on his official power, he treated others
with contempt and exhibited an intolerable arrogance (Socr. H.E. vi. 11;
On Chrysostom's leaving Constantinople early in 401 to regulate the affairs of the church of Asia, he deputed SEVERIAN, bp. of Gabala, to act as his commissary, but the real management of the diocese and its clergy was left to Serapion. Severian was ambitious and devoid of a high sense of honour, and Serapion had soon to report, probably with exaggerations, that he was undermining Chrysostom's influence with the court and aristocracy, and seeking to outdo him as a preacher. Chrysostom hastened back to Constantinople, and Serapion greeted him with the astounding intelligence that Severian had denied the Incarnation. The grounds of this charge were the following: Serapion having ostentatiously refused to rise to pay Severian as he passed the accustomed homage of a deacon to a bishop, with the express intention, declared to the clergy around, of shewing "how much he despised the man." Severian, at this studied insult, indignantly exclaimed, "If Serapion dies a Christian, then Jesus Christ was not incarnate." Serapion repeated the latter clause alone, and delated Severian as a denier of the chief article of the Christian faith. The report was confirmed by bystanders and readily credited by Chrysostom, who expelled Severian from the city as a blasphemer (Soz. H. E. viii. 10; Socr H. E. vi. 11). An account favourable to Serapion is found in a fragment (unwarrantably embodied in some Eng. translations of Socrates's Hist.) printed as an appendix to Socr. vi. ii. According to this, Serapion's act of disrespect was brought before a synod, which, on Serapion affirming on oath that he had not seen Severian pass, acquitted him of intentional rudeness, while Chrysostom, hoping to soothe Severian's ruffled feelings, suspended Serapion from his ecclesiastical functions for a short time. Severian, however, insisted on his deposition and excommunication. Chrysostom, annoyed at his pertinacity, quitted the synod, leaving the decision to the bishops, by whom his mild sentence was immediately confirmed. Chrysostom then broke off all intimacy with Severian and recommended him to return to his own diocese, which he had neglected too long. For the remainder of this unhappy transaction see SEVERIANUS (2). Chrysostom rewarded the supposed fidelity of Serapion by raising him to the priesthood, and returning from the brief expulsion which followed the synod of the Oak, gave Serapion the metropolitan see of Heraclea in Thrace (ib. 17). On Chrysostom's second and final banishment Serapion, taking refuge in a convent of Gothic monks known as the Marsi (Chrys. Ep. 14), was discovered, dragged from his hiding-place brought before Chrysostom's enemies, deposed from his bishopric, banished to Egypt, and left at the mercy of the patriarch Theophilus (Pallad. p. 195 ; Soz. H. E. viii. 9).
Serenus (4), solitary in the Nitrian desert, who, when visited by Cassian, a.d. 395, discussed de Animae Mobilitate et Spiritalibus Nequitiis (Coll. vii.), and de Principatibus seu Potestatibus (Coll. viii. See Migne, Patr. Lat. t. xlix. 667 seq. ). In the former he treats mostly of the nature of the soul, the rapid movement of the thoughts, the influence of evil spirits upon them, and the duty of fixing the desire on God. In the latter he declares the nature of evil spirits, their fall, subordination, and occupation. His Life, without details, is in Vitae Patrum, c. 50. Migne, Patr. Lat. t. lxxiii. 844 seq.; Ceill. Aut. sacr. viii. 170 seq.; Fleury, H. E. xx. c. 7.
Serenus (5), 10th bp. of Marseilles c. 595–600, known from the letters of Gregory the Great. To his good offices were commended St. Augustine on his mission to England in 596 (Greg. Magn. Ep. vi. 52; Migne, Patr. Lat. lxxvii. 836), and, three years later, the monks dispatched to help him (xi. 58, Patr. Lat. 1176). Two other letters from Gregory are preserved. Serenus in an excess of iconoclastic zeal had entered the churches of Marseilles and broken and cast forth the images. Gregory, commending his fervour against idolatry, reproved his violence, since the use of representations in a church was that the unlearned might read on the walls what they were unable to read in the Scriptures (ix. 105, Patr. Lat. 1027). Serenus, disregarding the warning and even affecting to believe the letter a forgery, received a severe rebuke and a reiteration of the pope's views (xi. 13, Patr. Lat. 1128, written Nov. 1, 600). Gall. Christ. i. 639; Ricard, Evêques de Marseille, 24, 25; Vies des saints de Marseille, S. Serenus, Bayle.
Sergius (2), a very celebrated military saint and martyr of the Eastern church. His Acts call him "Amicus Imperatoris." He and Bacchus were regarded as the patron saints of Syria. Sergius suffered at Sergiopolis, or Rasaphe, in Syria, early in the 4th cent. Their united fame soon became widespread. Le Bas and Waddington (Voy. archéol. t. iii. No. 2124) notice a church of E. Syria dedicated in their honour in 354 as the earliest case of such consecration to saints, and (ib. No. 1915) describe one dedicated in 512 to SS. Sergius, Bacchus, and Leontius, and offer reasons for regarding Leontius as a martyr under Hadrian when ruling Syria during the last years of Trajan. Theodora, wife of Justinian, presented a jewelled cross to a church of St. Sergius, which Persian invaders carried off. Chosroes, king of Persia, returned it to Gregory, patriarch of Antioch, in 593. (Cf. Evagr. H E. iv. 28; vi. 21, where Chosroes is represented as a convert to the cult of Sergius.) The fame of Sergius and Bacchus spread to France, where Le Blant (Christ. Lat. Inscrip. of France, t. i. p. 305) notices a church at Chartres dedicated in their honour. Le Blant (Actes des mart. p. 77) notes the marks of genuineness in his Acts as told in AA. SS. Boll.; cf. Tillem. v. 491.
Sergius (12), the name of the two Monophysite
Severianus (2), bp. of Gabala on the seaboard of Syria, c. 400; described by Gennadius (Ill. Eccl. Scriptt. c. 21) as "in Divinis Scripturis eruditus, et in Homiliis declamator admirabilis." He repaired to Constantinople, and was kindly received by Chrysostom, who often selected him to preach on important occasions. In spite of a rough provincial accent, he obtained considerable popularity with the people in general and with the emperor and empress, who often appointed him to preach (Gennad. u.s.). When early in 401 Chrysostom left Constantinople for the visitation of Asia Minor, he deputed his official authority to Severian as commissary, all real power being invested in his archdeacon Serapion. Severian, in Chrysostom's absence undermined his influence with the court, and fostered the dislike of the worldly and luxurious clergy of Constantinople, whom Chrysostom's severity had greatly alienated. His conduct was reported in the darkest colours to Chrysostom by his jealous and artful rival Serapion. For the events which compelled Severian to leave for his own diocese see SERAPION. Severian had barely crossed the Bosphorus when the imperious Eudoxia compelled Chrysostom to allow his return. But Chrysostom steadily refused to readmit the offender to friendly intercourse. The empress carried her infant son, the future emperor Theodosius, in her arms, into the church of the Apostles, and casting him in Chrysostom's lap, conjured him with solemn imprecations to be reconciled with Severian. Chrysostom consented, and exhorted his congregation to submit, as loyal subjects and good Christians, to the wishes of those in authority (Homil. de recipiend. Severian. t. iii. p. 422, ed. Migne). The request was acceded to with applause. Severian next day delivered a short rhetorical eulogy on the blessings of peace (Sermo ipsius Severiani de Pace, ib. p. 493). The hollowness of the reconciliation was soon proved. Severian joined in a plot, under the inspiration of the empress and the powerful female influence of the court, for Chrysostom's humiliation, which ultimately proved only too successful (Pallad. Dial. pp. 35, 48, 72). At the assembly of the Oak, Severian took a leading part (Pallad. p. 72 ; Phot. Cod. 59, p. 53), and on Chrysostom's deposition, mounted the pulpit and publicly expressed approbation of the act, which he said Chrysostom had well merited for his haughtiness alone. This "barefaced attempt to justify injustice" rendered the people furious, and they were only restrained from summary measures by Chrysostom's speedy recall. Severian and his brother-intriguers fled (Socr. H. E. vi. 16, 17; Soz. H. E. viii. 19; Pallad. Dial. p. 16). We find them at Constantinople seconding new designs for the destruction of Chrysostom set on foot by Eudoxia and the court party, and securing his final condemnation (Pallad. Dial. pp. 79, 88; Soz. H. E. viii. 22). Severian's malice did not cease with Chrysostom's expulsion. He is charged by Palladius with using his influence to obtain the removal of the aged invalid from Cucusus, where the climate had not proved so fatal as the malice of his enemies desired, to the more bleak and inaccessible town of Pityus (Dial. 97). Severian's death may be placed under Theodosius II. between 408 and 430.
Very few of his numerous writings are extant. Some homilies printed in Chrysostom's works have been attributed to him with more or less probability. The following are regarded on satisfactory grounds as his: de Creatione Mundi, de Nativitate Christi, de Sigillis Librorum, de Serpente Aeneo, de Nativitate. We may add de Morte Innocentium, and de Cruce Homilia, pub. by Combefis with some of Chrysostom's. Du Pin attributes to Severian, from internal evidence, a large number of homilies which pass under Chrysostom's name. Severian is said to have composed a large number of commentaries on Holy Scripture, the whole being lost except for fragments in the Catenae. Gennadius read with pleasure treatises of his on Baptism and the Epiphany. A work contra Novatum is quoted by Gelasius, de Duabus Christi Naturis; and one contra Judaeos by Cosmas Indicopleustes, vii. 292. According to Mabillon (Mus. Ital. i. pp. 13, 124), 88 homilies bearing his name exist in MS. in the Ambrosian library and others in the Coislinian. Fabr. Bibl. Graec. ix. 267; Cave, Hist. Lit. i. 37; Dupin, H. E.
Severinus (4), monk and apostle of Noricum (Austria) in the 5th cent.
He was assisted by EUGIPPIUS,
who afterwards presided over a monastery dedicated to his memory, and there wrote
his Life c. 511, describing Severinus as coming from the East to preach in
Pannonia and Noricum, about the time that Attila's death was followed by contests
among his sons, which wrought havoc and destruction in these provinces. Severinus
lived a life of the sternest asceticism in a small cell where he could barely stand
erect. His Life is full of the wonders wrought and predictions uttered by him, but
is important as illustrating the social life of the outlying provinces of the empire
when the foundations of the modern European system were beginning to be laid. Thus
c. vi. tells of the influence he exercised in introducing the payment of tithes.
He was a most devoted missionary, reverenced by Roman and barbarian alike. Odoacer
sought him out and desired his blessing when about to invade Italy. "Pursue," said
the saint, "your design; proceed to Italy; you will soon cast away this coarse garment
of skins, and your wealth will be adequate to your liberality of mind" (Gibbon,
c. xxxvi.). Severinus died a.d. 482,
near Vienna. His Life is in AA. SS. Boll. (Jan. 1, 483) and Pez,
Severus (1), L. Septimius, emperor, born at Leptis in Tripoli in Apr. 146. His family were of equestrian rank, and two of his uncles had been consuls. His early life at Rome was a mixture of study and dissipation, his talents attracting the attention of M. Aurelius, who conferred various offices upon him. In one capacity or another he held office in nearly all the western provinces. In 193 he was in command of Pannonia and Illyricum. When the news arrived of the murder of Pertinax and the sale of the empire to Didius Julianus, it aroused great indignation in the Pannonian army, and Severus taking advantage of this feeling, got himself saluted emperor by them at Carnuntum in Apr. or May, and immediately marched on Rome. Julian was abandoned by the praetorians, and put to death by order of the senate on June 1 or 2. Severus left Rome after 30 days, to fight his most formidable rival Pescennius Niger, who had assumed the purple at Antioch a few days before himself, and overthrew him in 194. Albinus, who had assumed the title of emperor, was defeated and slain on Feb. 19, 197, in the plain of Trevoux near Lyons. In the autumn of 204 the secular games were celebrated with great magnificence for the last time. In 208 Severus set out for Britain, and marched through Caledonia to the extreme N., cutting down forests and making roads. He added a new rampart to the wall built by Hadrian from the Tyne to the Solway. He died at York on Feb. 4, 211. Of all emperors from Augustus to Diocletian, Severus was probably the man of greatest power. Crafty, ambitious, and unscrupulous, he allowed no considerations of humanity to stand in his way. Yet he did not delight in cruelty for its own sake, and any weakness on his part would have been fatal to himself and have plunged the Roman world again in the anarchy from which he had rescued it. Disorder and brigandage throughout the empire were put down with a firm hand. He was an adept in astrology and magic.
In the earlier part of his reign he favoured the Christians. He believed he had been cured of an illness by oil administered by a Christian named Proculus, whom till his death he maintained in the palace; and the nurse and some of the playmates of CARACALLA were Christians. No Christians took a prominent part on the side of Niger or Albinus, and it is even probable that those who tried to hold Byzantium for Niger ill-treated the Christians there during the siege. The number of councils held in the early years of Severus on the time of observing Easter proves that the church was then unmolested. The first change for the worse appears to have been at the emperor's entry into Rome, a.d. 197, after the defeat of Albinus. The Christians excited the fury of the mob by refusing to join in the rejoicings, an act they considered inconsistent with their religion. But Severus used his influence to protect Christian men and women of rank against the fury of the mob (ad Scap. 4). But in 202 he issued an edict forbidding future conversions to Judaism or Christianity (Vita Severi, 17). His motives are unknown. Probably, as a stern statesman of the old Roman school, he foresaw the peril to the national religion and the constitution of the state that lay in the active Christian propaganda, and though personally friendly to some among them, thought it time to check the further progress of the religio illicita.
Though the edict applied only to new converts, and catechumens were accordingly the greatest sufferers, yet there were numerous victims among the Christians of long standing. In the East, the Christians suffered most in Egypt, perhaps because the emperor had visited it immediately after the promulgation of his edict. So terrible was the outbreak that Judas, a Christian writer, made the 70 weeks of Daniel expire with the 10th year of Severus, and thought the advent of Antichrist at hand. Laetus the prefect and his successor Aquila were merciless enemies of the Christians, who were dragged from all parts of Egypt to their tribunal at Alexandria. Among the most notable martyrs was Leonidas, the father of Origen, who was only prevented by a stratagem of his mother from sharing his father's fate. By a strange inconsistency Origen was allowed to visit the martyrs in prison and to be present at their trial, and even to accompany them on their way to execution, apparently without being molested by the government, though several times in great danger from mob violence.
In Africa the persecution began with a violation of the cemeteries, and a bad harvest following, the rage of the people against the Christians increased (ad Scap. 3). [SCILLITAN MARTYRS.] In the spring of 203, under Hilarianus the procurator, who had assumed the government on the death of the proconsul, the famous group of martyrs among whom St. Perpetua was most conspicuous, suffered. Yet here again we find the same inconsistency as at Alexandria. Deacons were allowed to visit the imprisoned Christians, unmolested, to alleviate their sufferings, and even to procure their removal to a better part of the prison. In 205 or 206, under the milder government of Julius Asper, the persecution seems to have abated, after raging for 3 years (de Pallio, 3). Many Christians had sought refuge in flight, while others tried to escape by bribing the Roman officials, and in some cases the Christian community as a whole seems to have done so. These subterfuges were regarded with scorn and abhorrence by the more enthusiastic, but no trace is to be found of the Libellatici so notorious in later persecutions. The abatement seems to have continued till near the close of the reign, but in 210 and 211 the persecution broke out again in its sharpest form under the proconsul Scapula and extended to Mauritania. There the sword was the instrument of execution, whilst the cruel Scapula burnt his victims alive or flung them to the wild beasts of the amphitheatre.
Of persecution in other parts of the empire we have only a few isolated notices.
The aged Irenaeus and his companions suffered at Lyons in this reign, but no details
are preserved, and even the date is uncertain. In Syria, Asclepiades, afterwards
bp. of Antioch, was a confessor (Eus. H. E. vi. 11). Cruel as
Severus (2), Aurelius Alexander, emperor, born at Arca Caesarea in Syria, Oct. 1, 205 (Lampridius) or 208 (Herodian). For an account of his family see ELAGABALUS. Like him he was made in childhood a priest of the Sun at Emesa, and when his cousin became emperor he and his mother Julia Mammaea accompanied him to Rome. Mammaea took the utmost pains to educate her son and to preserve him uncontaminated by the monstrous excesses of his cousin. Created Caesar by the emperor in 221; on Feb. 1, 222 (Clinton), he became emperor on the death of Elagabalus and his mother Soaemis at the hands of the indignant soldiery. Being then at most not yet 17, the administration rested with his mother and grandmother Julia Mammaea and Julia Maesa, the latter of whom, till her death c. 225, enjoyed the greater power. Their chief minister or regent was the famous jurist Ulpian, whose appointment appears to have been due to Maesa's influence, though Mammaea afterwards acquiesced in it (Lamp. 50). He was assisted by a council of at least 70 members, 16 to 20 eminent jurists of whom formed a sort of inner cabinet (cf. Herodian, vi. i. with Lamp. 15); separate committees of this council administering different departments of the state.
The first step of the new administration was to reverse the acts of Elagabalus. The images of the gods he had collected at Rome from all parts of the empire were restored to their former shrines. His creatures were removed from offices obtained by disgraceful means. The senate, knights, tribes, and army were purged of the infamous persons appointed by Elagabalus, and the imperial establishment reduced as low as possible.
The praetorians and the army did not easily acquiesce in these reforms. Probably in order to check their mutinous spirit their prefects Flavianus and Chrestus were put to death and Ulpian made sole prefect. From some trifling cause a riot broke out between the praetorians and the people, lasting for three days. The soldiers, getting the worst of it, set fire to the city and thus checked their assailants. They could not endure the firm rule of Ulpian. Several times he had to take refuge in the palace, and was saved with difficulty by the emperor from their fury. At last, probably in 228, he was killed by the soldiers in the presence of Alexander and his mother, who were only able by a stratagem to punish the ringleader. Throughout the empire the same insubordinate spirit prevailed. The troops in Mesopotamia mutinied and killed their commander, Flavius Heracleon. The historian Dion by his firm rule in Pannonia so excited the hatred of the praetorians that Alexander was driven to the humiliating expedient of requesting him not to come to Rome during his consulship.
This spirit of mutiny was the more dangerous as this reign witnessed the Persian revolt under Artaxerxes against the Parthians, which, after three great battles, in one of which the Parthian king Artabanus fell, completely broke the Parthian power, and by the most extraordinary revival in history reestablished the kingdom of Darius in 226. As heir of the ancient monarchy he claimed all the Asiatic provinces of Rome. Such pretensions naturally produced a war. At the end of 231 or the beginning of 232 the emperor, accompanied by his mother, left Rome to fight the Persians, but returned without any decisive results to Europe, being summoned by news of the movements of the Germans on the Rhine and Danube. After a triumph at Rome on Sept. 25, 233 (Clinton), he proceeded to the Rhine frontier, where he was slain in his tent, and his mother with him, near Mayence, at the beginning of 235 (Clinton), by the mutinous soldiery.
Thus perished one of the most virtuous of the emperors. Apparently his only faults
were an excessive deference to his mother and a certain want of energy. He was frugal,
temperate, and chaste. He was fond of reading, preferring Greek to Latin authors.
His favourite works were the Republic of Plato and the de Officiis
and de Republica of Cicero. He was also fond of Vergil and Horace. He was
acquainted with geometry, was able to paint, and could sing and play on various
instruments. Though he attended the temples regularly and visited the Capitol every
seventh day, and though he rebuilt and adorned the shrines of various deities, by
a curious anticipation of Comtism, the objects of his peculiar veneration were not
the gods of the various popular religions, but deified heroes and men. The private
chapel in which he performed his devotions every morning contained no images of
gods, but statues of canonized men, including the best of his predecessors, Alexander
the Great, who might be called his patron saint, Orpheus, Apollonius of Tyana, Abraham,
and Christ. In a smaller chapel were images of Achilles, Vergil (whom he used to
call the Plato of poets), Cicero, and other great men. From his mother's intercourse
with Origen (Eus. H. E. vi. 21) he would naturally have better means of learning
the doctrines and practices of Christianity than any of his predecessors. It is
said that he contemplated erecting a temple to Christ and placing Him among the
gods. At any rate, though he did not give Christianity the status of a religio
licita, the Christians during his reign enjoyed a de facto toleration.
In the famous suit between the guild of cooks and the Christians for a piece of
land, which according to tradition is the site of St. Maria in Trastevere, he decided
in favour of the Christians on the broad ground that it was better God should be
worshipped there under whatever form than that it should be given to the cooks.
This decision implies a certain recognition
Strange to say, in later tradition the emperor, whom all writers near his time represent as a friend, nay almost a convert, to Christianity, whose chapel contained an image of Christ and whose household was filled with Christians (Eus. H. E. vi. 28), appears as a cruel persecutor. It is said that pope Callistus with many companions, St. Caecilia and her comrades, pope Urban I., and many others suffered in his reign, and that he personally took part in their martyrdom, On the other hand, no Father of the 3rd, 4th, or 5th cents. knows anything of such a persecution, but on the contrary agree in representing his reign as a period of peace. Firmilian (l.c.) testifies that before the persecution of Maximin the church had enjoyed a long peace, and Sulpicius Severus (ii. 32 in Patr. Lat. xx. 447) includes the reign of Alexander in the long peace lasting from Septimius Severus to Decius, broken only by the persecution of Maximin. Against this can be set only the evidence of late authors, such as Bede, Ado, and Usuard and unauthentic Acts of martyrs. The most famous of the alleged martyrs of this reign, St. Caecilia and her companions, are placed by other accounts in the reigns of M. Aurelius or Diocletian. All are given up by Tillemont except Callistus. His chief ground for considering him a martyr is that in the Depositio Martyrum, written in 354 (in Patr. Lat. cxxvii. 123), a Callistus is mentioned as martyred on Oct. 14, the day on which the pope is commemorated. Lipsius (Chronol. d. röm. Bischöfe, 177) acutely conjectures that this notice refers, not to the martyrdom, but to the confession of Callistus before Fuscianus mentioned by Hippolytus, as up to the Decian persecution the word "martyr" was still used in the wider sense. We may therefore conclude that all these accounts of persecutions and martyrdoms, so inconsistent with the known character of the emperor and passed over in silence by all authors for more than two cents. afterwards, are fictions of a later date.
Severus (3) and Severians. [ENCRATITES.]
Severus (12) Sanctus (Endelechius). Perhaps identical with the rhetorician mentioned in the subscription of the Cod. Flor. of Apuleius, as teaching at Rome in 395. He is the author of a Christian idyll, in Asclepiad metre, upon the subject of a great cattle-plague; possibly that mentioned by St. Ambrose (Comm. in Luc. x. 10). This plague occurred c. 376, which fact, together with the date assigned for Endelechius's teaching, and the possibility that he was the correspondent of St. Paulinus of Nola (Ep. xxviii. 6), would fix the date of the poem at the end of the 4th or beginning of the 5th cent. The poem is entitled "de Mortibus Boum," and written with some taste and a good deal of vigour. It represents certain herdsmen—apparently Aquitanians—discussing their fortunes in the general affliction. One of them asserts that his herds have been protected by the sign of the Cross and by his own belief in Christ. The others resolve to adopt a religion which, according to his account, is at once profitable and easy. The poem has been often edited: first by Pithoeus (Paris, 1586). It is in Wernsdorf, Poetae Lat. Min. ii.; Migne, xix. Cave, Hist. Litt. i. 290; Ebert, Gesch. der Chr.-Lat. Lit.; Fabric. Bibl. Graeca, x. 626, 2nd ed.; Teuffel, vol. ii.
Severus (18) Sulpicius, ecclesiastical historian in Gaul, belonging to
a noble family of Aquitaine, born after a.d.
353. He became an advocate and married a woman of consular rank and wealth, who
did not long survive the marriage. While yet in the flower of his age, c.
392, caressed and praised by all and eminent in his profession (Paulinus, Ep.
v., Migne, Patr. Lat. lxi. 169–170), he braved his father's anger and the
flouts of worldly acquaintances (ib. i. col. 154), and retired from the world.
Thenceforth with a few disciples and servants he led a life of ascetic seclusion
and literary activity. Where he abode is not quite certain, but probably at Primuliacum,
a village between Toulouse and Carcassonne, where he built two churches (ib.
Ep. xxxii.). It was probably an estate of his wife or mother-in-law, his father
apparently having disinherited him (cf. Ep. ad Bassulam). According to Gennadius
he was a priest, but this has been questioned, and his tone towards the bishops
and clergy, against whom he constantly inveighs as vain, luxurious, self-seeking,
factious foes of Christianity and envious persecutors of his hero St. Martin, lends
countenance to the doubt (Hist. Sacr. ii. 32; Vita S Martini, 27;
Dial. 1, 2, 9, 21, 24, 26). Later authors have believed him a monk, some
of Marmoûtiers, Martin's foundation at Tours, others of Marseilles, whither he may
have been driven by the Vandal invasion. This seems probable from c. i. of Dial.
1 (cf. also ii. 8). Gennadius asserts that in his old age he was deceived into Pelagianism,
but recognizing the fault of loquacity, remained mute till his death, in order by
penitential silence to correct the sin he had committed by much speaking. Others,
from a passage in St. Jerome (in Ezech. c. xxxvi., Migne, Patr. Lat.
xx. 85), have accused him of Millenarianism. At the Roman council held by pope Gelasius
in 494 the Dialogi, under the name of Opuscula Postumiani et Galli, were
certainly placed among the libri apocryphi (Mansi, viii. 151). The charge
rested on Dial. ii. 14, where a strange theory as to the imminent appearance
among
His works consist of the Historia Sacra or Chronica, a Life of St. Martin of Tours, 3 letters, and 3 dialogues. An Eng. trans. is in Schaff and Wace's Lib. of Post-Nicene Fathers. The Historia, written c. 403, was an attempt to give a concise history of the world with dates from the creation to his own times, the consulship of Stilicho in 400. His sources are the LXX, the ancient Latin version of the Scriptures, the Chronicles of Eusebius, and the Historici Ethnici, as he calls the non-Christian authors (Herbert, Notice, p. 7). Bk. i. and part of ii. are occupied with universal history down to the birth of Christ. Then, omitting the period covered by the Gospels and Acts, he adds some details to Josephus's narrative of the siege of Jerusalem, recounts persecutions of the Christians under 9 emperors, and describes the Invention of the Cross by St. Helena, as he had heard it from Paulinus. His account of the Arian controversy (ii. 35–45) is inaccurate and of little value; but of more importance is that of the Priscillianist heresy, which had arisen in his time and with the details of which he was familiar.
The Vita S. Martini, the earliest of his writings, is very important as containing, with the Dialogues and 3 letters, practically everything that is authentic about that popular saint of Western Christendom. He tells us that, having long heard of the sanctity and miracles of Martin, he went to Tours to see him, asked him all the questions he could, and got information from eyewitnesses and those who knew (c. 25). This visit, probably c. 394, was followed by many others. The book was pub. during Martin's lifetime.
In the Dialogi, written c. 405, the interlocutors are his friend Postumianus, just back from a three years' stay in the East, Gallus, a disciple of St. Martin, now dead, and Sulpicius himself. Twenty-two chapters of Dial. i. contain interesting pictures of the controversy at Alexandria between archbp. Theophilus and the monks concerning Origen, St. Jerome at his church in Bethlehem, and the monks and hermits of the Thebaid. Postumianus asks about St. Martin, and bears witness to the enormous popularity of the Life in almost every country. Paulinus had introduced it at Rome, where the whole city had fought for it. All Carthage was reading it, the Alexandrians knew its contents almost better than the author, and it had penetrated into Egypt, Nitria, and the Thebaid. All were clamouring for those further wonders which Sulpicius had omitted (c. 23, cf. Vita, prol.) and with which the remainder of the Dialogues is almost entirely occupied.
The Epistles are also about St. Martin, the first giving the story of his death and burial. Seven more letters have been published under Sulpicius's name; several have been generally suspected (Ceillier, 119–120), but all are pronounced spurious by Halm (Pref. xl.–xiii.).
The best ed. of the collected works is that of C. Halm (Sulpicii Severi Libri qui supersunt, Vindob, 1866). His works have been several times translated into French, e.g. by M. Herbert (Paris, 1847).
Apart from the unique History of St. Martin (which, however, is the worst of his writings from a literary point of view), Sulpicius's chief title to fame rests on his beauty and purity of style, in respect of which he is pre-eminent, if not unique, among ecclesiastical authors, and well merits his appellation of the "Christian Sallust." He seems to have taken this historian as his model, but his writings shew familiarity with Vergil, Livy, Tacitus, and most classical authors. Perhaps his work is somewhat lacking in vigour, and not entirely free from the affectations and bad taste of his time. The credulity and superstition of the narrative had, as regards Martin's Miracles, evidently excited scepticism even among the Christians in Sulpicius's own time (see Dial. iii. 6). [MARTIN (1)]. For an estimate of Sulpicius's works see Ceill. viii. 121–122.
Severus (19), bp. of Mileum or Mileus, a native of the same place as Augustine, and a fellow-student, lifelong friend, and member of the same monastic community. Early in his episcopate, probably in 401, Augustine, Alypius, and Samsucius had to explain their conduct in the matter of Timotheus and to call on Severus to accept their explanation (Aug. Epp. 62, 63), but this temporary misunderstanding did not interrupt his friendship with Augustine, nor cause any ill-will on his part towards Timotheus (Aug. En. Ps. 95. 1; de Civitate Dei, xxi. 4). In a letter somewhat later, perhaps a.d. 406, addressed to Novatus, Augustine regrets being not often able to see his old friend, who wrote seldom, and then chiefly on business, not from want of goodwill but from necessity (Aug. Ep. 84). Severus exchanged letters and friendly messages with Paulinus of Nola (ib. 31. 9 and 32. 1), and c. 409 wrote to Augustine expressing his great delight in his writings, as leading him to greater love of God, and begging him to write in return (Epp. 109). Augustine replied, insisting that he himself was the debtor. Severus appears to have joined in the address to Innocentius concerning Pelagianism, a.d. 416 (Aug. Epp. 175, 176). He probably died c. 426.
Severus (22), bp. of Minorca, known by his encyclical letter referred
to in the book do Miraculis S. Stephani, composed by order of Evodius of
Uzalis (Migne, Patr. Lat. xx. 731). Orosius had deposited some recently discovered
relics of St. Stephen in the church at Magona (Port Mahon), where there were a large
number of Jews, one of whom, the rabbi
Severus (27), Monophysite patriarch of Antioch a.d. 512–519, a native of Sozopolis in Pisidia, by birth and education a heathen, baptized in the martyry of Leontius at Tripolis (Evagr. H. E. iii. 33; Labbe, v. 40, 120).
He almost at once openly united himself with the Acephali, repudiating his own
baptism and his baptizer, and even the Catholic church itself as infected with Nestorianism
(Labbe, u.s.). On embracing Monophysite doctrines he entered a monastery
apparently belonging to that sect between Gaza and its port Majuma. Here he met
Peter the Iberian, a zealous Eutychian, who had been ordained bp. of Gaza by Theodosius,
the Monophysite monk, during his usurpation of the see of Jerusalem (Evagr. l.c.).
About this time Severus apparently joined a Eutychian brotherhood near Eleutheropolis
under the archimandrite Mamas, who further confirmed him in his extreme Monophysitism
(Liberat. Brev. c. xix.; Labbe, v. 762; Evagr. l.c.). Severus rejected
the Henoticon of Zeno, applying to it contumelious epithets, such as
κενωτικόν, "the annulling edict," and
διαιρετικόν, "the disuniting edict " (Labbe,
v. 121), and anathematized Peter Mongus, the Monophysite patriarch of Alexandria,
for accepting it. We next hear of him in an Egyptian monastery, of which one Nephalius
was abbat, who, having been formerly a Monophysite, had embraced the faith of Chalcedon.
Nephalius with his monks expelled Severus and his partizans (Evagr. l.c.,
Cf. iii. 22). Severus is charged with having stirred up a fierce religious war among
the excitable population of Alexandria, resulting in bloodshed and conflagrations
(Labbe, v. 121). To escape the punishment of his turbulence he fled to Constantinople,
supported by a band of 200 Monophysite monks (ib. iv. 1419). Anastasius,
who had succeeded the emperor Zeno, the author of the Henoticon, in 491, was a declared
favourer of the Eutychians, and by him Severus was received with honour. His advent
was an unhappy one for the peace of Constantinople, where a sanguinary tumult was
stirred up by rival bands of monks, orthodox and Monophysite, chanting in their
respective churches the opposing forms of the "Trisagion." This tumult resulted,
a.d. 511, in the humiliation of Anastasius
the temporary triumph of the patriarch Macedonius, and the depression of the Monophysite
cause (Theophan, p. 132). Severus was eagerly dispatched by Anastasius to occupy
the vacant throne of Antioch a.d. 511.
He was ordained, or, in the words of his adversaries, "received the shadow of ordination"
(Labbe, v. 40), and enthroned on the same day in his patriarchal city (ib.
iv. 1414; Theod. Lect. ii. 31, pp. 563, 567; Theophan. p. 134), and that very day
solemnly pronounced in his church an anathema on Chalcedon, and accepted the Henoticon
he had previously repudiated. He caused the name of Peter Mongus to be inscribed
in the diptychs; declared himself in communion with the Eutychian prelates, Timotheus
of Constantinople and John Niciota of Alexandria; and received into communion Peter
of Iberia and other leading members of the Acephali (Evagr. H. E. iii. 33;
Labbe, iv. 1414, v. 121, 762; Theod. Lect. l.c.). Eutychianism seemed now
triumphant throughout the Christian world. Proud of his patriarchal dignity and
strong in the emperor's protection, Severus despatched letters to his brother-prelates,
announcing his elevation and demanding communion. In these he anathematized Chalcedon
and all who maintained the two natures. They met with a very varied reception. Many
rejected them altogether, nevertheless Monophysitism was everywhere in the ascendant
in the East, and Severus was deservedly regarded as its chief champion (Severus
of Ashmunain apud Neale, Patr. Alex. ii. 27). Synodal letters were
interchanged between John Niciota and Severus; the earliest examples of that intercommunication
between the Jacobite sees of Alexandria and Antioch, which has been kept up to the
present day (Neale, l.c.). The triumph of Severus was, however, short. His
sanguinary tyranny over the patriarchate of Antioch did not survive his imperial
patron. Anastasius was succeeded in 518 by Justin, who at once declared for the
orthodox faith. The Monophysite prelates were everywhere replaced by orthodox successors.
Severus was one of the first to fall. Irenaeus, the count of the East, was commissioned
to arrest him. Severus, however, escaped, and in Sept. 518 sailed by night for Alexandria
(Liberat. Brev. l.c.; Theophan. 141 ; Evagr. H. E. iv. 4). Paul was
ordained in his room. Severus and his doctrines were anathematized in various councils.
At Alexandria his reception by his fellow-religionists was enthusiastic. He was
gladly welcomed by the patriarch Timotheus, and generally hailed as the champion
of the orthodox faith against the corruptions of Nestorianism. His learning and
argumentative power established his authority as "os omnium doctorum," and the day
of his entrance into Egypt was long celebrated as a Jacobite festival (Neale,
u.s. p. 30). Alexandria speedily became the resort of Monophysites of every
shade of opinion, who formed too powerful a body for the emperor to molest. But
fierce controversies sprang up among themselves on various subtle questions connected
with Christ's nature and His human body. A vehement dispute arose between Severus
and his fellow-exile Julian of Halicarnassus as to the corruptibility of our Lord's
human body before His resurrection. Julian and his followers were styled "Aphthartodocetae"
and "Phantasiastae," Severus and his adherents "Phthartolatrae" or "Corrupticolae,"
and "Ktistolatrae." The controversy was a warm and protracted one and no settlement
was arrived at. The Jacobites, however, claim the victory for Severus (Renaudot,
p. 129). After some
He was a very copious writer, but we possess little more than fragments. An account of them, so far as they can be identified, is given by Cave (Hist. Lit. vol. i. pp. 499 ff.) and Fabricius (Bibl. Graec. lib. v. c. 36, vol. x. pp. 614 ff., ed. Harless). A very large number exist only in Syriac, for which consult the catalogue of the Syriac MSS. in the Brit. Mus. by Prof. Wright.
Severus was successful in his great aim of uniting the Monophysites into one compact body with a definitely formulated creed. For notwithstanding the numerous subdivisions of the Monophysites, he was, in Dorner's words, "strictly speaking, the scientific leader of the most compact portion of the party," and regarded as such by the Monophysites and their opponents. He was the chief object of attack in the long and fierce contest with the orthodox, by whom he is always designated as the author and ringleader of the heresy. His opinions, however, were far from consistent, and his opponents apparently had much difficulty in arriving at a clear and definite view of them, and constantly asserted that he contradicted himself. This was partly forced upon him by the conciliatory position he aimed at. Hoping to embrace as many as possible of varying theological colour, he followed the traditional formulas of the church as closely as he could, while affixing his own sense upon them (Dorner, Pers. of Christ, div. ii. vol. i. p. 136, Clark's trans.). In 1904 the Sixth Book of the Select Letters of Severus, in the Syriac version of Athanasius of Nisibis, were ed. by G. E. W. Brooks (Lond.). For a full statement of his opinions see the great work of Dorner, and art. "Monophysiten" in Herzog's Encyc.
Severus (31), patriarch of Aquileia, succeeding Elias c. 586. Like his predecessors, he was a strenuous champion of the Three Chapters. Soon after his consecration the exarch Smaragdus seized him in his basilica at Grado, where the bishops of Aquileia had taken refuge, and carried him off to Ravenna with three other bishops—Severus of Trieste, John of Parenzo, and Videmius of Ceneda. There he was imprisoned a whole year and subjected to personal ill-treatment till he consented with those three suffragans, and two others, to communicate with John, archbp. of Ravenna. He was then allowed to return to Grado, but the people refused to communicate with him till he had acknowledged his fault in communicating with those who condemned the Three Chapters and had been received by a synod of ten bishops at Marano, c. 589 (Paulus Diac. Hist. Lang. iii. 26).
Gregory the Great, at the end of 590 or beginning of 591, wrote to him expressing his regret at his relapse into schism, and summoning him by the emperor's orders to Rome, with his followers, that a synod might decide the matter (Epp. i. and. ix. 317 in Migne, Patr. Lat. lxxvii. 461). Three separate appeals were presented to the emperor Maurice, the third (and only one extant) being by the bishops of the continental part which was in the hands of the Lombards. In it the bishops urge the injustice of the pope, from whose communion they had separated, being judge in his own cause. They profess willingness, when peace is restored, to attend and accept the decisions of a free council at Constantinople, and point out that the clergy and people of the suffragans of Aquileia are so zealous for the Three Chapters that, if the patriarch is compelled to submit by force, when future vacancies occur among his suffragans the new bishops would be compelled to seek consecration from the bishops of Gaul, and the province of Aquileia would thus be broken up (Mansi, x. 463). Maurice accordingly directed the pope to leave Severus and his suffragans alone for the present. Gregory submitting, Severus maintained his position through Gregory's life, and died in 606 or 607 (Paulus Diac. iv. 33), after an episcopate of 21 years and a month. He bequeathed all his property to his cathedral at Grado (Chr. Patr. Grad. in Script. Rer. Lang. 394).
Sidonius (2) Apollinaris, St. His grandfather Apollinaris had been praefectus
praetorio of Gaul under the rival emperor Constantine,
a.d. 408 (Zos. vi. 4; Olympiodorus,
ap. Phot. Bibl. p. 57, ed. Bekker), and was the first of the family
to become a Christian. An epitaph written by his grandson for his tomb
First Period, 431–471.—Sidonius was born Nov. 5, 431 or 432, probably at
Lyons (Carm. xx. 1). He was apparently educated at that then famous seat of education,
in the same school as his cousin Avitus. Soon after he was 20 years old he married
Papianilla, only daughter of Flavius Eparchius Avitus, a native of Auvergne, who
was praefectus praetorio at Arles from 439 to 443. Avitus, a soldier, diplomatist
and lover of nature and literature, retired after 451 to his own house and patrimonial
estate at Avitacum, near the modern Clermont (ib. vii. 230, 316, 339, 460,
etc.). Avitus had two sons, Ecdicius and Agricola, with whom, after his marriage,
Sidonius lived on most friendly and affectionate terms. He had a son Apollinaris
and two daughters, Roscia and Severiana. A letter is extant, addressed to Apollinaris
when almost 16 years old, commending his blameless behaviour, and warning him against
the bad example and vicious society of some profligates at Lyons, where he was studying
(Ep. iii. 13). There is also a letter to Agricola, mingling tender feeling
with quiet humour, excusing himself from joining a fishing excursion as his daughter
Severiana was alarmingly ill, on whose behalf, as well as his own, he begs Agricola's
prayers. He expresses his firm trust in Christ as his best support (Ep. ii.
12). On the death of Maximus, Avitus was proclaimed emperor at Toulouse and at Beaucaire,
a.d. 455, and was followed to Rome
by his son-in-law, who pronounced on him a panegyric poem of 602 hexameter lines
on Jan. 1, 456 (Carm. vii. 369–404, 510–572), and as a reward received the
honour of a brazen statue in the basilica of Trajan, in a space between the two
libraries. The reign of Avitus ended in 456. Majorian, who became emperor, crossed
the Alps, defeated the Burgundian invaders, captured Lyons, imposing hard conditions
and heavy taxes on the citizens, which he was induced to remit (
Several letters to friends belong to this period, especially one to Eriphius, a citizen of Lyons, perhaps a.d. 461, describing a church gathering in commemoration of St. Justus at Lyons on Sept. 2, the procession before daybreak, the large congregation of both sexes, the psalms sung antiphonally by monks and clerks, the Eucharistic celebration, the great heat caused by the crowd and the number of lights, cooled after a time by the autumnal morning.
When Anthemius became emperor, a.d. 467, he sent for Sidonius to Rome, on business which the people of Auvergne deputed him to manage on their behalf. Under the favour of Christ, as he says, he undertook the mission, his expenses being provided by the imperial treasury. At Rome he stayed at the house of Paulus, a man of prefectorian rank, possessing literary and scientific ability, who persuaded him, as likely to promote his own interests, to celebrate the inauguration of Anthemius the new consul by a poem. The result was a panegyric in 548 hexameters. This was rewarded by the high office of prefect of the senate and of the city of Rome, of which he writes in a tone of gratified ambition to Philimatius. He remained at Rome until 469, and then retired to Gaul, residing partly at Lyons and partly at Avitacum. Towards the end of that year or the beginning of 470, the province of Lugdunensis I. was surrendered by Anthemius to the Burgundians as the price of their assistance against the Visigoths (Tillem. Emp. vi. p. 357) These barbarians Sidonius describes as less ferocious than other German races, but complains of their perverse ways, revolting and odious to those over whom they domineered. Of their ruler (tetrarches) Chilperic II., and his wife Agrippina, he speaks more favourably (Ep. v. 7; Carm. xii. ). About this time a new church was erected at Lyons through the exertions of bp. Patiens, for whom Sidonius had the most affectionate reverence. He was present at the dedication, which he describes in hendecasyllables (Ep. ii. 10). At the request of bp. Perpetuus he wrote an elegiac inscription for the church of St. Martin at Tours, which Perpetuus had enlarged (Ep. iv. 18).
Second Period, 471–475.—Threatened by invasion and surrounded by enemies
political and religious (for Euric, the Visigothic king, whose capital was Toulouse,
was a zealous supporter of Arian doctrine and persecuted the Catholics with great
severity), the people of Clermont, when their bishop, Eparchius, died,
a.d. 471, united in a clamorous demand
that Sidonius should succeed him. He was not in holy orders, but had shewn himself
without ostentation a devout Christian, though a somewhat flexible and elastic politician.
His ability was beyond question; as a man of letters he stood in the foremost rank;
he held a high place, probably the highest, among the landed proprietors of his
province, whose interests he was firm and patriotic in upholding, and had taken
an active part more than once on behalf of its inhabitants, in which also he had
been ably and zealously supported by his friends, of whom, both in military and
civil
From 471 until 474, when Auvergne was first attacked formally by the Visigoth, it is not easy to fix accurately all the dates of events or of letters.
After he came to the throne of Toulouse in 466 Euric lost no opportunity of increasing his dominions by aggression upon the Roman. During 473, or early in 474, the province of Berry fell to him, and he took advantage of the weakness of the Roman empire after the death of Anthemius to extend his dominion towards the Rhone and the Loire; Auvergne being now the only province remaining to the Romans W. of the Rhone and in constant danger of invasion. No formal attack, however, took place until the autumn of 474. At some time in 474, as it seems, Avitus, brother-in-law of Sidonius, endowed the see of Clermont with a farm called Cuticiacum (Cunhiae), not far from the city, and in the letter mentioning this Sidonius speaks also of the threatened invasion and of his confidence in Avitus in case of negotiation (Ep. iii. 1). Meanwhile, as the autumn advanced, the Visigoths entered the territory of Auvergne, and communication with distant places became more difficult. In preparations to resist the enemy Sidonius acted as a leader of the people, and was greatly assisted by his brother-in-law Ecdicius, who with a handful of cavalry attacked and defeated a large force of the enemy. They retired at the end of 474 or beginning of 475, but not so completely as to remove the apprehension of future attack or the necessity for watch to be kept on the walls during the snowy days and dark nights of winter (Ep. iii. 7). A brief truce with the Visigothic king appears to have been arranged early in 475, perhaps through the agency of Epiphanius, bp. of Pavia. During this temporary cessation of hostilities a report became current that Euric had invaded the Roman territory of Auvergne, and Sidonius summoned his people to join in acts of fasting and prayer conducted like the Rogations instituted, or rather revived and reorganized, some years previously by Mamertus, bp. of Vienne, and of which, in a letter to him, he recounts the history. He also begs the prayers of the bishop and his flock for the people of Auvergne, and as a claim upon their attention mentions the transfer to Vienne at some previous time of the remains of Ferreolus and the head of Julian, both of them martyrs and natives of Auvergne. He also wrote to his friend Aper, entreating him as a citizen of Clermont to leave his warm baths at Aquae Calidae and come to Clermont to take part in the solemn service (Epp. v. 14; vii. 1; Greg. Tur. Hist. Fr. ii. 11, de Mirac. ii. 1, 2; "Rogation Days," D. C. A. vol. ii. p. 1809; Baron. ann. 475, xii.–xxi.; Tillem. vol. xvi. pp. 247, 248). No actual invasion of Auvergne appears to have occurred, and negotiations, in which bps. Basilius of Aix, Faustus of Riez, Graecus of Marseilles, and Leontius of Arles, were among the acting counsellors, ultimately resulted in the surrender of Auvergne to the Visigoths. It was probably during these negotiations that Euric, a zealous partisan of the Arian heresy, whose hostility in this direction, Sidonius says, he feared more than his attacks on Roman fortifications, deprived of their sees and in many cases put to death or banished many bishops in the regions subject to him, allowing no successors to be appointed. Churches were overthrown, their sites overrun by animals, Christian discipline destroyed; and writing to Basilius, Sidonius implores him, as in touch with the political negotiators, to obtain permission for the exercise of episcopal ordination (Ep. vii. 6).
The surrender of Auvergne, marking as it did the utter prostration of Roman influence, was a heavy blow to Sidonius, and he wrote to Graecus, bp. of Marseilles, recounting the unswerving loyalty of the Auvergnians and their sufferings during the siege, and inveighing bitterly against the selfish policy which, to secure for a time only the districts in which the negotiators were interested, had handed over the faithful province of Auvergne for punishment to the enemy. The remonstrance was fruitless, and Auvergne passed to the Visigoth. It was placed under a governor named Victorius, with the title of Count, who appears at first to have behaved with real or affected moderation (Greg. Tur. Hist. Fr. ii. 20; Sid. Ep. vii. 17; Chaix, ii. 290).
Third Period, a.d. 475–489.—Sidonius was soon banished for a time to a
fort named Livia, probably Capendu, about ten miles from Carcassonne on the road
to Narbonne (Epp. viii. 3; ix. 3; Vaissette, Hist. de Languedoc, V.
vol. i. p. 501). Some of the inconveniences he suffered there are described in his
letters to Faustus, bp. of Riez, and to a friend, Leo, a native of Narbonne and
of Roman origin, but filling a high office under Euric. They consisted chiefly in
the annoyance caused by his neighbours, two quarrelsome drunken old Gothic women
(Ep. viii. 3). Through Leo's influence he soon obtained release from confinement,
but his return to Clermont was delayed by an enforced sojourn at Bordeaux, whither
he went to seek from Euric authority for recovering the inheritance belonging to
In no letter does he speak of opposition or personal ill-treatment, and the tone of his later letters is cheerful, and he appears from the last of them to have met with no hindrance in his episcopal duties except from weather. Gregory of Tours relates that, in the later years of his life, he was much annoyed by two priests, probably of Arian opinions, whose names he does not mention, but said by Chaix, though without citing any authority, to have been Honorius and Hermanchius. These men, Gregory says, succeeded in preventing him exercising his episcopal functions and even in reducing him to extreme poverty; but after the death of Honorius he was restored to his office, and being attacked by fever, desired to be carried into the church of St. Mary, and there, after speaking words of love to his people, and pointing out Aprunculus, bp. of Langres, as fit to be his successor, he died, though not, apparently, in the church, Aug. 489. He was buried in the chapel of St. Saturninus, in the centre of Clermont, beside his predecessor Eparchius, and an epitaph in hendecasyllabic verse by an unknown author was placed near his tomb with the date, "XII. Kal. Sept. Zenone imperatore." This has disappeared, but a copy is preserved in a MS. of the abbey of Cluny.
A gentleman of easy fortune living in the country, Sidonius entered eagerly into its employments and active amusements, but was also keenly sensible of the more refined and tranquil pleasures derived from natural objects. He exerted without scruple a lordly influence over his own dependants in the province, sometimes in a high-handed and peremptory manner, but usually with kindness and consideration. Affectionate and constant to his friends, he loved to give and receive hospitality, and some of his most agreeable letters describe such social gatherings. His eulogies were poured forth without stint or discrimination, alike on Avitus, Majorian, and Anthemius, and even Nepos did not fail to obtain a small share. He has compliments at fitting seasons, direct or indirect, for Euric and his wife. A poet laureate by nature, he must be regarded as a pliant politician, but he never forgot his duty as a patriotic citizen. Faithful to his countrymen, whether by birth as of Lyons, or of adoption as in Auvergne, he never failed to plead their cause, uphold their interests, denounce their oppressors, and stand by them against injustice or hostile invasion, nor need we wonder that his memory should be revered by them as that of a saint. Invested against his will, and without previous preparation, with the episcopate, he laboured hard to repair the deficiencies of which he was conscious. He shrank from no duty, personal trouble, or responsibility, and in times of extreme difficulty shewed courage, prudence, and discretion. His character and abilities commanded the respect and cordial affection of the best men of his time, as Basilius, Felix, Graecus, Lupus, Patiens, Principius, Remigius, as well as Leo and Arbogastes, and many others; and though he did not shrink from remonstrating gravely and even bitterly with some of them, especially Graecus, he does not appear to have forfeited their esteem and affection. A man of kindly disposition, he treated his slaves with kindness and took pains to induce others to do likewise. He was friendly to Jews, employed them, and recommended them to the good offices of his friends.
Literary Character.—Though he shewed himself a sincere and devout Christian, both before and after he became bishop, it is as a man of letters that he will always be best known, for, as it has been observed, his writings are the best-furnished storehouse we possess of information as to the domestic life, the manners and habits of public men, and in some points the public events of his period. Gifted with a fatal facility of composition, his longer poems are remarkable more for adroit handling of unpoetical material than for poetry in its true sense, and deserve to a great extent the contemptuous judgment of Gibbon. Yet some of the shorter compositions, especially those in hendecasyllabic metre, are more successful, and touch scenes and characters with a light and discerning hand. His letters, though often turgid and pedantic, defaced by an artificial phraseology and abounding in passages of great obscurity, often describe persons, objects, and transactions in a very lively and picturesque manner.
The ed. of his works by M. Eugène Baret (Paris, 1879) has an extremely valuable introduction, containing remarks on the times and state of society, and lists of grammatical forms, words, and phrases used by Sidonius, illustrating the transition state of the Latin language, and some peculiar to himself; also an attempt to settle the chronology of the letters, a task of great difficulty. The best ed. is by Lütjohann, in Monum. Germ. Hist. Auct. Antiquiss. (Berlin, 1887), viii., and a smaller ed. is by P. Mohr (Leipz. 1895).
Sigebert (1) I., king of the Austrasian Franks (561–575), son of Clotaire
I. by Ingundis (Greg. Tur. Hist. Franc. iv. 1). Scarcely had the four brothers
buried their father at Soissons when Chilperic the youngest began the civil wars
which desolated France. Seizing the royal treasure at Braine, near Soissons, and
purchasing the support of the Franks, he occupied Paris. His three half-brothers
leagued together and compelled him to make a fair division. To Sigebert fell the
kingdom which had belonged to Theodoric I., i.e. the country occupied by
the Ripuarian Franks and a part of Champagne, with Rheims for his capital, which
division was now beginning to be known as Austrasia (Greg. Tur. iv. 21, 22; Hist.
Epitom. lv.; Marius Aventic. ann. 560). To Sigebert fell also, on the death
of Charibert I., as far as can be gathered from later events (see Greg. Tur. ix.
20), a third share of the city of Paris, the coast of Provence with Avignon, the
former possessions of Theodoric I., in Aquitaine, the N. part of Brie, Beauce, Touraine,
and Poitou (Richter, Annalen, 68; Bonnell, Anfänge des Karolingischen
Hauses, Beilage, pp. 206 sqq.; Fauriel, Hist. de la Gaule Mérid. ii.
175–177). About this time he married the famous Brunichild (Brunehaut), a daughter
of Athanagild, the Visigothic king in Spain, she having first renounced Arianism
Sigebert was much the best of the sons of Clotaire. In happier circumstances he might have been a humane and enlightened king, but his misfortune was to reign at perhaps the darkest period of French history. His clemency towards Chilperic's son Theodebert, who had invaded his territory (Greg. Tur. iv. 23), his motives in seeking Brunichild's hand in marriage, as described by Gregory (iv. 27), and his intrepid attempts to restrain his barbarian trans-Rhenish allies from plundering (iv. 30), throw light upon his character. He was true to the orthodoxy of his race (iv. 27), and recalled St. Nicetius of Trèves from exile and appointed Gregory to Tours.
Sigismundus, St., martyr, 5th king of the Burgundians (516–524), brought up under the influence of Avitus, the orthodox archbp. of Vienne, who succeeded in winning him, with two of his children, from the Arianism of his nation and family (Avitus, Epp. 27, 29, Migne, Patr. Lat. lix. 243, 246; Agobardus, adv. Leg. Gund. xiii. Patr. Lat. civ. 124), and sought to lead his inclinations towards the Roman empire (see Mascou, Annotation ii., where the passages are collected, and Fauriel, Hist. de la Gaule Mérid. ii. 100). He married Ostrogotha, the daughter of Theodoric the Ostrogothic king of Italy (Jornandes in Bouquet, ii. 28). While his father was still living, Sigismund was invested with regal dignity and held his court at Geneva (Avit. Epp. 29, 30; Greg. Tur. Epitom. xxxiv.). In 515 he founded or (Hist. litt. de la France, iii. 89, 91) refounded the monastery of St. Maurice at Agaunum, where tradition placed the martyrdom of the Legio Thebaea (Marius Avent. Chronicon, Patr. Lat. lxxii. 796). In 516 he succeeded his father (Marius, ib.), and in 517 convened a council, under the presidency of Avitus, at Epaunum (supposed to be the present Iene on the Rhone; "Epaon," D. C. A.; Hist. litt. iii. 9). If the extent of his dominion may be inferred from the sees of the bishops present, Burgundy then included, besides the later duchy and county, Dauphiny and Savoy, the city and dominion of Lyons and the Valais, besides a part of the present Switzerland (Mascou, xi. 10, 31). In 523 Clodomir, Clotaire, and Childebert, three of the four sons of Clovis, stirred up by their mother the widowed Clotilda, invaded Burgundy. Sigismund was defeated and fled to St. Maurice, where he was betrayed by his own subjects to Clodomir and carried prisoner in the garb of a monk to Orleans. Shortly afterwards, with his wife and two children, he was murdered at the neighbouring village of Coulmiers, by being cast alive, as was said, into a well (Marius, ib.; Greg. Tur. iii. 6). His brother, Godemar, succeeded him as 6th and last king of the Burgundians.
Sigismund was well-intentioned but weak. He apparently yielded too much to the influence of Roman ideas and habits for the king of a barbarian people, neighboured on one side by the powerful Ostrogothic monarchy and on others by the fiercely aggressive Franks. His partisanship for the orthodox faith, while it harmed him with his subjects, was not thorough-going enough to win the clergy from their leaning towards the Franks (see Fauriel, ii. 100 sqq.).
Silvania. [SYLVIA.]
Silvanus (2), bp. of Gaza, a martyr in the persecution of Maximin, c. 305. He was a presbyter at its outbreak, and from the very beginning he endured many varied sufferings with the greatest fortitude. Not long before his martyrdom, which was one of the last in Palestine, he obtained the episcopate. Eusebius speaks with high admiration of his Christian endurance, saying that he was "reserved to the last to set the seal, as it were, to the conflict in Palestine" (Eus. H. E. viii. 7, 13). He was decapitated, according to the Roman martyrology, on May 4., 308. Theoph. p. 9; Le Quien, Or. Christ. iii. 605.
Silvanus (3), bp. of Emesa. In extreme old age, after 40 years' episcopate, he was thrown to the wild beasts in Diocletian's persecution. Eus. H. E. viii. 13; ix. 6; Theophan. p. 9; Le Quien, Or. Christ. ii. 837.
Silvanus (4), bp. of Cirta, subdeacon under Paulus, bp. of that see during the persecution under Diocletian, and, as well as he, guilty of "tradition." These facts were elicited at the inquiry under Zenophilus, a.d. 320, at which it was proved, by ample evidence, that Silvanus was guilty of this charge, and also that with others he had appropriated plate and ornaments from the heathen temple of Serapis; and after he became a bishop received as a bribe for ordaining Victor, a fuller, to be a presbyter, money which ought to have been given to the poor. After the inquiry he was banished for refusing to communicate with Ursacius and Zenophilus, at the time of the mission of Macarius, a.d. 348. Aug. Petil. i. 23, iii. 69, 70; de Gest. Emer. 5; c. Cresc. iii. 32, 33, 34, iv. 66; de Unico Bapt. 30. 31; Aug. Ep. 53. 4; Mon. Vet. D. pp. 178, 180, 182, ed. Oberthür; pp. 167–171 ed. Dupin.
Silvanus (6), bp. of Tarsus and metropolitan,
Silvanus (12), solitary of Sinai, a native of Palestine. "He founded at Geraris near the great torrent a very extensive establishment for holy men, over which the excellent Zachariah subsequently presided" (Soz. H. E. vi. 32). He trained his followers to industrial pursuits. A wandering ascetic seeing all the brethren working very diligently said to them, "Labour not for the meat which perisheth; Mary chose the better part." Silvanus over-hearing this said, "Give a book to the brother and lead him to an empty cell." When the ninth hour came, no one came to call the stranger to eat. At last, wearied and hungry, he sought Silvanus, and said, "Father, the brethren have not eaten to-day." "Oh yes," replied the abbat, "they have eaten." "And why," said the other, "did you not send for me?" "Because," responded Silvanus, "thou art a spiritual man, and dost not require food; but we are carnal and wish to eat, and therefore are compelled to work. Thou, however, hast chosen the better part and continuest in study the whole day, nor art willing to consume carnal food." The stranger confessed his fault and was forgiven, Silvanus playfully saying, "Martha is evidently necessary to Mary." Cotelerius tells stories of his prolonged trances. On one occasion he awoke very sad because he had been in the eternal world and seen many monks going to hell and many secular persons to heaven (Monument, t. i. p. 679).
Silvanus (14), first known bp. of Calahorra. We know of him from 2 letters of Ascanius, bp. of Tarragona, and the bishops of his province to pope Hilary, and Hilary's reply dated Dec. 30, 465 (in Migne, Patr. Lat. lviii. 14). The first letter shows that Silvanus had, 7 or 8 years before, consecrated a bishop without any request from the places comprised in his see or the approval of Ascanius. The other bishops of the province were satisfied with admonishing him, and received the new bishop; but the see in question being again vacant Silvanus had lately repeated the act, with the aggravation that the priest consecrated belonged to the diocese of another bishop, and the other bishop at the instance of the bishops of Saragossa having refused to join, Silvanus had performed the consecration alone. In the second letter the bishops express their surprise at the pope's delay in answering. His reply was remarkably favourable, in consequence probably of letters from people of rank and property at Calahorra, Tarazona, and neighbouring towns, which alleged in excuse for Silvanus that his were not the only irregularities, bishops having been consecrated for other cities without the previous approval of the metropolitan. The pope in consideration of the troubled times granted an amnesty for the past, while enjoining strict observance of the canons for the future. As the first letter was written some time before Hilary's reply, Silvanus probably became bp. c. 455. Esp. Sag. xxxiii. 128; Gams, Kirchg. von Sp. ii. (1) 430.
Silverius, bp. of Rome during the reign of Justinian I. Agapetus having
died at Constantinople when about to return to Italy (on April 22, according to
Anastasius) in 536, Liberates tells us (Breviar.) that on the news of his
death reaching Rome, Silverius, a subdeacon and son of pope Hormisdas, was elected
and ordained, doubtless in the same year. According to Anastasius (Lib. Pontif.
in Vit. Silverii) the election of Silverius was forced upon the Romans by the
Gothic king Theodatus, who then held the city, the presbyters assenting for the
sake of unity. Silverius did not long enjoy his dignity. Belisarius, having got
possession of Naples, entered Rome in the name of Justinian on Dec. 10, 536. Vitiges,
the successor of Theodatus, commenced a siege of Rome, now in the possession of
Belisarius, in
Vigilius, one of the deacons of Agapetus at Constantinople, had, on that pope's
death there, been sent for by the empress Theodora and promised the popedom through
the agency of Belisarius on condition of his disallowing, after his elevation, the
council of Chalcedon, and supporting the Monophysites whom she favoured. Vigilius,
on his arrival in Italy, found Belisarius at Naples, to whom he communicated the
commands of Theodora (Liberatus, Breviar.). Belisarius having gained possession
of Rome, Vigilius followed him there and measures were taken to carry out the wishes
of the empress. Accusations were laid against Silverius of having been in communication
with the Goths who were besieging
Silverius died June 20 (xii. Kal. Jul. al. Jun. Anastas.), most probably A.D. 538, his deposition certainly occurring in 537.
Silvester (1), bp. of Rome after Miltiades, Jan. 31, 314, to Dec. 31, 335. Though his time was important in church history, we have few genuine records of any personal action of his, but a great store of legend.
In his first year of episcopate Constantine the Great summoned the first council of Arles to reconsider the decision against the African Donatists of the synod held at Rome by his order in 313 under pope Miltiades. At the council of Arles Silvester was represented by two presbyters, Claudianus and Vitus, and two deacons, Eugenius and Cyriacus, whose names appear in his behalf fifth among the signatures. Whoever presided, the general conduct of the council seems to have been committed by the emperor to Chrestus, bp. of Syracuse (see a letter to him from Constantine preserved by Eusebius, H. E. x. 5). Certainly Silvester did not preside, nor did any representative in his place. Constantine, in making arrangements for the council, evidently takes no account of him, not even mentioning him in writing to Chrestus.
There is indeed a letter of the bishops of the Arles council to Silvester. It opens: "To the most beloved pope Silvester," and concludes in reference to the decrees: "We have thought it fit also that they should be especially made known to all through you, who hold the greater dioceses." The phrase, "qui majores dioceses tenes," with the consequent desire expressed that the pope should promulgate the decrees, has been used in proof of the pope's then acknowledged patriarchal jurisdiction over the great dioceses (i.e. exarchates) of the western empire. For the word διοίκησις denoted the jurisdiction of a patriarch, larger than that of metropolitans, the word for a diocese in the modern sense being properly παροικία. But it is highly improbable that diocese was used ecclesiastically in this sense so early as 314. Hence Bingham contended (Ant. ix. i. 12, and ii. 2) that if the passage, "by all acknowledged to be a very corrupt one," be accepted, διοίοκησις must be taken in the sense then generally expressed by παροικία; and he adduces instances of its use in this sense in canons of Carthaginian councils. But probably the whole epistle (note its general anachronism of tone) is a forgery intended to magnify the Roman see.
To the more memorable council of Nicaea in 325 Silvester was invited, but excusing himself on account of age, sent two presbyters, Vitus and Vincentius, as his representatives (Eus. V. C. iii. 7; Socr. H. E. i. 14; Sozs. H. E. i. 17; Theod. H. E. i. 6). The view that they presided in his name, or that (as Baronius maintains) Hosius of Cordova did so, is without foundation. In the subscriptions to the decrees Hosius signs first, but simply as bp. of Cordova, not as in any way representing Rome; after which come those of Vitus and Vincentius, who sign "pro venerabili viro papa et episcopo nostro, sancto Sylvestro, ita credentes sicut scriptum est." The earliest and indeed only authority for Hosius having presided in the pope's name is that of Gelasius of Cyzicus (end of 5th cent.), who says only that Hosius from Spain, "qui Silvestri episcopi maximae Romae locum obtinebat," together with the Roman presbyters Bito and Vincentius, was present (Gelas. Hist. Concil. Nic. l. ii. c. 5, in Labbe, vol. ii. p. 162). Equally groundless is the allegation first made by the 6th oecumenical council (680), that Silvester in concert with the emperor summoned the Nicene fathers. The gradual growth of this idea appears in the pontifical annals. The catalogue of popes called the Felician (A.D. 530) says only that the synod was held with his consent ("cum consensu ejus"); some later MSS. improve this phrase into "cum praecepto ejus." It is evident from all authentic documents that the synod of Nicaea, as that of Arles, was convened by the sole authority of the emperor, and that no peculiarly prominent position was accorded to the pope in either case.
But the most memorable fable about Silvester is that of the baptism of Constantine
by him, and the celebrated "Donation." It is, though variously related, mainly as
follows: The emperor, having before his conversion authorized cruel persecution
of the Christians, was smitten with leprosy by divine judgment. He was advised to
use a bath of infants' blood for cure. A great multitude of infants was accordingly
collected for slaughter; but the emperor, moved by their cries and those of their
mothers, desisted from his purpose. He was thereupon visited in night visions by
SS. Peter and Paul, and directed to seek and recall Silvester from his exile in
Soracte, who would shew him a pool by immersion in which he would be healed. He
recalled the pope, was instructed by him in the faith, cured of his leprosy, and
baptized. Moved by gratitude, he made over to the pope and his successors the temporal
dominion of Rome, of the
The attribution of Constantine's conversion and baptism to Silvester is as legendary as the rest. His profession and patronage of Christianity were anterior to the time spoken of, and he was not actually baptized till long afterwards, at the close of his life. There is abundant testimony that he did not seek baptism, or even imposition of hands as a catechumen, till in a suburb of Nicomedia, as death drew near, he received both from Eusebius, the Arian bishop of that see. (Eus. V. C. iv. 61, 62; Theod. i. 32; Soz. ii. 34, iv. 18; Socr. i. 39; Phot. Cod. 127; Ambrose, Serm. de obit. Theodos.; Hieron. Chron. an. 2353; Council of Rimini.)
The Acta S. Sylvestri, which seem to have furnished the materials for most of the legends—including the banishment to Soracte, the leprosy of Constantine, his lustration by Silvester, and his Donation—are mentioned and approved as genuine in the Decretum de Libris Recipiendis et non Recipiendis, commonly attributed to pope Gelasius (492–496), but probably of a later date. They are quoted in the 8th cent. by pope Hadrian in a letter to Charlemagne, where the Donation is alluded to, and in another to the empress Irene and her son Constantine on the occasion of the 2nd Nicene council in 787. The original Acts have not been preserved. The extant editions of them, given in Latin by Surius (Acta SS. Dec. p. 368), and in Greek by Combefis (Act. p. 258), purport to be only compilations from an earlier document.
Silvester died on Dec. 31, 335, and was buried in the cemetery of St. Priscilla.
Sylvia [Gordianus (7).]
Simeon (1), 2nd bp. of Jerusalem, succeeding James, the Lord's brother.
According to the statement of Hegesippus preserved by Eusebius, Simeon was the son
of Clopas "mentioned in Holy Scripture" (
Simeon (12) Stylites, a.d.
388–460. Simeon was, according to Theodoret, originally an enclosed anchorite, and
raised his cell to avoid the honours paid to him (cf. Reeves on church of St. Doulough,
pp. 8–11, with Evagr. H. E. i. 21). The fashion rapidly spread even to the
sects, as we learn from Joannes Moschus (Prat. Spirit. cxxix.; cf. Ceill.
xi. 701 that the 6th-cent. Monophysites had pillar saints. Sometimes both parties
had opposition Stylites in the same district. Evagrius tells us that Simeon's pillar
was only three feet in circumference at the top, which would barely afford standing
ground. Assemani has depicted Simeon's column in his Life of the saint with a railing
or kind of wooden pulpit at the summit. Some such structure must have been there,
not only to prevent his fall, but also for him to write the epistles he sent broadcast
to emperors, bishops, and councils on all pressing questions. He was born at Sisan,
a village on the borders of Cilicia and Syria, and when about 16 embraced the monastic
life. From 413 to 423 Simeon dwelt in an enclosed cell near Antioch, where his austerities
speedily attracted a number of followers, who formed a society called the Mandra.
In 423 he built a low pillar, which he gradually raised, till in 430 it was 40 cubits
high; there, with his neck manacled by an iron collar, he spent his last 30 years
of life engaged in perpetual adoration, save when
Simon (1) Magus, the subject of many legends and much speculation. It is important to discriminate carefully what is told of him by the different primary authorities.
The Simon of the Acts of the Apostles.—Behind all stories concerning Simon
lies what is related
The Simon of Justin Martyr.—When Justin Martyr wrote his Apology the Simonian sect appears to have been formidable, for he speaks four times of their founder Simon (Apol. i. 26, 56; ii. 15; Dial. 20), and undoubtedly identified him with the Simon of Acts. He states that he was a Samaritan, born at a village called Gitta; he describes him as a formidable magician, who came to Rome in the days of Claudius Caesar and made such an impression by his magical powers that he was honoured as a god, a statue being erected to him on the Tiber, between the two bridges, bearing the inscription "Simoni deo Sancto." Now in 1574 there was dug up in the place indicated by Justin, viz. the island in the Tiber, a marble fragment, apparently the base of a statue, bearing the inscription, "Semoni Santo Deo Fidio," with the name of the dedicator (see Gruter, Inscrip. Antiq. i. p. 95, n. 5). The coincidence is too remarkable to admit of any satisfactory explanation other than that Justin imagined a statue really dedicated to a Sabine deity (Ovid. Fasti, vi. 214) to have been in honour of the heretic Simon.
Justin further states that almost all the Samaritans, and some even of other
nations, worshipped Simon, and acknowledged him as "the first God" ("above all principality,
power, and dominion," Dial. 120), and that they held that a woman named Helena,
formerly a prostitute, who went about with him, was his "first conception" (ἔννοια
πρώτη). In connexion with Simon, Justin speaks of another Samaritan heretic,
MENANDER, and states that
he (Justin) had published a treatise against heresies. When Irenaeus (Haer.
i. 23) deals with Simon and Menander, his coincidences with Justin are too numerous
and striking to leave any doubt that he here uses the work of Justin as his authority,
and we get the following additional particulars: Simon claimed to be himself the
highest power, that is to say, the Father who is over all; he taught that he was
the same who among the Jews appeared as Son, in Samaria descended as Father, in
other nations had walked as the Holy Spirit. He was content to be called by whatever
name men chose to assign to him. Helen was a prostitute whom he had redeemed at
Tyre and led about with him, saying that she was the first conception of his mind,
the mother of all, by whom he had in the beginning conceived the making of angels
and archangels. Knowing thus his will, she had leaped away from him, descended to
the lower regions, and generated angels and powers by whom this world was made.
But this "Ennoea" was detained in
It is possible that Justin's Simon was not identical with the contemporary of the Apostles, the name Simon being very common, and the Simon of the Acts being a century older than Justin. Moreover, Justin's Simon could hardly have carried his doctrine of transmigration of souls to the point of pretending that it was he himself who had appeared as Jesus of Nazareth, unless he had been born after our Lord's death. Hence it is the writer's opinion that the Simon described by Justin was his elder only by a generation; that he was a Gnostic teacher who had gained some followers at Samaria; and that Justin rashly identified him with the magician of the Acts of the Apostles.
The section on Simon in the Refutation of all Heresies, by Hippolytus, divides itself into two parts; the larger portion is founded on a work ascribed to Simon called the μεγάλη ἀπόφασις, which we do not hear of through any other source than Hippolytus. But towards the close of the art. on Simon there is a section which can be explained on the supposition that Hippolytus is drawing directly from the source used by Irenaeus, viz. the anti-heretical treatise of Justin. In connexion with this section must be considered the treatment of Simon in the lost earlier treatise of Hippolytus, which may be conjecturally gathered from the use made of it by Philaster and Epiphanius. Between these two there are verbal coincidences which prove that they are drawing from a common source. When this common matter is compared with the section in the Refutation, it is clear that Hippolytus was that source.
But one thing common to them was apparently not taken from Hippolytus. Both speak of the death of Simon, but apart from the section which contains the matter common to them and Hippolytus, and here they have no verbal coincidences. Both, however, know the story which became the received account of his death, viz. that to give the emperor a crowning proof of his magical skill he attempted to fly through the air, and, through the efficacy of the apostle's prayers, the demons who bore him were compelled to let him go, whereupon he perished miserably.
We may conclude that the story known to Philaster and Epiphanius, though earlier than the end of the 4th cent. when they wrote, is of later origin than the beginning of the 3rd cent. when Hippolytus wrote. That Hippolytus did not find his account of Simon's death in Justin may be concluded from the place it occupies in his narrative, where it is in a kind of appendix to what is borrowed from Justin; and also because this form of the story is unknown to all other writers.
The Simon of the Clementines.—The Clementines, like Justin, identify Simon of Gitta with the Simon of Acts ; but there is every reason to believe that they were merely following Justin. Justin has evidently direct knowledge of the Simonians, and regards them as formidable heretics; but in the Clementines the doctrines which Justin gives as Simonian have no prominence; and the introduction of Simon is merely a literary contrivance to bring in the theological discussions in which the author is interested.
The Simon of 19th Cent. Criticism.—The Clementine writings were produced
in Rome early in 3rd cent. by members of the Elkesaite sect, one characteristic
of which was hostility to Paul, whom they refused to recognize as an apostle. Baur
first drew attention to this characteristic in the Clementines, and pointed out
that in the disputations between Simon and Peter, some of the claims Simon is represented
as making (e.g. that of having seen our Lord, though not in his lifetime,
yet subsequently in vision) were really the claims of Paul; and urged that Peter's
refutation of Simon was in some places intended as a polemic against Paul. The passages
are found only in the Clementine Homilies, which may be regarded as one of
the latest forms which these forgeries assumed. In the Clementine Recognitions
there is abundance of anti-Paulism; but the idea does not appear to have occurred
to the writer to dress up Paul under the mask of Simon. The idea started by Baur
was pressed by his followers into the shape that, wherever in ancient documents
Simon Magus is mentioned, Paul is meant. We are asked to believe that the Simon
of
It is not necessary to spend much time in pulling to pieces speculations exhibiting so much ingenuity, but so wanting in common sense. If, by way of nickname, a public character is called by a name not his own, common sense tells us that that must be a name to which discreditable associations are already known to attach. If a revolutionary agitator is called Catiline, that is because the name of Catiline is already associated with reckless and treasonable designs. It would be silly to conclude from the modern use of the nickname that there never had been such a person as Catiline, and that the traditional story of him must be so interpreted as best to describe the modern character. Further, while obscure 3rd-cent. heretics, fearing the odium of assailing directly one held in veneration through the rest of the Christian world, might resort to disguise, Paul's opponents, in his lifetime, had no temptation to resort to oblique attacks: they could say what they pleased against Paul of Tarsus without needing to risk being unintelligible by speaking of Simon of Gitta.
Lipsius, whose account of his predecessors' speculations we have abridged from
his art. "Simon," in Schenkel's Bibel-Lexikon, exercises his own ingenuity
in dealing with the legendary history of Simon. The ingenuity which discovers Paul
in the Simon of the Acts has, of course, a much easier task in finding him in the
Simon of the legends. But since the history, as it has come down to us, leaves much
to be desired as an intentional libel on Paul, we must modify the legends so as
best to adapt them to this object, and must then believe we have thus recovered
the original form of the legend. Thus, the Homilies represent the final disputation
between Peter and Simon to have occurred at Laodicea; but we must believe that the
original form laid it at Antioch, where took place the collision between Peter and
Paul (
Simplicianus, St., bp. of Milan next after St. Ambrose, a resident there between 350 and 360 and instrumental in converting Victorious (Aug. Conf. viii. 2). Later perhaps than this he became intimate with St. Ambrose, whose father in the Christian faith he is called by Augustine. About 374, the year Ambrose was raised to the episcopate, Simplician appears to have settled at Milan (Tillem. vol. x. p. 398). He was held in deep reverence by St. Ambrose, who was often consulted by him, and speaks of his continual study of Holy Scripture (Aug. Conf. viii. 2; Ambr. Epp. 37. 2, 65.1). Four reply-letters to him by St. Ambrose on points of Scripture are extant (Ambr. Epp. 37, 38, 61, 67).
Augustine, residing near Milan a.d.
386, became acquainted with Simplician, whose account of the conversion of Victorinus
awakened an eager desire to follow his example (Conf. viii. 5); and the friendship
lasted throughout Augustine's life. Simplician's appointment to the see of Milan,
a.d. 397, is described by Paulinus
in his Life of St. Ambrose (c. 46). He apparently died in 400, and was succeeded
by Venerius. his inquiries elicited the treatise of Augustine, de Diversis Quaes.,
concerning various passages in O. and N. T.
Simplicius (7), bp. of Rome after Hilarius, from Feb. 22, 468 (according
to the conclusion of Pagi, in Baron. ad ann. 467, iv.), to
The reigning emperors of the East were, first Leo I., the Thracian, called also "the Great," and after him Zeno, his son-in-law, who succeeded him a.d. 474, but whose reign was interrupted from 475 to 477 by the usurpation of Basiliscus. The contemporary bp. of Constantinople was Acacius (471–489). The most memorable incidents of the pontificate of Simplicius were his negotiations, and eventual breach, with this prelate and with the emperor Zeno who supported him leading up to the long schism between the churches of the East and West, which ensued in the time of the following pope, FELIX III (or II.). The difference arose on questions connected partly with the rival claims of the sees of Rome and Constantinople, partly with the Monophysite or Eutychian heresy.
The first occasion was the promulgation of an edict by the emperor Leo I., at the instance of Acacius, confirming the 28th canon of Chalcedon. This canon, said to have been passed unanimously by all present except the legates of pope Leo I., not only confirmed the 3rd canon of Constantinople, which had given to the bp. of new Rome (i.e. Constantinople) a primacy of honour (i.e. honorary rank) next after the bp. of old Rome, but further gave him authority to ordain the metropolitans of the Pontic, Asian, and Thracian dioceses, thus investing him with the powers as well as the rank of a patriarch, second only to the pope of Rome. Pope Leo had subsequently objected to this canon and never gave it his assent. He claimed that it was an infringement of the canons of Nice and entrenched on the rights of other patriarchs. It indicated a desire on the part of the bps. of Constantinople, then the real seat of empire, to rival and perhaps eventually to supersede the old primacy of Rome. At Rome the position maintained was that the authority of a see rested on its ecclesiastical origin, and that of Rome especially on its having been the see of St. Peter. The view at Constantinople was that the temporal pre-eminence of a city was a sufficient ground for ecclesiastical ascendancy. Hence the long struggle.
Acacius, by inducing the emperor to confirm the 28th canon of Chalcedon by a special edict, hoped to make it plain that the eminence and authority thereby assigned to his see were still maintained and had not been conceded to the remonstrances of pope Leo. The language used by the emperor in his edict—styling the church of Constantinople "the Mother of his Piety, and of all Christians, and of the orthodox faith"—confirms the supposition that an idea was even entertained of the new seat of empire superseding the old one in ecclesiastical prerogative as well as temporal rank. Simplicius naturally took alarm. He sent Probus, bp. of Canusium in Apulia, as his legate to Constantinople to remonstrate; but with what success we know not.
In the doctrinal controversies of the day between Rome and Constantinople, Simplicius appears to have been in accord with the emperor Leo, and for some time with Zeno, as well as with Acacius. The great patriarchal sees were, during the first years of his reign, occupied by orthodox prelates, who had the imperial support. Alexandria had been held by Timothy Salofaciolus since the Eutychian Timothy Aelurus had been banished by the emperor Leo I. in 460. At Antioch Julian, an orthodox patriarch, elected on the expulsion of Peter Fullo by Leo I., a.d. 471, was still in possession. But the usurpation of the empire by Basiliscus, a.d. 475, introduced immediate discord and disturbance. Basiliscus declared at once for Eutychianism, and promptly recalled Timothy Aelurus to Alexandria. Having taken possession of the see and driven Salofaciolus to flight, Aelurus repaired to Constantinople to procure the calling of a new general council to reverse the decisions of Chalcedon.
Certain clergy and monks of Constantinople sent a messenger with letters to represent this state of things to Simplicius at Rome. Simplicius promptly wrote to Basiliscus and Acacius. His letter to Basiliscus expresses horror at the doings of Aelurus, of whom he speaks in no measured language. The opportunity is not lost, in the course of the letter, of insinuating to the new emperor the peculiar spiritual authority of the Roman see: "The truths which have flowed pure from the fountain of the Scriptures cannot be disturbed by any arguments of cloudy subtilty. For there remains one and the same rule of apostolical doctrine in the successors of him to whom the Lord enjoined the care of the whole sheepfold—to whom He promised that the gates of hell should not prevail against him, and that what by Him should be bound on earth should not be loosed in heaven." And the pope conjures the emperor in the voice of St. Peter, the unworthy minister of whose see he is, not to allow impunity to the enemies of the ancient faith, and especially urges him to prevent, if possible, the assembling a council to review the decisions of Chalcedon.
Meanwhile Basiliscus at Constantinople, issuing an encyclic letter, repudiated
and condemned the council of Chalcedon; required all, under pain of deposition,
exile, and other punishments, to agree to this condemnation; and ordered the copies
of pope Leo's letters and of the Acts of Chalcedon, wherever found, to be burnt.
The document is given in full by Evagrius (iii. 4). Acacius refused to sign it.
But in the compliant East elsewhere it was accepted generally. At Constantinople
Acacius, supported by the clergy and monks, was resolute and successful in his resistance.
Daniel Stylites, descending from
During these troubles under Basiliscus Simplicius seems to have had no opportunity of exercising influence; but as soon as he heard of the restitution of Zeno he wrote to that emperor, exhorting him to follow the steps of his predecessors Marcian and Leo, to allow no tampering with the decisions of Chalcedon, to drive all Eutychian bishops from the sees they had usurped, and especially to send Aelurus into solitude. To Acacius he wrote to the same effect. Zeno does not appear, however, to have taken any step against Peter Mongus. Possibly the emperor and his advisers were already disposed to the conciliatory policy towards the Eutychians which they afterwards maintained in spite of indignant protests from the pope. Simplicius complained, too, of the Eutychian leaders having been allowed to remain at Antioch, and attributed the troubles there to this cause.
The death of Timothy Salofaciolus at Alexandria in 482 gave rise to much more serious differences between Constantinople and Rome. Strained relations now resulted in decided conflict, ending in an open schism, which lasted 35 years, between Eastern and Western Christendom. John Talaias was elected canonically by a synod of the orthodox at Alexandria in the room of Salofaciolus. Simplicius received a notification of the election from the synod, and was about to express his assent, when he was startled by a letter from Zeno accusing Talaias of perjury, and intimating that Peter Mongus was the most proper person to succeed Salofaciolus. Simplicius at once (July 15, 482) addressed Acacius (who had not written himself), imploring him to do all he could to prevent it. The letter written to Zeno himself has not been preserved. Hearing nothing from Acacius, he wrote to him again in Nov., but still got no reply. So much appears from the extant letters of Simplicius (Epp. xvii. xviii. Labbe). [ACACIUS (7); JOANNES (11).]
Liberatus (c. 18) informs us that, driven from Alexandria, John Talaias appealed
for support to Simplicius, who on his behalf wrote to Acacius, but received the
reply that Acacius could not recognize Talaias, having received Peter Mongus into
communion on the basis of the emperor's HENOTICON.
Simplicius wrote to Acacius that he ought not to have received Peter into communion
without the concurrence of the apostolic see; that a man condemned by a common decree
could not be freed from the ban except by a common council; and that he must first
accept unreservedly the council of Chalcedon and the Tome of pope Leo. Simplicius
received no reply to this second letter, and died not long after, early in
Siricius, bp. of Rome after Damasus from late in Dec. 384, or early in Jan. 385, to Nov. 26 (?), 398. He followed the example of Damasus in maintaining the authority of the Roman see. When the prefecture of East Illyricum had been assigned (a.d. 379) to the Eastern division of the empire, Damasus had insisted on its being still subject to the spiritual authority of Rome, and had constituted Acholius, bp. of Thessalonica, and after him Anysius (who succeeded Acholius a.d. 383) his own vicars for the maintenance of such authority. Siricius, on his accession, renewed this vicariate jurisdiction to Anysius (Innoc. Epp. i., xiii.).
One of his earliest acts was to issue the first Papal Decretal that has any claim to genuineness, though he speaks in it of earlier decreta sent to the provinces by pope Liberius. It is dated Feb. 11, 385. Its genuineness is undisputed. It is plainly referred to by pope Innocent I. (Ep. vi. ad Exsuperium). Quesnel includes it without hesitation in his Cod. Rom. cum Leone edit. c. 29. Its occasion was a letter from Himerius, bp. of Tarragona in Spain, addressed to Damasus but received by Siricius, asking the pope's advice on matters of discipline and with regard to abuses prevalent in the Spanish church. Siricius, having taken counsel in a Roman synod, issued this decretal in reply, to be communicated by Himerius to all bishops of Spain and neighbouring provinces with a view to universal observance. The opportunity was taken of asserting in very decided terms the authority of the Roman see: "We bear the burdens of all who are heavy laden; nay, rather the blessed apostle Peter bears them in us, who, as we trust, in all things protects and guards us, the heirs of his administration." Among the rules thus promulgated for universal observance, one relates to the rebaptizing of Arians returning to the church, and another to clerical celibacy, which is insisted on. Thus what the oecumenical council had refused to require Siricius now, on the authority of the apostolic see, declared of general obligation. The rule laid down by him affected, however, only the higher clerical orders, not including subdeacons, to whom it was extended by Leo I. (c. 442. See Epp. xiv. 4; cxlvii. 3), in Sicily, by pope Gregory the Great (Greg. Epp. lib. i. Ind. ix., Ep. 42).
The zeal of Siricius against heresy appears in his correspondence with the usurper
Maximus, who in 383 had obtained the imperial authority in Gaul. The pope wrote,
exhorting him to support the Catholic faith and complaining of the recent ordination
of one Agricius, who seems to have been suspected of heresy. Maximus, in his extant
reply, declares his desire to maintain the true faith, undertakes to refer the case
of Agricius to a synod of clergy, and takes credit for measures already in force
against the Manicheans in Gaul, doubtless alluding to the Priscillianists, who were
often called Manicheans. The pope was zealous against the Manicheans at Rome, where
"he found Manicheans, whom he sent into exile, and provided that they should not
communicate with the faithful, since it was not lawful to vex the Lord's body with
a polluted mouth" (Lib. Pontif. in Vita. Sisicii). The reference seems to
be to the alleged habit of the Manicheans to make a show of conformity by frequenting
Catholic communion. It is added that even converts from them were to be sent into
monasteries,
Another class of heretics afterwards fell under the condemnation of Siricius. Jovinian, notorious through St. Jerome's vehement writings against him, having been expelled from Milan, had come to Rome and obtained a following there. His teaching came under the notice of two eminent laymen, Pammachius and Victorinus, who represented it to pope Siricius who assembled a synod of clergy at which Jovinian was excommunicated, together with his abettors, Auxentius, Genialis, Germinator, Felix, Frontinus, Martianus, Januarius, and Ingenius. These departed to Milan, whither Siricius sent three presbyters with a letter to the Milanese clergy, informing them of what had been done at Rome, and expressing confidence that they would pay regard to it. The letter is full of strong invective against Jovinian and his colleagues—"dogs such as never before had barked against the church's mysteries"—but contains no arguments. Siricius disclaims any disparagement of marriage, "at which," he says, "we assist with the veil," though he "venerates with greater honour virgins devoted to God, who are the fruit of marriages." The synodical reply from Milan is preserved among the epistles of St. Ambrose (Ep. xlii. ed. Bened.), who presided at the Milanese synod. He and his colleagues thank Siricius for his vigilance, concur with his strictures on Jovinian, supply the arguments which the pope's letter lacked, and declare that they had condemned those whom the pope condemned, according to his judgment. The introductory words of this epistle have been adduced in proof of the view then held of the pope's supreme authority. They are: "We recognize in the letter of your holiness the watchfulness of a good shepherd, diligently keeping the door committed to thee, and with pious solicitude guarding the sheepfold of Christ, worthy of being heard and followed by the sheep of the Lord." This language, though expressing recognition of the bp. of Rome as the representative of St. Peter, cannot be pressed as implying that he was the one doorkeeper of the whole church or an infallible authority in definitions of faith. On the contrary, the bishops at Milan endorsed his judgment, not as a matter of course or as being bound to do so, but on the merits of the case, setting forth their reasons. These proceedings apparently occurred in 390.
About the same time, or soon after, the Meletian schism at Antioch came under the notice of Siricius. His attitude to it is not certainly known. Some six months after the death of Damasus, whose highly valued secretary he had been, Jerome had left Rome for ever. In his bitterly expressed letter to Asilla, inveighing against his opponents and calumniators, he does not mention the new pope; but it may be concluded, if only from his silence, that he had lost the countenance he had enjoyed under Damasus. One expression suggests that he had been a little disappointed at not being made pope himself, and that coolness between him and Siricius may have arisen from this. Siricius and he were at one in their advocacy of virginity against Jovinian and in their general orthodoxy, but there seems to have been no intercourse between them, and, even in the course of the controversy against Jovinian, Siricius appears to have joined others at Rome in disapproving of Jerome's alleged disparagement of matrimony. Further, Rufinus, the once close friend of Jerome, having quarrelled with him in Palestine about Origenism but been temporarily reconciled, in 395 left Jerusalem for Rome. He was favourably received by Siricius, who gave him a commendatory letter on his departure, the quarrel with Jerome having recommenced with increased violence.
For his neglect of Jerome and patronage of Rufinus, Baronius disparages Siricius, even saying that his days were shortened by divine judgment (Baron. ad ann. 397; xxxii.). A further ground of complaint (ad ann. 394; xl.) is his supposed unworthy treatment of another ascetic saint, Paulinus of Nola, who says he was badly treated by the Roman clergy when passing through Rome (a.d. 395) on his way to Nola, and especially blames the pope (Paulin. ad Sulpic. Severum, Ep. i. in nov. edit. v.). For such reasons Baronius has excluded Siricius from the Roman Martyrology. Pagi (in Baron ad ann. 398, 1) defends the pope against the animadversions of Baronius. Siricius died in 398.
Sirmium, Stonemasons of. The Acts giving the history of the martyrdom
of the five stonemasons of Sirmium have been known for centuries, being found in
substance in Ado's Martyrology, but only last century was their relation to the
history of Diocletian's period recognized. They were stonemasons belonging to Pannonia,
engaged in the imperial quarries; one of them, Simplicius, was a pagan. They distinguished
themselves by their genius and ability, and attracted the notice of Diocletian by
the beauty of their carving. Simplicius was converted by his four companions, and
baptized secretly by a bishop, Cyril of Antioch, who had been three years a slave
in the quarries and had suffered many stripes for the faith. The pagans, jealous
of their skill, accused them before Diocletian, who, however, continued to protect
them. When, however, the emperor ordered them to make, among other statues, one
of Aesculapius, the masons made all the others, but refused to carve that. The pagans
thereupon procured an order for their execution. They were enclosed in lead coffins
and flung into the Save. Their Acts then proceed to narrate the martyrdom of the
saints called the Quatuor Coronati, whose liturgical history has been told at length
in D. C. A. t. i. p. 461. Diocletian, coming to Rome, ordered all the troops
to sacrifice to Aescuapius. Four soldiers, Carpophorus Severus, Severianus, and
Victorinus, refusing, were flogged to death, and their bodies buried by pope Melchiades
and St. Sebastian on the Via Lavicana at the 3rd milestone from the city. These
Acts are very valuable illustrations of the great persecution, but are full of difficulties.
The whole story is in Mason's Diocletian Persecution, p. 259. Attention was
first called to the Acts as illustrating Diocletian's period by Wattenbach in the
Sitsungsberichte der Wiener Akad. Bd. x. (1853) S.
Sisinnius (7), a bishop of the Novatianists at Constantinople, succeeding on Marcian's death in Nov. 395 (Socr. H. E. v. 21; vi. 1; Soz. H. E. viii. 1). He published a treatise warmly controverting Chrysostom's impassioned language as to the efficacy of repentance and the restoration of penitents to communion, de Poenitentia (Socr. H. E. vi. 21). Chrysostom, taking umbrage at this and at his claim to exercise episcopal functions in Constantinople, threatened to stop his preaching. Sisinnius jocosely told him he would be much obliged to him for sparing him so much trouble, and thus disarmed his anger (ib. 22). Sisinnius enjoyed a great reputation for witty repartees. Several are collected by Socrates (l.c.), but do not give a very high idea of his powers. He is described as a man of great eloquence, enhanced by dignity of countenance and person, gracefulness of action, and by the tones of his voice. He had a considerable reputation for learning, being very familiar with philosophical writings as well as expositions of Scripture, and was well skilled in dialectics. Together with Theodotus of Antioch he composed a synodic letter against the Thessalians, in the name of the Novatianist bishops assembled at Constantinople for his consecration, addressed to Berinianus, Amphilochius, and other bishops of Pamphylia (Phot. Cod. Iii. col. 40; Cave, Hist. Lit. i. 290). Though a bishop of a schismatic body, he was much esteemed by the orthodox bishops, especially by Atticus, and was the honoured friend of leading aristocrats of Constantinople. He kept a sumptuous table, though not exceeding the bounds of moderation himself. Sisinnius died the same year as Chrysostom, a.d. 407, and was succeeded by Chrysanthus (Socr. H. E. vii. 6; Cave, u.s.).
Sixtus I.—so called in the Liberian Catalogue by Optatus (l. 2) and Augustine (Ep. liii.); but Xystus, Xistus, or Xestus, in Catal. Felic., Irenaeus (adv. Haer. iii. 3), Eusebius (H. E. iv. 4, 5, and Chron.), Epiphanius (Haer. 97, 6)—one of the early bps. of Rome, called the 6th after the apostles, and the successor of Alexander. All assign him an episcopate of about 10 years, and place him in the reign of Hadrian. Catal. Liber. dates his episcopate 117–126; Eusebius (H. E.) 119–128; his Chronicle 114–124. Lipsius (Chronol. der röm. Bischöf.) gives 124–126 as the possible limits for his death. The Felician Catalogue and the Martyrologies represent him as a martyr, and he is commemorated among the apostles and martyrs, after Linus, Cletus, Clemens, in the canon of the mass. But Telesphorus being the first bp. of Rome designated a martyr by Irenaeus, the claim to the title of Sixtus and other early bps. of Rome, to the great majority of whom it has been since assigned, is doubtful.
Sixtus II. (Xystus), bp. of Rome after Stephen for about one year, martyred under Valerian Aug. 6, 258. A contemporary letter of St. Cyprian (Ep. 80) confirms this date as given in the Liberian Catalogue. Probably his accession was on Aug- 31, 257 (see Lipsius, Chronol. der röm. Bischöf.). His predecessor Stephen had been at issue with Cyprian of Carthage as to the rebaptism of heretics. Under Xystus, who was more conciliatory, though he upheld the Roman usage, peace was restored (Eus. H. E. vii. 5–7).
The circumstances of his martyrdom appear to have been as follows. The emperor
Valerian had already, before the accession of Xystus, forbidden the resort of Christians
to the cemeteries on pain of banishment. But in the middle of 258, when Valerian
was arming for his Persian war, he sent a rescript to the senate of much severer
import; ordering bishops, priests, and deacons to be summarily executed; senators
and other persons of rank to be visited with loss of dignity and goods, and, on
refusal to renounce Christianity, with death; matrons to be despoiled and exiled;
and imperial officials (Caesarians) to be sent in chains to labour on the
imperial domains (Cyp. Ep. 80). Xystus fell an early victim to this rescript.
He was found by the soldiers seated on his episcopal chair, in the cemetery of Praetextatus
on the Appian Way, surrounded by members of his flock. As these endeavoured to protect
him, he thrust himself forward lest they should suffer in his stead, and was beheaded
and several companions slain. His body was afterwards removed by the Christians
to the usual burial place of the bishops of that period, the neighbouring cemetery
of Callistus. His two deacons, Agapetus and Felicissimus, with others, were buried
in the cemetery where they fell. This account of the occurrence is gathered from
Cyprian's contemporary letter to Successus (
"Tempore quo gladius secuit pia viscera matris
Hic positus rector coelestia done docebam . . ."
(Gruter, 1173, 13)
That these verses refer to Xystus, and not, as assumed in the Acts of St. Stephen, to his predecessor, is satisfactorily shewn by Lipsius (op. cit.). That he was buried there is expressly stated in the Liberian Catalogue of Martyrs, as well as by all later authorities; and the statement is confirmed by numerous graffiti on the walls of the crypt, in which his name is prominent. The line "Hic positus," etc., may refer to the cathedra on which he sat when found by the soldiers, which had been removed with his body to the papal crypt. That the cemetery of Praetextatus was the scene of his martyrdom ancient tradition bears witness, and in accordance with it an oratory was afterwards built on the spot, "coemeterium ubi decollatus est Xystus." The tradition is confirmed by representations of him and his chair in this cemetery, under one of which is the legend SVSTVS.
Sixtus III., bp. of Rome (432–441) after Coelestinus, and the immediate
predecessor of Leo the Great. Two notable heresies of his day were Pelagianism and
Nestorianism. Before his accession he had taken part in both controversies. It appears
from Augustine's letters
It seems, however, that the Nestorians as well as the Pelagians claimed Sixtus as once having favoured them; and he was reported to have taken in ill part the condemnation of Nestorius. These claims may have arisen from his having evinced a conciliatory spirit and a reluctance to condemn too hastily.
There are two extant epistles of his, written to Cyril and John of Antioch, expressing his great joy in their reconciliation; from one of which it further appears that he had written often previously to Maximian, the successor of Nestorius at Constantinople. A synod had been held at Rome on the occasion of his birthday, at which the joyful news of the reconciliation had been made known, and he was, when he wrote, expecting the speedy arrival of a deputation of clergy from John of Antioch. These two letters are given by Baronius (A.D. 433, xii. and xvii.); from a Vatican MS., which he speaks of as corrupt but trustworthy. (See also Labbe, Concil. Eph. iii. 1689, 1699.) The letter to John is quoted by Vincent of Lerins (adv. Haer.).
Two previous letters of Sixtus, conceived in a similar spirit, are given by Cotelerius from MSS. in the Biblioth. Reg. (Coteler. Monum. Graec. Eccles. vol. i. p. 42). One was to Cyril; the other was apparently an encyclic to him and the Easterns generally, sent by two bishops from the East, Hermogenes and Lampetius, who had been present at the pope's ordination. Both announced, as was usual, his accession to his see, and declared his communion with the Eastern churches. But in both, while he fully concurs in the condemnation of Nestorius by the council of Ephesus, he refers with regret to the dissent of John of Antioch and his adherents, whose reception into communion he desires and recommends, if they should come to a better mind, as he hopes they will.
Sixtus was no less vigilant than preceding popes in maintaining the jurisdiction of the Roman see over Illyricum, and that of the bp. of Thessalonica as the pope's vicar over the rest of the bishops there. Four letters of his (two written in 435, another in 437) on this subject were read in the Roman council held under Boniface II., a.d. 531. (See Labbe, vol. v., Concil. Rom. III. sub Bonifac. II.) In the fourth, addressed to all the bishops of Illyricum, he enjoins them to submit themselves to Anastasius of Thessalonica as, like his predecessor, vicar of the apostolic see, with authority to summon synods and adjudicate on all cases, except such as it might be necessary to refer to Rome. He bids them pay no regard to the decrees of "the oriental synod," except those on faith, which had his own approval. He probably refers to the council of Constantinople, which in its 3rd canon had given a primacy of honour after old Rome to Constantinople. On the strength of this the patriarchs of Constantinople had already assumed jurisdiction over the Thracian dioceses, though not till the council of Chalcedon (A.D. 451; can. xxviii.) was the express power of ordaining metropolitans in Illyricum formally given to them, despite the protest of pope Leo's legates.
Towards the end of his life Sixtus still concurred decidedly in the condemnation of Pelagianism. For we are told by Prosper (Chron.) that Julian, the eminent Pelagian, being deposed from the see of Eclanum in Campania, essayed in 439, by profession of penitence, to creep again into the communion of the church, but that Sixtus, under the advice of his deacon Leo, "allowed no opening to his pestiferous attempts." This Leo was the successor of Sixtus in the see of Rome, Leo the Great, who thus appears to have been his archdeacon and adviser.
Three works issued under the name of Sixtus (de Divitiis, de Malis Doctoribus, etc., and de Castitate) are apparently of Pelagian origin (see Baron. ad ann. 440, vi.), possibly put out in his name on the strength of the old report of his having once favoured Pelagianism.
Sixtus died a.d. 440, and was buried (according to Anastasius, Lib. Pontif.),
"ad S. Laurentium via Tiburtini." He is commemorated as a confessor on
In the Lib. Pontif. extraordinary activity in building, endowing, and decorating churches is attributed to him, and to the emperor Valentinian under his instigation. He is said to have built the basilicas of St. Maria Maggiore on the Esquiline (called Ad Praesepe), and of St. Laurence, and to have furnished both with great store of precious instruments and ornamentations. Pope Hadrian, in writing to Charlemagne (Ep. 3, c. 19) alludes to the former.
Socrates (2), one of the most interesting and valuable historians of the
early Christian age, was born at Constantinople, probably early in the reign of
Theodosius the younger, a.d. 408. He tells us that he was educated there under Helladius
and Ammonius, two heathen grammarians, who had fled from Alexandria to escape the
emperor's displeasure. They had been guilty of many acts of cruel retaliation upon
the Christians there, who had sought to overthrow the idols and temples (H. E.
v. 16). Socrates studied rhetoric, assisted Troilus the rhetorician and sophist,
and entered the legal profession, hence his name Scholasticus, the title for a lawyer.
His life was spent at Constantinople, and hence he, in his history, occupies himself
much with the affairs of that
Of his own style Socrates, addressing Theodorus, says, "But I would have you know, before you read my books, that I have not curiously addicted myself unto a lofty style, neither unto a glorious show of gay sentences; for so peradventure, in running after words and phrases I might have missed of my matter and failed of my purpose and intent. . . . Again, such a penning profiteth very little the vulgar and ignorant sort of people, who desire not so much the fine and elegant sort of phrase as the furtherance of their knowledge and the truth of the history. Wherefore, lest our story should halt of both sides, and displease the learned in that it doth not rival the artificial skill and profound knowledge of ancient writers, the unlearned in that their capacity cannot comprehend the substance of the matter by reason of the painted rhetoric and picked sentences, I have tied myself unto such a mean as that, though the handling be simple, yet the effect is soon found and quickly understood" (vi. pref.).
His matter was to be chiefly the affairs of the church, but not to the complete exclusion of "battles and bloody wars," for even in these there was something worthy to be recorded. He believed the narrative of such events would help to relieve the weariness which might overcome his readers if he dwelt only on the consideration of the bishops' affairs and their practices everywhere one against another. Above all, he had observed that the weal of church and state was so closely bound up together that the two were either out of joint at the same time, or that the misery of the one followed closely the misery of the other (v. pref.). It was the troubles of the church, too, that he desired chiefly to record. His idea was that, when peace prevailed, there was no matter for a historiographer (vii. 47).
One important qualification Socrates possessed for his task was that he was a layman. This in no degree hindered his capability of forming a correct judgment on theological controversies, for around these the main interest of lay as well as clerical Christians centred in his days and they were thoroughly understood by all educated Christian men; while his lay position and training unquestionably helped to raise him above the bitter animosities and persecuting spirit of his age, and led him to see the amount of hairsplitting in not a few of the current disputes. His recognition of good in those from whom he differed forms one of the most pleasing characteristics of his history. His impartiality has, indeed, exposed him to a charge of heresy. He saw, and ventured to own, some good in the Novatianists, and especially in several of their bishops, and he has been accordingly often charged with Novatianism. But his history shews little, if any, reason why we should doubt his orthodoxy. Like the most enlightened men of his age, he gave easy credence to miraculous stories, and there are many scattered throughout his pages quite as improbable and foolish as those found in the most superstitious writers of his time. Yet Socrates often displays a singular propriety of judgment, while his occasional reflections and digressions constitute one of the most interesting and instructive parts of his history. Thus his defence of the study by Christians of heathen writers may still be read with profit, and perhaps much more could not even now be added to his argument (iii. 14). His chapter on ceremonies, their place in the Christian system, the ground of their obligation, and their relation to the true word of the gospel, shews an enlargement and enlightenment of mind (v. 21). His whole history shews his keen eye for the mischief done by heated ecclesiastics, and for the unworthy motives that frequently swayed them (vi. 14).
For many other points the student will find his History valuable. It contains many original documents, e.g. decrees of councils and letters of emperors and bishops. It gives many important details as to the councils of Nicaea, Chalcedon, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, Ephesus, etc.; the emperors of the time treated of; the most distinguished bishops, Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nazianzum, Ambrose, Athanasius, Chrysostom, Eusebius of Nicomedia, Cyril, etc.; the Egyptian monks and their miracles; Ulphilas, bp. of the Goths, and the famous Hypatia. It embraces some important statements on the independence of Rome claimed by the Eastern church and the encroachments of the Roman see upon the latter; on the beginnings of the secular power of the Roman church; and on the introduction of disciplinary arrangements. The progress of the gospel amongst the Goths, Saracens, and Persians, the persecutions of the Jews, and the progress of the Eastern controversy are treated at large.
A Greek and Latin ed., with notes, by Valesius, was pub. at Paris in 1668, repeated
at Cambridge in 1720, and in Migne's Patr. Gk. (t. lxvii.) in 1859. In 1853
appeared the
Sophronius (7), a learned Greek friend of Jerome, who was with him in 391–392, and is included in his catalogue of ecclesiastical writers. He had, while still young, composed a book on the glories of Bethlehem, and, just before the catalogue was written, a book on the destruction of the Serapeum, and had translated into Greek Jerome's letter to Eustochium on virginity, his Life of Hilarion, and his Latin version of the Psalms and Prophets. Jerome records that it was at Sophronius's instance that he wrote the last-named. Sophronius had, in dispute with a Jew, quoted from the Psalms, but the Jew said that the passages read differently in Hebrew. Sophronius therefore asked from Jerome a version direct from the Hebrew, which Jerome gave, though he knew that alterations from the received version would cause him some obloquy. The importance of these alterations led Sophronius to translate the versions into Greek. They were well received, and were read in many of the Eastern churches instead of the Septuagint. The translations have not come down to us; but a Greek version of the catalogue of ecclesiastical writers bears the name of Sophronius. It is not quite accurate, but appears to have been the version used by Photius. The presence of his name on this book probably gave rise to its insertion in some MSS. between the names of Jerome, who, however, does not appear to have adopted it. Hieron., de Vir. Ill. 134; cont. Ruf. ii. 24; Ceillier, vi. 278; and Vallarsi's pref. to Jerome, de Vir. Ill.
Sophronius (10), bp. of Tella or Constantina in Osrhoene, first cousin of Ibas, bp. of Edessa. He was present at the synod of Antioch which investigated the case of Athanasius of Perrha, in 445 (Labbe, iv. 728). At the "Robbers' Synod" of Ephesus in 449 (Evagr. H. E. 10) he was accused of practising sorcery and magical arts. He was also accused of Nestorian doctrine, and his case was reserved for the hearing of the orthodox metropolitan of Edessa, to be appointed in the place of Ibas. No further steps appear to have been taken, and at the council of Chalcedon he took his seat as bp. of Constantia (Labbe, iv. 81). His orthodoxy, however, was not beyond suspicion, and in the 8th session, after Theodoret had been compelled by the tumultuous assembly reluctantly to anathematize Nestorius, Sophronius was forced to follow his example, with the addition of Eutyches (Labbe, iv. 623). Theodoret wrote to him in favour of Cyprian, an African bp. driven from his see by the Vandals (Theod. Ep. 53). Assemani, Bibl. Orient. i. 202, 404; Chron. Edess.; Tillemont, Mém. eccl. xv. 258, 579, 686; Martin, Le Pseudo-Synode d’Ephèse, p. 184; Le Quien, Or. Christ. ii. 967.
Soter, bp. of Rome after Anicetus, in the reign of Marcus Aurelius, during 8 or 9 years. Lipsius (Chronol. der röm. Bischöf.) gives 166 or 167 and 174 or 175 as the probable dates of his accession and death. In his time the Aurelian persecution afflicted the church, though there is no evidence of Roman Christians having suffered under it. But they sympathized with those who did. Eusebius (H. E. iv. 23) quotes a letter from Dionysius, bp. of Corinth, to the Romans, acknowledging their accustomed benevolence to sufferers elsewhere, and the fatherly kindness of bp. Soter: "From the beginning it has been your custom to benefit all brethren in various ways, to send supplies to many churches in every city, thus relieving the poverty of those that need, and succouring the brethren who are in the mines. This ancient traditional custom of the Romans your blessed bp. Soter has not only continued, but also added to, in both supplying to the saints the transmitted bounty, and also, as an affectionate father towards his children, comforting those who resort to him with words of blessing."
The unknown author of a book called Praedestinatus (c. 26) states that Soter wrote a treatise against the Montanists. But the writer is generally so unworthy of credit that his testimony is of no value. [MONTANUS; PRAEDESTINATUS.]
As to the Easter dispute between Rome and the Asian Quartodecimans, it seems probable that Soter was the first bp. of Rome who was unwilling to tolerate the difference of usage. His immediate predecessor Anicetus had communicated with Polycarp when at Rome; but Victor, who succeeded Soter's successor Eleutherus, incurred the reproof of St. Irenaeus and others for desiring the general excommunication of the Asiatic churches on account of the dispute; and Irenaeus, in remonstrating with Victor, refers only to bps. of Rome before Soter, mentioning them by name, and ending his list with Anicetus, as having maintained communion with the Quartodecimans (Eus. H. E. v. 24).
Sozomen, author of a well-known Ecclesiastical History, born c. 400. In his book Sozomen has some notices of his birth and of his bringing up (v. 15). His family belonged to Bethelia, a small town near Gaza in Palestine, where his grandfather had been one of the first to embrace Christianity. Thus Sozomen was nurtured amidst Christian influences. He tells us (l.c.) that his grandfather was endowed with great natural ability, which he consecrated especially to the study of the sacred Scriptures, that he was much beloved by the Christians of those parts, who looked to him for explanations of the word of God and the unloosing of its difficulties. Sozomen came to the writing of ecclesiastical history in no spirit of indifference. He believed in Christianity, and even in the more ascetic forms of it, with a genuine faith, "for I would neither," he says, "be considered ungracious, and willing to consign their virtue [that of the monks] to oblivion, nor yet be thought ignorant of their history; but I would wish to leave behind me such a record of their manner of life that others, led by their example, might attain to a blessed and happy end" (i. 1).
He was probably educated at fast in Bethelia or Gaza, for some memories of his
youth are connected with Gaza (vii. 28). Thence
While thus engaged he formed the plan of his Ecclesiastical History (ii. 3), being attracted to the subject both by his own taste and the example of Eusebius. It appeared in 9 books, extending over the years 323–439, and was dedicated to Theodosius the Younger. It thus covers the same period as that of Socrates, and as both were written about the same time and have many resemblances, the question arises as to which was the original and which not unfrequently the copyist. Valesius, upon apparently good grounds, decides against Sozomen, although allowing that he often adds to and corrects his authority. Like Socrates, Sozomen is habitually trustworthy, and a conscientious and serious writer. In his account of the council of Nicaea, which may be taken as a favourable specimen of his work as a whole, he seems to have drawn from the best sources, to have proceeded with care, and to have made a sufficiently good choice among the apocryphal traditions and innumerable legends which in the 5th cent. obscured the reports of this great council (cf. De Broglie, iv. siècle, ii. 431). But he inserted in his history not a little that is trifling and superstitious. In style he is generally allowed to be superior, but in judgment inferior, to Socrates.
His History is especially valuable for its accounts of the monks, which, though by an admirer, are not therefore to be despised, or we should be equally entitled to set aside accounts by their detractors. It is impossible to read his repeated notices of the monastic institutions of his time or his long account of their manners and customs (i. 12), without feeling that here are statements as to the nature and influence of monasticism which cannot be set aside. He also gives not a few important particulars concerning both the events and men of the time covered by it, particularly of the council of Nicaea, the persecutions, the general progress of the gospel, the conversion of Constantine, the history of Julian, the illustrious Athanasius, and many bishops and martyrs of the age; and also a number of original documents.
The best ed., by Valesius, appeared at Paris in 1668, and was followed by one, with the notes of Valesius, at Cambridge, in 1720. The ed. of Hussey (Oxf. 1860) also deserves mention. An Eng. trans. in Bohn's Eccl. Lib. (1855) deserves high commendation; another was pub. by Baxter in 1847; and there is one in the Lib. of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers.
Spyridon, bp. of Trimithus in Cyprus, one of the most popularly celebrated of the bishops attending the council of Nicaea, although his name is not found in the list of signatures. He was the centre of many legendary stories which Socrates heard from his fellow-islanders (Socr. H. E. i. 12). Spyridon was married, with at least one daughter, Irene. He continued his occupation as a sheep farmer after, for his many virtues, he had been called to the episcopate. He is mentioned by Athanasius among the orthodox bishops at the council of Sardica (Athan. Apol. ii. p. 768). His body was first buried in his native island, then removed to Constantinople, and when the Turks captured the city it was transmitted to Corfu, where it is annually carried in procession round the capital as the patron saint of the Ionian isles (Stanley, Eastern Church, p. 126). His Life, written in iambics by his pupil, Triphyllius of Ledra, is spoken of by Suidas as "very profitable" (Suidas sub voc. Triphyllius, ii. 947). Rufin. 1, 3–5; Socr. H. E. i. 8, 12; Soz. H. E. i. 11; Niceph. H. E. viii. 15, 42; Tillemont, Mém. eccl. vi. 643, 679, vii. 242–246; Hefele, Hist. of Councils, vol. i. p. 284, Clark's trans.; Stanley, op. cit. pp. 124–126, 132).
Stagirus (Stagirius), a young friend of Chrysostom, of noble birth, who against his father's wishes embraced a monastic life, joining the brotherhood of which Chrysostom was a member, and continuing there after failure of health compelled Chrysostom's return to Antioch. The self-indulgent life Stagirus had led was a door preparation for the austerities of monasticism, and he proved a very unsatisfactory monk. He found the nightly vigils intolerable, and reading hardly less distasteful. He spent his time m attending to a garden and orchard. He also manifested much pride of his high birth. His health broke down under the strain of so uncongenial a life. He became subject to convulsive attacks, which were then considered to indicate demoniacal possession. He employed all recognised means for expelling the evil spirit. He applied to persons of superior sanctity, often taking long journeys to obtain the aid of those who had the reputation of healing those afflicted with spiritual maladies, and visited the most celebrated martyrs' shrines, and prayed long and fervently both there and at home, but in vain, though his religious character sensibly improved. He rose at night and devoted much time to prayer and became meek and humble. Chrysostom's counsels to him are in the 3 books ad Stagirium a daemone vexatum, or de Divina Providentia (Socr. H. E. vi. 3). What the physical issue was we do not know. Nilus highly commends his piety, humility, and contrition, but uses language which indicates that his attacks did not entirely pass away (Nilus, Epp. lib. iii. 19).
Stephanus (1) I., bp. of Rome, after Lucius, from May 12, 254, to Aug.
2, 257. These dates are arrived at by Lipsius (Chron. der röm. Bischöf.)
after careful examination. Those given by the ancient catalogues are erroneous and
conflicting. If Lucius died, as is supposed, on
At the time of his accession the persecution of the church, begun by Decius and renewed by Gallus, had ceased for a time under Valerian. The internal disputes as to the reception of the lapsi, which had given rise to the schism of NOVATIAN, still continued.
In the autumn of 254 a council was held at Carthage, the first during the episcopate
of Stephen, on the matter of two Spanish bishops, Basilides and Martialis, deposed
for compliance with idolatry. Basilides had been to Rome to represent his case to
Stephen and procure reinstatement in his see; and Stephen
A new question of dispute, that of the rebaptism of heretics, led to an open rupture between Rome and Carthage, in which the Asian as well as the African churches sided with Cyprian against Rome. The question was raised whether the adherents of Novatian who had been baptized in schism should be rebaptized when reconciled to the church (ib. 69 ad Magnum). But it soon took the wider range of all cases of heretical or schismatical baptism. It had been long the practice in both Asia and Africa to rebaptize heretics, and the practice had been confirmed by synods, including the first Carthaginian synod under Agrippinus. Cyprian (Ep. 73, ad Jubaianum) does not trace the African custom further back than Agrippinus, but he insisted uncompromisingly on the necessity of rebaptism, and was supported by the whole African church. At Rome admission by imposition of hands only, without iteration of baptism, seems to have been the immemorial usage, the only alleged exception being what Hippolytus states (Philosophum. p. 291) about rebaptism having been practised in the time of Callistus. Stephen took a view opposite to that of Cyprian. Cyprian would baptize all schismatics, whether heretical in doctrine or no; Stephen would apparently rebaptize none, whatever their heresies or the form of their baptism (Cyp. Ep. 74).
The first council of Carthage on the subject, held in 255, issued a synodal letter supporting Cyprian's position. Cyprian then sent to Stephen a formal synodal letter, agreed on in a synod at Carthage, probably at Easter, 256, in which the necessity of baptizing heretics and of the exclusion from clerical functions of apostate clergy on their readmission into the church, is urged. But the tone of the letter is not dictatorial. Stephen may retain his own views if he will without breaking the bond of peace with his colleagues, every prelate being free to take his own line, and responsible to God (Ep. 72).
Stephen's reply, written, according to Cyprian, "unskilfully and inconsiderately," contained things "either proud, or irrelevant, or self-contradictory." Cyprian charges Stephen with "hard obstinacy," "presumption and contumacy," referring, by way of contrast, to St. Paul's admonition to Timothy, that a bishop should not be "litigious," but "mild and docile," and replying to the arguments advanced by Stephen. Stephen had so far apparently not broken off communion with those who differed from him (Ep. 74). Cyprian summoned a plenary council of African, Numidian, and Mauritanian bishops, numbering 87, with presbyters and deacons, in the presence of a large assembly of laity, which met on Sept. 1, 256. Cyprian and other bishops separately gave their opinions, unanimously asserting the decision of the previous synod. But Cyprian was careful, in his opening address, to repudiate any intention of judging others or breaking communion with them on the ground of disagreement. After this great council, probably towards the winter of 256, Firmilian, bp. of Neocaesarea, wrote his long letter to Cyprian, from which it appears that Stephen had by this time renounced communion with both the Asian and African churches, calling Cyprian a false Christ, a false apostle, a deceitful worker. The question has been raised whether Stephen's action was an excommunication of the Eastern and African churches, or only a threat. H. Valois and Baronius say the latter only; but Firmilian's language seems to imply more, and so Mosheim (Comm. de Rebus Christian. pp. 538 seq.) thinks. Routh and Lipsius also hold that excommunication was pronounced. Stephen claimed authority beyond other bishops as being St. Peter's successor, and took much amiss Cyprian's independent action; Cyprian, supported by all the African and Asian churches, utterly ignored any such superior authority; his well-known position being that, though Christ's separate commission to St. Peter had expressed the unity of the church, this commission was shared by all the apostles and transmitted to all bishops alike. Unity, according to his theory, was to be maintained, not by the supremacy of one bishop, but by the consentient action of all, allowing considerable differences of practice without breach of unity. Stephen seems to have taken the position, carried to its full extent by subsequent popes, of claiming a peculiar supremacy for the Roman see, and requiring uniformity as a condition of communion.
The arguments of Stephen were mainly these: "We have immemorial custom on our
side, especially the tradition of St. Peter's see,
Stephen's martyrdom under Valerian is asserted in the Felician Catalogue, but not in the earlier Liberian Catalogue.
Stephanus (12), bp. of Ephesus at the time of the "Robber Synod" and the 4th council of Chalcedon. The 11th session of that council (Oct. 29, 451) was wholly occupied with investigating a complaint brought by Bassianus, formerly bp. of Ephesus, against Stephen, who was in advanced age, having been then 50 years one of the clergy of Ephesus. Bassianus had been expelled by violence from the see c. 448, and succeeded by Stephen. Both were deprived of the see by decree of the synod, but allowed a pension of 200 gold pieces (Mansi, t. vii. 271–294; Hefele's Councils, t. iii. p. 371, Clark's trans.). The name of Stephen of Ephesus is attached to a MS. collection of sermons in the Vienna imperial library (Lambecii, Comment. iii. 66; Fabric. Bib. Graec. xii. 183, ed. Harles).
Stephanus (16) I., patriarch of Antioch
a.d. 478–480 (Clinton, F. R.
ii. 536, 553). Stephen having sent a synodic letter to Acacius bp. of Constantinople
acquainting him with the circumstances of his consecration, Acacius convened a synod,
a.d. 478, by which the whole transaction
was confirmed. The partisans of Peter the Fuller accused Stephen to Zeno of Nestorian
heresy, and demanded to have his soundness in the faith investigated by a synod.
Zeno yielded, and a synod was called for the Syrian Laodicea (Labbe, iv. 1152 ).
The charge was declared groundless (Theophan. 108). Stephen's enemies, rendered
furious by defeat, made an onslaught on the church of St. Barlaam in which he was
celebrating the Eucharist, dragged him from the altar, tortured him to death, and
threw his body into the Orontes (Evagr. H. E. iii. 10; Niceph. H. E.
xv. 88). The emperor, indignant at the murder of his nominee, despatched a military
force to punish the Eutychian party, at whose instigation the crime had been committed
(Simplicii
Stratonice, martyr at Cyzicum in Mysia with Seleucus her husband at the quinquennalia of Galerius during Diocletian's persecution. The wife of a leading magistrate of the town, she came to see a large number of Christians tortured. Their patience converted her and she converted her husband. Her father, Apollonius, after every effort to win her back to paganism had failed, became her most bitter accuser. Husband and wife were beheaded, and buried in one tomb over which Constantine built a church (Assemani, Acta Mart. Orient. t. ii. p. 65 ). The Acts offer many marks of authenticity. Cf. Le Blant, Actes des Martyrs; p. 224, etc.; AA. SS. Boll. Oct. xiii. pp 893–916; Ceill. ii. 481–483.
Sylvia (Silvania), sister of Flavius Rufinus, consul in 392 and prefect of the East under Theodosius and Arcadius. A work written by her was discovered at Arezzo in 1885, bound up with an unpublished work of St. Hilary of Poictiers (de Mysteriis). It contained 2 hymns and an account of a journey in the East. M. Ch. Kohler gave an analysis of the text in Bibl. de l’Ecole des Chartres, and M. Gamurrini discussed its authorship in a paper before the Academy of Christian Archaeology at Rome (cf. Revue Critique, May 25, 1885, p. 419). It has since been shown by M. Fératin that the pilgrim author is Etheria, a Spanish nun, mentioned by the monk Valerius (Migne, Patr. Lat. lxxxvii. 421). It has been generally quoted, however, as the Peregrinatio Silviae. It is of the highest interest from its account of the services at Jerusalem at the time (c. 385 ). Important extracts from it are given in Duchesne's Origines du Culte Chrétien, of which a good trans. by Mrs. McClure has been pub, by S.P.C.K. Cf. also F. Cabrol, Les Eglises de Jerusalem; la discipline et la liturgae au IVmé Siècle, Etude sur la Peregrinatio Salviae.
Symmachus (2), author of the Greek version of O.T., which in Origen's
Hexapla and Tetrapla occupied the column next after that of Aquila and before those
of the LXX and Theodotion. Eusebius speaks of Symmachus as a heretical Christian,
while Epiphanius represents him merely as passing from the Samaritan sect to Judaism.
The account of Eusebius is confirmed (1) by the name "Symmachians," which, as we
know from the Ambrosiaster (Prol. in Ep. ad Galat.) and from Augustine (cont.
Cresc. i. 31; cont. Faust. xix. 4), was applied even in the 4th cent.
to the Pharisaic or "Nazarean" Ebionites; (2) by the fact that Eusebius could refer
to a work of Symmachus as extant, in which he maintained the Ebionite heresy in
the shape of an attack on St. Matthew's Gospel. This work, according to Eusebius
(H. E. vi. 17; Demonstr. Esang. vii. 1), was stated by Origen to have
been obtained by him, together with
Palladius, by his incidental statement, coming almost direct from Origen himself and resting on the testimony of a lady who had known Symmachus personally, powerfully confirms Eusebius, and makes it clear that Symmachus was a Christian (or "semi-Christian" as Jerome expresses it) of the Nazareo-Ebionite sect. Epiphanius's account is therefore to be rejected; and with it the theory of Geiger, who seeks to identify him with the Jew Symmachus, son of Joseph. The authority of Epiphanius has, however, been commonly accepted for placing the date of Symmachus under the reign of Severus (193–211)—e.g. by the compiler of the Chronicon Paschale (s.a. 202), Cave (Hist. Lit. s.a. 201), etc. The extract from Palladius roughly fixes limits for the possible date of Symmachus, by shewing that he was an elder contemporary of Juliana, who was contemporary with Origen, but that he had died before Origen's sojourn in her house.
Symmachus's object in his version seems to have been to imitate Aquila in following
the Hebrew exclusively, but to avoid his barbarous diction and to commend his work
to Greek readers by purity of style. Thus, his renderings are externally dissimilar
to Aquila's, but (frequently) internally akin. Remarkable cases of identity of translation
between these two versions occur, e.g.
Symmachus (3) Q. Aurelius, the last eminent champion of paganism at Rome, son of L. Aurelius Avianus Symmachus, who was prefect of the city in 364, consul suffect and pretorian prefect in 376, and one of the envoys sent by Julian to Constantius (Ammian. xxi. 12, 24). He was educated at Bordeaux (Epp. ix. 88), where he and Ausonius became firm friends (Auson. Id. 11, in Migne, Patr. Lat. xix. 895; Symm. Epp. i. 13–43). After being questor and praetor, he became corrector of Lucania and Bruttium in 365 and proconsul of Africa in 373 (Cod. Theod. viii. tit. v. 25; xii. tit. i. 73). Being again in Gaul c. 369, he delivered his first panegyric on Valentinian as he witnessed the construction of his fortifications on the Rhine (Laud. in Valent. Sen. ii. 6). He was appointed prefect of the city at the end of 383 or the beginning of 384. He bore himself modestly in that office, which had been conferred on him unsolicited, declining the silver chariot which his predecessors had permission to use (Epp. x. 24, 40) and the title of "Magnificence" (Epp. iv. 42). In 382 he headed a deputation in the name of the majority of the senate, to the emperor Gratian, to request the replacement of the altar of Victory in the senate house and the restoration of their endowments to the vestals and the colleges of priests. The Christian senators, who, according to St. Ambrose, were really the majority, forwarded through pope Damasus a counter-petition, and by the influence of St. Ambrose the efforts of Symmachus were defeated, as again in 384, after Gratian's death (S. Ambi. Epp. 17, 18, 57, in Patr. Lat. xvi. 961, 972, 1175; Symm. Epp. x. 61. He probably took part in the missions for the same purpose sent by the senate by Theodosius after the fall of Maximus, and to Valentinian II. in 392 (S. Ambr. Ep. 57); and again suffered the same disappointment. In 393 the pagan party had a momentary triumph. Eugenius, at the instigation of Flavian and Arbogast, who had placed him on the throne, restored the altar of Victory and the endowments of the priests (Paulin. Vita S. Amb.. in Patr. Lat. xvi. 30), but they were again abolished by Theodosius after the defeat of Eugenius and Arbogast. Symmachus appears to have made a final attempt in 403 or 404; at least such is the natural inference from the two books of Prudentius, contra Symmachum, written after Pollentia and consequently c. 404.
Though a champion of the pagan cause, Symmachus was on excellent terms with the Christian leaders. He was a friend of pope Damasus and apparently of St. Ambrose himself, whom Cardinal Mai considers to be the Ambrose to whom seven of his letters are addressed (Epp. iii. 31–37), of St. Ambrose's brother Satyrus (S. Ambr. de Excessu Fratris, i. 32, in Patr. Lat. xvi. 1300), and of Mallius Theodorus, to whom St. Augustine (Retr. i. 2, in Patr. Lat. xxxii. 588) dedicated one of his works. When prefect, he sent St. Augustine as a teacher of rhetoric to Milan (Conf. v. 19, in Patr. Lat. xxxii. 717), and was thus the unconscious instrument of his conversion. His Christian opponents always speak in high terms of his character and abilities. He was a member of the college of pontiffs, and as such exercised a strict supervision over the vestal virgins. In the case of one of the Alban vestals, who had broken her vow of chastity, he demanded the enforcement of the ancient penalty against her and her paramour (Epp. ix. 128, 129), and sternly refused the request of another to be released from her vows before her time of service ended (Epp. ix. 108).
The letters of Symmachus give a remarkable picture of the circumstances and life
of a Roman noble just before the final break-up of the empire. His wealth, though
not above that of an average senator (Olymp. ap. Not.), was very great. He
had a mansion on the Coelian near S. Stefano Rotondo and other houses in Rome (Epp.
iii. 14), and numerous
His letters are reprinted in 10 books in Patr. Lat. xviii. Early in the 19th cent. Cardinal Mai discovered in the Ambrosian Library fragments of 9 speeches of Symmachus, which he published in 1815, and again in 1846. A new ed. of the Relationes, his official correspondence with emperors, was pub. in 1872 by W. Meyer.
Symmachus (9), bp. of Rome from Nov. 498, to July, 514, when Theodoric the Ostrogoth was king of Italy and Anastasius emperor in the East. For the circumstances of his election see LAURENTIUS (10).
The virulence of the two opposed parties is accounted for by the fact that they represented two opposite policies with regard to the then existing schism between the Western and Eastern churches. Laurentius was elected in the interests of the policy of concession to Constantinople and the East, which the previous pope, Anastasius II., had favoured; Symmachus for the maintenance of the unbending attitude taken by Felix III. when the schism first began.
Several extant letters of Symmachus refer to the rivalry between the Gallic sees of Arles and Vienne. [ZOSIMUS; LEO I.; HILARIUS (pope); HILARIUS ARELAT .] Anastasius II., the predecessor of Symmachus, had sanctioned some invasion, on the part of Vienne, of the jurisdiction assigned to Arles by Leo. After the accession of Symmachus, Eonus, then the primate of Arles, complained to him, apparently in 499, of Avitus of Vienne having, under such sanction, ordained bishops beyond his proper jurisdiction. The reply of Symmachus shews an evident readiness to impute blame to Anastasius (whose whole policy, with regard to the East, he had been elected to counteract), and is remarkable as a decided repudiation by a pope of the action of a predecessor. He lays down the principle that the ordinances of former popes ought not to be varied under any necessity, as those of Leo had been by Anastasius, and must be now maintained. He, however, requires both Eonus and Avitus to send full statements of their case to Rome; and in his letter to Avitus, while he repeats that the confusion introduced by Anastasius was not to be tolerated, he invites Avitus to state any reasons for some equitable dispensation under existing circumstances. It was not till 513 that we find the bp. of Arles finally confirmed in the rights accorded to his see by pope Leo; Caesarius having then succeeded Eonus. Symmachus then wrote to this effect to the bishops of Gaul, and in 514 to Caesarius, warning him to respect the ancient rights of other metropolitans and to report anything amiss in Gaul or Spain to Rome.
After the defeat of the party of Laurentius at Rome and the final settlement of Symmachus in the see, the emperor Anastasius, to whom the result would be peculiarly unwelcome, issued a manifesto against Symmachus, reproaching him with having been unlawfully elected, accusing him of Manichean heresy, and protesting against his presumption in having (as he said) excommunicated an emperor. Symmachus replied in a letter entitled "Apologetica adversus Anastasii imperatoris libellum famosum," and in strong and indignant language rebutted the charges against himself, and retorted that of heresy on the emperor; he accuses him of presuming on his temporal position to think to trample on St. Peter in the person of his vicar, and reminds him that spiritual dignity is, at least, on a par with that of an emperor; and he protests strongly against the violence used against the orthodox in the East. Anastasius was by no means awed or deterred by these papal fulminations, which had probably the opposite effect. He appears after this more than even determined to support Eutychianism.
Some time during the episcopate of Symmachus Theodoric visited Rome. Cassiodorus gives an account of the visit, placing it under the consuls of a.d. 500; and that Theodoric remained at Ravenna while the case against the pope was pending may be gathered from the documents that refer to it. Himself an Arian, Theodoric evidently had no desire to intervene personally in the disputes of the Catholics, declaring it his sole desire that they should agree among themselves and order be restored at Rome.
Symmachus is said by Anastasius (Lib. Pontif.) to have built, restored, and enriched with ornaments many Roman churches, to have spent money in redeeming captives, to have furnished yearly money and clothing to exiled orthodox bishops, and to have ordered the "Gloria in excelsis" to be sung on all Sundays and Saints' days.
Symphorianus (1), martyr, according to the MSS. of his Acts, under Aurelian,
for which name Ruinart would substitute Aurelius, dating his passion c. 180.
He was born in Autun, of noble parentage, and trained in Christianity from his childhood.
Autun was devoted to the worship of Berecynthia; and the consular Heraclius, who
governed there, anxious to convert the Christians by argument, entered into discussion
with Symphorianus, who reviled his false deities. The judge used threats and tortures,
and finally beheaded him outside the walls in the place of common execution. The
Acts of this martyr have been evidently compiled out of very ancient documents.
The judicial investigation is reported in the most exact and technical forms of
Roman law. The questions proposed and the answers given are such as we find in the
most genuine remains of antiquity. Yet there are also indications that they have
been worked up into their present shape. The details of the worship of Cybele may
be very usefully compared with those given in the passion of
Synesius (2), bp. of Ptolemais in the Libyan Pentapolis, early in 5th cent. A treatise by H. Druon, Etudes sur la vie et les œuvres de Synesius (Paris, 1859), gives valuable information respecting the chronological arrangement of Synesius's writings, especially the letters; another by Dr. Volkmann, Synesius von Cyrene (Berlin, 1869), is a well-written treatise, but not so elaborate.
Synesius of Cyrene witnessed the accomplishment of two great events on which the whole course of history for many centuries depended—the ruin of the Roman empire and the complete triumph of Christianity. He was born when the pagan world was mourning the untimely death of the last of the pagan emperors. He died amidst the horrors of the barbarian invasions, when the recent fall of Rome seemed to every portion of the Roman empire a sign of impending ruin.
He was born c. 365 at Cyrene, "a Greek city of ancient fame," but then already in decay, and superseded by Ptolemais as the capital of Pentapolis. He was of good family, inheriting an ample fortune, with considerable estates in the interior of the country. In his early years he served in the army and was passionately fond of field sports. Leaving the army, he commenced his studies at Alexandria, where Hypatia then lectured in philosophy. Through her he became attached to neo-Platonism.
But the great school of Alexandria was not then considered sufficient for any one who aimed at the reputation of a philosopher. To Athens, therefore, Synesius was driven by the remonstrances of his friends. But both with the city and its teachers he was profoundly disappointed. He returned to Pentapolis, determined to divide his time between country pursuits and literature, planting trees, breeding horses, training dogs for hunting, writing poetry, and studying philosophy. From this pleasant life he was called to plead the cause of his native city before the court of Constantinople, arriving there a.d. 397, and remaining 3 years. Through the friendship and influence of Aurelian, a distinguished statesman, the leader at that time of what may be called the patriotic party, Synesius was allowed to pronounce before the emperor Arcadius and his court an oration on the nature and duties of kingship. This oration is still extant, but the language is in parts so bold, the invective so personal, as to suggest a doubt whether it was actually delivered, at least in its present form.
Some of the evils which Synesius anticipated were soon realized. The Gothic leader Gainas revolted, and triumphed without difficulty over the effeminate court of Arcadius. Aurelian was sent into banishment, and his supporters in Constantinople exposed to considerable danger. Synesius declared afterwards that he had only escaped the devices of his enemies through warnings sent him in dreams by God. In a few weeks the power of Gainas sank as rapidly as it had risen. Part of his army perished in a popular rising in Constantinople. The rest were destroyed by an army of Huns in the pay of the emperor. Aurelian returned to Constantinople, and for the remainder of Arcadius's reign had great influence at court. Through him Synesius obtained the boon he asked for Cyrene, and was able at length to quit the hateful city.
From his country retreat, and from the city of Cyrene, Synesius kept up a brisk correspondence with his friends in different parts of the world, especially at Alexandria and Constantinople. Some of his letters were to influential friends in behalf of persons in distress. Of the 156 letters still extant, 49 are to his brother Evoptius. They form a pleasant series, full of interesting details.
With the death of Theodosius the last hope of maintaining the grandeur of the
Roman empire seemed suddenly to pass. Rome and Milan, Lyons and Arles, fell by turn
before Goths and Vandals, leaving many records of suffering, but not one of a heroic
struggle for life and liberty. The characteristics of the time are well illustrated
by the letters of Synesius. The miseries of the empire did not spare the distant
province of Pentapolis. The nomadic tribes of Libya took advantage of the weakness
of the Roman government to sweep down upon the fertile land. Their inroads were
at first merely predatory incursions. They seem to have begun not long after Synesius's
return from Constantinople. At Cyrene, as elsewhere, there were no troops to oppose
them. Synesius's spirits rose with the danger. "I at all events," he writes, "will
see what manner of men these are who think they have a right to despise Romans.
I will fight as one who is ready to die, and I know I shall survive. I am Laconian
by descent, and I remember the letter of the rulers to Leonidas—'Let them fight
as men who are ready to die, and they will not die.'" Here and there a few displayed
the same courage. Things grew worse, till he wrote almost in despair this touching
letter to Hypatia: "I am surrounded by the misfortunes of my country, and mourn
for her as each day I see the enemy in arms, and men slaughtered like sheep. The
air I breathe is tainted by putrefying corpses, and I expect as bad a fate myself,
for who can be hopeful when the very sky is darkened by clouds of carnivorous birds?
Still, I cling to my country. How can I do otherwise, I who am a Libyan, born in
the country, and who have before my eyes the honoured tombs of my ancestors?" Shortly
afterwards, owing to the arrival probably of a new general, the Ausurians were repulsed,
and Synesius in 403 left for Alexandria, where he married and remained two years.
Returning, he found Cerealis governor, under whose rule the predatory incursions
of the barbarians became a regular invasion. "He is a man," wrote Synesius to an
influential friend at Constantinople, "who sells himself cheaply, who is useless
in war, and oppressive in peace." Obviously Synesius thought that, at least in Pentapolis,
the country might have been easily protected against the barbarians if there had
been any ability in the government or vigour in the people. He was probably right.
It was but natural that men, even of strong patriotic feeling, like Synesius, should turn from the degradation of official life to live in thought among the glories of the heroic age of action in the pages of Homer, and the heroic age of thought in those of Plato. His philosophical studies did not meet with much encouragement among the people of Pentapolis. "I never hear in Libya the sound of philosophy, except the echo of my own voice. Yet if no one else is my witness, assuredly God is, for the mind of man is the seed of God, and I think the stars look down with favour on me as the only scientific observer of their movements visible to them in this vast continent." He pursued the study of astronomy, not only from his love for the beauties of nature, but as a valuable introduction to the highest branches of philosophy. To him, as to Plato, astronomy is "not only a very noble science, but a means of rising to something nobler still, a ready passage to the mysteries of theology." He had received instruction in it from Hypatia, his "most venerated teacher," at Alexandria. While at Constantinople he sent his friend Paeonius a planisphere, constructed in silver according to his own directions, with a letter giving a curious description of it. He mentions that Ptolemy, and the sacred college of his successors, had been contented with the planisphere on which Hipparchus had marked only the 16 largest stars by which the hours of the night were known, but he himself had marked on his all the stars down to the 6th degree of magnitude.
In philosophy Synesius is not entitled to rank as an independent thinker. He is simply an eclectic blending together the elements of his belief from widely different sources, without troubling to reduce them to a strictly harmonious system. He had neither depth nor precision of thought sufficient to win a high place in the history of philosophy. But he constantly speaks of his delight in philosophical studies, and always claims as his especial title of honour the name of a philosopher. If he had been asked which he considered the most philosophical of his writings, he would probably have answered his poems. For, from his point of view, poetry was inseparably connected with philosophy; for both are occupied with the highest problems of life; both look at the ideal side of things, and in the union of the two religion itself consists. The Homeric poems were valuable to him, not only for literary excellency, but as furnishing a rule of conduct. He quotes Homer as a Christian then quoted his Bible. He evidently regarded Homer as an authority in political, social, moral, and even religious questions. He was certainly well versed in the whole range of Greek literature. There is hardly a poet, historian, or philosopher of eminence not quoted or alluded to by him. In this, as in other respects, he faithfully represents one of the latest phases of thought in the Alexandrine school. The ascetic system of Plotinus and Porphyry had failed as an opposing force to the rising tide of Christianity. The theurgical rites and mysterious forms of magical incantation with which Iamblichus and others sought to prop up the falling creed had had but a limited success. Repeated laws of increasing severity had been passed to repress the magical arts, and many accused of practising them imprisoned and even executed. Besides, the very persons over whose credulity such pretensions could exercise any influence would in the 4th cent. naturally be much more attracted by the far more wonderful pretensions of the Christian hermits, and the countless tales of visions seen and miracles wrought by monks of Nitria and Scetis, which continually excited the wonder and stimulated the religion of the people of Alexandria. In supposed miracles, as in real austerities, no pagan philosopher was likely to rival Anthony or Ammon. Among the higher classes the great majority of thinking men, who were still unwilling to embrace Christianity, were chiefly influenced in the Eastern empire by their attachment to Greek literature, in the Western empire by their reverence, partly political, partly religious, for Rome itself, whose greatness seemed to them to depend on the maintenance of that system, partly political, partly religious, under which it had been acquired. The Greek mythology had lost its hold on their belief, but the poetry that mythology had inspired still retained its power over the imagination of educated men among the cities of the Eastern empire, which, however slightly Greek in origin, had become thoroughly Greek in language and in culture. Besides, the ideal of life presented in Greek literature was far more attractive to many minds than that presented by the popular teaching of Christianity, especially to those minds in which the intellectual were stronger than the moral impulses. Those who "still cared for grace and Hellenism," to use Synesius's expression, turned with increasing fondness from the intellectual degeneracy of their day to the masterpieces of former times, seeking to satisfy the universally felt craving for a definite religious creed, by taking from all the writers they admired the elements of a vague system, which they called a philosophy, but which depended far more upon poetical feelings than philosophical arguments.
Synesius's own poems are his most original works. Their literary merit is not
of the highest order. His power lay not so much in the strength of imagination as
in warmth of poetical feeling. The metres are unfortunately chosen and not sufficiently
varied to escape monotony. The fatal facility of the short lines constantly led
to a jingling repetition of the same cadences and turns of construction. Still,
the ten hymns extant would be interesting, if only as specimens of a style of lyrical
poetry, the meditative poetry partly philosophical and partly religious, which was
hardly ever attempted in ancient Greece, though common enough in modern times. Their
chief value, however, consists in the light thrown on the religious feelings and
experiences of a man of deeply interesting character. Any one who wishes to know
the religious aspect of neo-Platonism and the different phases of thought through
which an able man of strong religious feelings could in
The God to Whom he thus offers the "unbloody sacrifice" of his prayers is at once One and Three—"one root, one source, a triple form." To attempt to explain the mystery of this Trinity would be the atheistic boldness of blinded men. The three persons of the Trinity, to use the Christian form of expression never employed by Synesius himself, are not as with Plotinus—Unity, Intelligence, Soul. Most frequently the Christian terms are used—Father, Spirit, Son—for the resemblance between the attributes assigned in neo-Platonic philosophy to the soul, the third God, the ruler of the world, and the attributes assigned by Christianity to the Son apparently led Synesius to place the Son third in his system of the Trinity. The Father is also called the Unity. The Spirit is nowhere called the Intelligence, but is often called the Will. The Son, Who emanates from the Father through the Spirit, is also called, with a curious combination of expressions, the Word, the Wisdom, and the Demiurgus. The stream of life and intelligence descends from the Father through the Son to the intellectual worlds, and from them to the visible world which is the image of the intellectual. To all in heaven and in the sky, and on the earth and beneath the earth, the Son imparts life and assigns duties. Nor is the Father, however mysterious in His nature, so "hidden in His glory" as to be inaccessible to sympathy for His children. In the efficacy of prayer and in the reality of spiritual communion with God Synesius firmly believed. "Give, O Lord, to be with me as my companion the holy angel of holy strength, the angel of divinely inspired prayer. May he be with me as my friend, the giver of good gifts, the keeper of my life, the keeper of my soul, the guardian of my prayers, the guardian of my actions. May he preserve my body pure from disease, may he preserve my spirit pure from pollution, may he bring to my soul oblivion of all passions." And again in the beautiful prayer of the soul for reunion with God: "Have pity, Lord, upon Thy daughter. I left Thee to become a servant upon earth, but instead of a servant I have become a slave. Matter has bound me in its magic spells. Yet still the clouded eye retains some little strength, its power is not altogether quenched. But the deep flood has poured over me and dimmed the God-discerning vision. Have pity, Father, on Thy suppliant child, who, often striving to ascend the upward paths of thought, falls back choked with desires, the offspring of seductive matter. Kindle for me, O Lord, the lights which lead the soul on high."
Synesius has nowhere expressly stated that he regarded matter not as created by God but as existing independently and necessarily evil, but this idea is most consistent with the language he generally employs. God is nowhere said to have created the world, but the Son is said to have framed the visible world as the form and image of the invisible. At all events the corruption of the soul in each individual is attributed to the seductive influence of matter, a view expressed at some length in his very curious treatise on Dreams. The soul, he says, descends from heaven in obedience to a law of Providence to perform its appointed service in the world. It then receives, as a loan, the imagination, figuratively called the boat or chariot by which the soul travels on its earthward voyage. In other words, it is the connecting link between mind and matter. It is something intermediate between the corporeal and incorporeal, and philosophy therefore has great difficulty in determining its real nature. It is the duty of the soul to purify and elevate the imagination. It is the constant aim of the daemon of matter to corrupt and degrade it.
The action of Providence in the government of the world is described by Synesius in his treatise written at Constantinople. All existence, he says, proceeds from God and has been assigned by Him to an infinite variety of beings, descending in regular gradations from God Himself, Who is pure existence, to matter, which, being in a state of constant flux, does not, properly speaking, admit of existence at all. The beings of the highest order are called gods, and they are divided into two classes, the first controlling the upper parts of the universe, the other ruling this earth: These gods find their chief happiness in contemplating the God Who is above them, but to preserve the earth from the evils which would soon result from the destructive activity of the earth-daemons they must interpose from time to time. This they do gladly, because thus they render their appointed service to the supreme Deity.
As regards a future state, Synesius says that philosophy teaches us that it is the result of the present life. With death the husk of matter, which we call the body, perishes, but the soul and the imagination remain.
He repeatedly protests against giving publicity to doctrines which are above
the comprehension of men not thoroughly trained in philosophical studies. "Philosophy
is one of the most ineffable of all ineffable subjects." He reproves his friend
Herculian for talking of such with unphilosophical persons, and will not even discuss
them in letters lest they fall into the hands of others. Proteus is the problem
of the true philosopher eluding vulgar curiosity by concealing the divine under
earthly forms, and only revealing it to the persistent efforts of heroic men. This
desire for secrecy arose from a fear lest the highest truths should be corrupted
and degraded by those unfit to receive them, a feeling by no means unknown in the
Christian church at that time.
We cannot say what means Synesius had of becoming acquainted with Christianity in his early years. No one living in any part of the Eastern empire at the close of the 4th cent. could fail to be brought into frequent contact with Christians. But throughout his works, written before he became a Christian himself, the same phenomenon appears which is so striking in Claudian's poems—the existence of Christianity is entirely ignored. In his speech addressed to Arcadius, though the greatest prominence is given to the religious idea of duty, there is no allusion to the principles of Christianity, even where such a reference would have given force to his arguments. The orator appears unconscious that he is addressing a Christian emperor. The deity to whom he appeals is the god of the Theist, "whose nature no man has ever yet found a name to represent." Still more striking is a passage in one of the hymns written immediately after his return from Constantinople: "To all Thy temples, Lord, built for Thy holy rites I went, and falling headlong as a suppliant bathed with my tears the pavement. That my journey might not be in vain, I prayed to all the gods Thy ministers, who rule the fertile plain of Thrace, and those who on the opposite continent protect the lands of Chalcedon, whom Thou hast crowned with angelic rays, Thy holy servants. They, the blessed ones, helped me in my prayers; they helped me to bear the burden of many troubles." Of course the temples of which he speaks were Christian churches. No pagan temples had been erected in Constantinople, and even in the other cities they had been closed some years by an edict of Theodosius. Yet it is perfectly certain that Synesius was not then a Christian. This picture of a pagan philosopher praying in Christian church to the saints and angels of Christianity, while investing them with the attributes of the daemons of neo-Platonism is no bad illustration of the almost unconscious manner in which the pagan world in becoming Christian was then paganizing Christianity. As eclectic in religion as in philosophy, Synesius took from Christianity whatever harmonized with the rest of his creed, often adapting the tenets he borrowed to make them accord with his philosophical ideas.
How his opinions were so far altered in the next four years that he became a
Christian we have, unhappily, but scanty means of knowing. In none of his letters
is there the slightest trace of any mental struggle. The change was effected gradually,
probably almost imperceptibly even to himself. He had never been really hostile
to Christianity, and as the world gradually became more Christian he became more
Christian too. Almost without a struggle the old pagan society had yielded, and
was still yielding, to the tide which each year set more strongly in the direction
of Christianity. With all the vigour he displayed, in great emergencies Synesius
was not a man to stand long alone or to fight to the end a battle already lost.
Some personal influences had also been brought to bear on him. He had known and
highly respected Chrysostom at Constantinople, and afterwards come into contact
with Theophilus the patriarch of Alexandria. His wife, to whom he was warmly attached
and whom he married at Alexandria in 403, was a Christian, and in her he may have
had an opportunity of remarking one of the noblest features of Christianity, the
elevation it imparted to the female character by the prominence given to the feminine
virtues in the character of Christ and therefore in the teaching of the church.
But above all, when he returned to Pentapolis, in 404, to find his country desolated
by barbarian invasion, he must have felt how little the highest form of neo-Platonism
could meet the wants of such a troubled age. The philosophical and poetical creed
was the religion of a prosperous man in peaceful times. When suffering and danger
came, its support failed precisely where most needed. To enjoy that intellectual
communion with God for which he craved with his whole heart, and on the possibility
of which his whole system of belief depended, he needed above all things an untroubled
mind. It was one of the points which had marked most strongly his separation from
Christianity, that in his hymns he had always prayed at least as earnestly for freedom
from anxieties as for freedom from sin. He had formed an ideal of life which could
not be maintained in troubled times, and with it necessarily fell the beliefs with
which it was intimately connected. The old creed told him that "the woe of earth
weighs down the wings of the soul so that it cannot rise to heaven." The new religion
taught him that cares and sorrows rightly borne, so far from hiding the divine light,
reveal it in increased brightness. In former days, when he shrank into private life
from "the polluting influence of business and, the vicissitudes of fortune," he
had probably considered the doctrine of the Incarnation as the greatest obstacle
to his becoming a Christian, because it seemed to degrade the Deity by connecting
it with the contamination of matter. Now, when he had left his seclusion to battle
and suffer with his fellow-citizens, no doctrine of Christianity had such attraction
for him as that which told of a God Who had resigned His glory to share the sufferings
of His creatures and to be the Saviour of mankind. Formerly he had sought to purify
his mind that it might ascend in thought to God; now he caught at the doctrine of
the Holy Spirit descending into men's hearts to make them the temples of God. So
the first hymn which marks the transition to Christianity begins with an invocation
to Christ as the Son of the Holy Virgin, and ends with a prayer to Christ and to
the Father to send down upon him the Holy Spirit " to refresh the wings of the soul,
and to perfect the divine gifts." But though his prayers were now addressed to Christ,
it is obvious that he had rather added certain Christian tenets to his old creed
than adopted a new religion. The attributes of Christ are described in almost exactly
the same terms as the attributes of the Son had been described
"Thou camest down to earth and didst sojourn among men and drive the deceiver, the serpent-fiend, from Thy Father's garden. Thou wentest down to Tartarus, where death held the countless races of mankind. The old man Hades feared Thee, the devouring dog (Cerberus) fled from the portal; but, having released the soul of the righteous from suffering, Thou didst offer, with a holy worship, hymns of thanksgiving to the Father. As Thou wentest up on high the daemons, powers of the air, were affrighted. But Aether, wise parent of harmony, sang with joy to his seven-toned lyre a hymn of triumph. The morning star, day's harbinger, and the golden star of evening, the planet Venus, smiled on Thee. Before Thee went the horned moon, decked with fresh light, leading the gods of night. Beneath Thy feet Titan spread his flowing locks of light. He recognized the Son of God, the creative intelligence, the source of his own flames. But Thou didst fly on outstretched wings beyond the vaulted sky, alighting on the spheres of pure intelligence, where is the fountain of goodness, the heaven enveloped in silence. There time, deep-flowing and unwearied time, is not; there disease, the reckless and prolific offspring of matter, is not. But eternity, ever young and ever old, rules the abiding habitation of the gods."
While the old and new were thus strangely blended in his creed, an unexpected
event changed the whole current of his life. In defiance of the law, which enacted
that no one should hold the governorship of the province of which he was a native,
Andronicus had been appointed governor of Pentapolis. A native of Berenice, of low
origin, he had gained the office, Synesius says, by bribery. Against his appointment
Synesius vigorously protested, in a letter to an influential friend at Constantinople:
"Send us legitimate governors; men whom we do not know, and who do not know us;
men who will not be biassed in their judgments by their private feelings. A governor
is on his way to us who lately took a hostile part in politics here, and who will
pursue his political differences on the judgment seat." When the ancient Romans
were threatened with oppressive rulers, they chose the bravest of their fellow-citizens
as tribunes to protect them. In the 5th cent. of the Christian era, under similar
circumstances, the people of Ptolemais elected Synesius a bishop. They knew him
as a man of high character and great abilities, universally liked and respected,
but probably still more recommended to them by the vigour he had displayed in the
recent siege. No one who has attentively studied his life and writings can doubt
that he was sincere in his wish to decline the proffered honour. A frank statement
of his feelings was made in a letter written to his brother Evoptius, then resident
at Alexandria, and intended to be shewn to Theophilus: "I should be devoid of feeling
if I were not deeply grateful to the people of Ptolemais who have thought me worthy
of higher honours than I do myself. But what I must consider is not the greatness
of the favour conferred, but the possibility of my accepting it. That a mere man
should receive almost divine honours is indeed most pleasing, if he is worthy of
them, but if he is far from being so, his acceptance of them gives but a poor hope
for the future. This is no new fear, but one I have long felt, the fear lest I should
gain honour among men by sinning against God. From my knowledge of myself I feel
I am in every respect unworthy of the solemnity of the episcopal office.
For seven months at least the matter remained undecided. Synesius went to Alexandria to consult Theophilus, and popular feeling ran so high throughout the country that he felt if he declined the bishopric he could never return to his native land. The people also sent two envoys to Theophilus urging him to use all his influence to overcome Synesius's scruples. This Theophilus was sure to do, for, apart from the regard he may well have had for Synesius, it must have been a welcome triumph for him over his opponents at Alexandria that the most distinguished pupil of the Alexandrine school should be consecrated by him a Christian bishop, a visible sign to the people that even the noblest form of paganism was found insufficient by its noblest disciples. The religious difficulties were just those which might be expected in a pupil of the Alexandrine school, whether he derived his inspiration from Origen or from Hypatia. How far, and in what way, Theophilus, already so well known as a vigorous opponent of such views, succeeded in inducing Synesius to change them we have unfortunately no means of knowing. After all, these views were rather in opposition to the commonly received opinions among Christians than to any dogmatical teaching of the church. Even as regards the doctrine of the resurrection, Synesius would probably have had no difficulty in accepting the Greek form of the creed, the resurrection of the dead, though he could hardly have accepted the Latin form, the resurrection of the body, or the resurrection of the flesh. His amusements and his hunting seem to have been given up entirely. It has been assumed that he retained his wife, but there is no evidence whatever to shew that he did so. His own letter is a sufficient proof that a bishop was generally expected to separate from his wife, or, in the language of the day, to live with her as a sister, though it may be true, as Socrates asserts, that exceptions might easily have been found in the Eastern empire. The bishop, especially if occupying an important post, felt that by retaining his wife he lost caste among his people, and Synesius, in giving up so much in the hope of benefiting the people of Ptolemais, was hardly likely to pursue a course which must fatally damage his influence, even if his wife would have consented to a mode of life which must inevitably lower both herself and her husband in public estimation. Besides, Synesius never mentions his wife in any subsequent letter, and in one written only one year afterwards he speaks of his desolation m terms which make it almost incredible that his wife was living with him then. No child was born to him after he was elected bishop.
Yielding at last to the importunities and arguments of his friends, Synesius, in 410, wrote to the presbyters of the diocese of Ptolemais: "Since God has laid upon me not what I sought but what He willed, I pray that He Who has assigned me this life will guide me through the life He has assigned me."
He soon found that his fears had been more prophetic than his friends' hopes. When he returned, Ptolemais presented the appearance of a city taken by storm. Nothing was to be heard in the public places but the groans of men, the screams of women, and the cries of boys. New instruments of punishment had been introduced by Andronicus, racks and thumbscrews and machines for torturing the feet, the ears, the lips, the nose.
At first Synesius remonstrated; his remonstrances were treated with contempt.
He reproved; his reproofs made the governor more furious. His house was beset with
crowds demanding sympathy and protection. He could not move without seeing and hearing
the sufferings of his people. To add to his grief "the dearest of his children died."
With a heart wrung with anguish he turned for consolation to God. "But what was
the greatest of my calamities, and what made life itself hopeless to me, I who had
hitherto always been successful in prayer, now for the first time found that I prayed
in vain." He had accepted the office of a bishop in times of difficulty without
being sufficiently in sympathy with the prevailing spirit of the Christian church,
and the consciousness of this increased his natural self-distrust. The calm serenity
of thought, with which in happier years he had held communion with God, was gone.
As he prayed, the calamities of his house and country rose up before him as a sign
that he had, by his unworthiness, profaned the mysteries of God. The soul, distracted
by conflicting feelings, grief and anger, shame and fear, could not rise above the
earth. He prayed, and God was afar off. At first it seemed that he would sink in
despair under these accumulated sorrows; there were even thoughts of suicide. He
was roused by fresh tidings of Andronicus's excesses. Ever ready to assist others
in their misfortunes, however great his own might be, he heard the people murmuring
that they were forsaken by their bishop. Self-distrust gave way to indignation.
Once roused he acted with vigour and judgment. He wrote to influential friends at
Constantinople, detailing the cruelties of Andronicus, and earnestly pleading for
his recall. Then, without waiting the result of his appeal to the authorities of
the state, he proceeded to pronounce against
Before this letter of excommunication was sent, Andronicus professed his penitence for his crimes, and entreated that the sentence against him might not be published—a strong proof of the power which the sentence of excommunication then exercised on men's minds. Synesius unwillingly yielded to his entreaties and to the representations of the other bishops of the province. Relieved from this momentary fear, Andronicus soon returned to his old cruelties, and the sentence of excommunication was definitely pronounced. A short time passed and Synesius wrote in triumph to Constantinople thanking his friends for procuring the dismissal of Andronicus. Another short interval, and Synesius was writing to the patriarch of Alexandria to implore his good offices for the fallen governor. "Justice has perished among men; formerly Andronicus acted unjustly, now he suffers unjustly." Freed for a time from these secular cares, Synesius could attend to other episcopal duties. In a long letter addressed to Theophilus he has given a very interesting account of a visitation tour, undertaken at Theophilus's request in the course of the same year, through a part of the country still exposed to the incursions of the barbarians, to the villages of Palaebisca and Hydrax on the confines of the Libyan desert. Near the village of Hydrax, on the summit of a precipitous hill, stood the ruins of an old castle, much desired by the people as a place of retreat in invasion. Their bishop Paul had obtained it for them by a surreptitious consecration, turning it into a church; but Synesius refused to sanction that, and insisted on a regular purchase.
The next subject which occupied his attention was one of the worst evils resulting from the misgovernment of the country. He found that even bishops were often accused by other bishops, not that justice should be done but to give the commanders of the armies opportunities for extorting money.
Then Synesius asked the patriarch's advice as to certain bishops who did not choose to have a fixed diocese, wandering to wherever they thought they would be best off.
The time during which he held his bishopric was so short, apparently only three years, and marked by so many public and private calamities, that we possess but few letters which throw much light upon his life. His principal correspondent at this period was Theophilus, whom he always addresses with a reverence and affection which may surprise those who have only known that prelate as the persecutor of Chrysostom, and which are the more important because Synesius, even in writing to Theophilus, professed his admiration for Chrysostom. Equally noticeable is the unqualified obedience which Synesius, though himself metropolitan of Pentapolis, cheerfully yielded to the "apostolic throne" of Alexandria. "It is at once my wish and my duty to consider whatever decree comes from that throne binding upon me," he writes to Theophilus. The unquestionable superiority of Alexandria to all the cities of E. Africa had given to the patriarch of Alexandria an authority over their bishops unsurpassed, even if it was rivalled, by the supremacy of Rome in that day over the bishoprics of Italy.
Of the bp. of Rome, and of the affairs of Rome, there is no mention in any of his letters—one of the many proofs his works afford of the greatness of the separation, in government and in feeling, between the Eastern and Western empires. Though thoroughly well versed in all the branches of Greek literature, he never alludes to any Latin author. It is almost impossible to resist the belief that he was ignorant of the Latin language. Still some notice of the crowning calamity, when Rome yielded to Alaric without a struggle, could hardly have failed to appear in his writings, had not the misfortunes of Pentapolis been so great as to absorb all his thoughts.
In the winter Synesius lost "the last comfort of his life, his little son." The blow was too much for the father already crushed by the cares of his office and the misery of his country. As death drew near his thoughts were curiously divided between the two objects to which in life he had given his faith. His last letter was addressed to Hypatia. His last poem was a prayer to Christ. The pagan philosopher retained to the end the reverence and affection of the Christian bishop. "You have been to me a mother, a sister, a teacher, and in all these relationships have done me good. Every title and sign of honour is your due. As for me, my bodily sickness comes from sickness of the mind. The recollection of the children who are gone is slowly killing me. Would to God I could either cease to live, or cease to think of my children's graves." In the hymn to Christ Synesius added an epilogue to the poems in which he had already recounted the drama of his soul. The actor who began so confident of success ended with a humble prayer for pardon. "O Christ, Son of God most high, have mercy on Thy servant, a miserable sinner, who wrote these hymns. Release me from the sins which have grown up in my heart, which are implanted in my polluted soul. O Saviour Jesus, grant that hereafter I may behold Thy divine glory." So in gloom and sadness, cheered by the Christian hope of the resurrection, closed the career of one who in his time had played many parts, who had been soldier, statesman, orator, poet, sophist, philosopher, bishop, and in all these characters had deserved admiration and love. A cheap popular Life of Synesius of Cyrene, by A. Gardner, is pub. by S.P.C.K. in their Fathers for Eng. Readers.
T
Tarachus, also called Victor, martyr, an Isaurian from Claudiopolis,
and a soldier, who left the army on the outbreak of Diocletian's persecution. The
Acts of Tarachus and his companions Probus and Andronicus are one of the most genuine
pieces of Christian antiquity. They were first pub. by Baronius in his Annals,
under a.d. 290, but from an imperfect MS. Ruinart brought out the most complete
ed. in Greek and Latin from a comparison of several MSS. in the Colbertine Library.
The martyrs were arrested a.d. 304 in Pompeiopolis, an episcopal city of Cilicia.
Tatianus (1) the "Apologist," "born in the land of Assyria" (Oratio, c. xlii.), i.e. E. of the Tigris, in a land incorporated, under Trajan, with Mesopotamia and Armenia into one Roman province of Syria (Zahn, Forsch. z. Gesch. d. N.T. lichen Kanons; I. Theil, "Tatian's Diatessaron," p.268). Of his parents, date of birth (c. 110, Zahn; c. 120, Funk), and early training, little or nothing is known. In Syria were Greek official representatives of Rome, merchants, and residents. Among such, stationed in the Assyrian district, may have been the parents of Tatian; persons perhaps of birth and wealth (cf. Oratio, c. xi.). The lad, Semitic as regards the land of his birth, but possibly Greek by parentage and name, was educated in the Greek teaching open to him (Oratio, c. xlii.). As he grew older his inquiring mind led him to a personal examination of the systems of his teachers (c. xxxv.). A peripatetic by disposition if not in philosophy, he "wandered over many lands, learning from no man," but with eyes open and ears unstopped, listening, observing, hearing, pondering, until he abandoned the learning that had made him a pessimist, and became a teacher of that "Word of God" which had taught him a holier faith and a happier life (cc. xxvi. xlii.). He notes that the simplicity of style of Holy Scripture first attracted and then converted him (c. xxix.). The "barbaric [i.e. Christian] writings," upon which he stumbled by chance, charmed him by their modest diction and easy naturalness. He soon discovered that these writings were older than the oldest remains of Greek literature, and in their prophecies and precepts diviner and truer than the oracles and practices of the most powerful gods or the purest philosophers.
Tatian's information about himself ceases with the autobiographical allusions and statements in the Oratio. According to Irenaeus (adv. Haer. i. c. 28; cf. Eus. H. E. iv. 29) he was a hearer (ἀκροατής) of Justin Martyr; and the Oratio indicates that he and the "most admirable" Justin were at Rome together, and were both exposed to the hostility of the Cynic Crescens (cc. xviii. xix.).
Tatian's Christian life, like that of Tertullian, divides into pre-heretical and heretical periods. So long as Justin was alive, says Irenaeus, he brought out no "blasphemy"; after his death it was different.
The testimony of his pupil Rhodon (Eus. H. E. v. 13) leaves the impression that Tatian for some time after Justin's death worked and taught at Rome, busying himself with his "book of questions" (προβλημάτων βιβλίον), dealing with what was "hidden and obscure in the sacred writings" (i.e. of O.T.).
The chronology of his literary career is more or less connected with the martyrdom of Justin c. 163–167. Many critics consider Justin's Apology and the Oratio to have been composed about the same time (cf. Zahn, p. 279; Harnack, Texte u. Untersuch. z. Gesch. d. altchrist. Lit. i. p. 196), i.e. a.d. 150–153. Others place the Oratio after the death of Justin (Lightfoot in Contemp. Rev. May, 1877; Hilgenfeld, Ketzergeschichte, p. 395; Funk, Zur Chronol. Tatian's in Tübingen Theol. Quartalschrift for 1833, p. 219, etc.). The difference in opinion turns very much upon the estimate formed of a passage in Eusebius (H. E. iv. 16). A similar want of unanimity prevails as to the place of composition of the Oratio. Harnack (pp. 198–199) argues from its language that it was not written at Rome, where Zahn (p. 280) places it.
A. The Oratio.—The Oratio, by which he is best known, belongs to that part of Tatian's the most interesting and difficult of the Greek apologetic writings. The title, Τατιανοῦ πρὸς Ἕλληνας, terse and abrupt, is characteristic of life which is reckoned orthodox. It is one of the treatise. Tatian did not care for style. Christianity was not, in his opinion, dependent upon it. It was absent from the Scriptures which had fascinated him; it belonged to the Greek culture he had left behind. Yet he at times shews himself no novice in the art he condemned. C. xi. is a noble piece of declamation; c. xix. a scathing denunciation of the false, passing into a grave appeal in behalf of the true. He can draw word-pictures, e.g. those of the actor (c. xxii.), the wealthy patron of the arena (ib.), and the Cynic philosopher (c. xxv.), which are as clever and life-like as those of Tertullian. The Oratio has two principal divisions introduced by a preface (cc. i.–iv.). Div. i. states the Christian doctrines and their intrinsic excellence and superiority to heathen opinions (cc. v.–xxx.); div. ii. demonstrates their superior antiquity (cc. xxxi.–xli.); the whole closes with a few words autobiographical in character (c. xlii.).
Tatian opens (c. i.) by deprecating as unreasonable the contemptuous animosity of the Greeks towards "Barbarians," and points out that there was no practice or custom current among them which they did not owe to "Barbarians." Oneirology, astrology, auguries from birds or sacrifices had come to them from external sources. To Babylonia they owed astronomy, to Persia magic, to Egypt geometry, to Phoenicia instruction by letters. Orpheus had taught them poetry, song, and initiation into the mysteries, the Tuscans sculpture, the Egyptians history, rustic Phrygians the harmony of the shepherd's pipe, Tyrrhenians the trumpet, the Cyclopes the smith's art, and Atossa, queen of the Persians, the method of joining letter-tablets (see Otto's note). They should not boast of their excellent diction when they imported into it "barbaric" expression and maintained no uniformity of pronunciation. Of Doric, Attic, Aeolian, Ionian, which was the real Greek? Further, let them not boast while they used rhetoric to subserve injustice and sycophancy, poetry to depict battles, the amours of gods, and the corruption of the soul.
C. v., one of the most important (doctrinally)
"In the beginning was God. We have been taught that the beginning is the power of the Logos. For the Lord of all, being Himself the substance (ὑπόστασις) of all, in so far that creation had not yet taken place, was alone; but in so far as He was Himself all power, and the substance of things visible and invisible, all things were with Him: (and thus) with Him by Logos-power (διὰ λογιχῆς δυνάμεως), the very Logos Himself, Who was in Him, subsisted (ὑπέστησε). By the simple will of God the Logos springs forth, and not proceeding forth without cause (κατὰ κενοῦ), becomes the first-begotten work of the Father. Him we recognize as the beginning of the world. He was born by participation, not by scission (κατὰ μερισμὸν οὐ κατὰ ἀποκοπὴν); for He Who proceeds by scission is separated from the first, but He Who has proceeded by participation and has accepted a part in the administration of the world (τὸ . . , οἰκονομίας τὴν αἵρεσιν προσλαβόν), hath not rendered Him defective from Whom He was taken. Just as many fires are lighted from one torch, but the light of the first torch is not lessened through the kindling of the many, so the Logos coming forth from the power of the Father hath not made Him Who begat Him without Logos (ἄλογον)."
Tatian upholds the belief in the resurrection of the body at the end of all things. His argument is briefly: "There was a time when I did not exist: I was born and came into existence. There will be a time when (through death) I shall not exist; but again I shall exist, just as before I was not, but was afterwards born [cf. Tertull. Apol. xlviii.]. Let fire destroy my flesh, let me be drowned, or torn to pieces by wild beasts, I am laid up in the treasure-chambers of a wealthy Lord. God Who reigneth can, when He will, restore to its pristine state that which is visible to Him alone." In c. vii. Tatian returns to the Logos, that he may demonstrate His work as regards angels and men.
The thoughts of the better land and of God's revelation by the prophets lead Tatian to God's revelation of Himself in the Incarnation. That doctrine he treats in a manner likely to be admitted by a Greek, if very differently from the way (e.g.) Justin Martyr presented it to the Jews. We are not mad, he says (c. xxi.), nor do we utter idle tales when we say that God was made (γεγονέναι) in the form of man. The mythology of the Greeks was full of such appearances—an Athene taking the form of a Deiphobus, a Phoebus that of a herdsman, etc., etc. Further, what did so frequent an expression as the origin of the gods imply but that they were mortal? The difficulty attendant upon the heathen belief was not removed by the tendency to resolve all myths and gods into allegory. Metrodorus of Lampsacus, in his treatise on Homer, invited men to believe that the Hera or Athene or Zeus, to whom they consecrated enclosures and groves, were simply natural beings or elemental arrangements. That, argues Tatian, was to surrender their divinity; a surrender he freely endorses, for he will not admit any comparison between the Christian God and deities who "wallow in matter and mud."
Tatian (c. xxii.) lashes with ridicule the teaching offered to and accepted by the Greeks, the teaching of the theatre and arena. It might be urged that such places were frequented and delighted in by the uncultured only. Tatian therefore places the philosophers also at the bar of judgment, and his contempt for their teaching is only equalled by his ridicule of their appearance (c. xxv.). He denounces them as tuft-hunters and gluttons, to whom philosophy was simply a means of getting money. No two of them agreed. One followed the teaching of Plato, a disciple of Epicurus opposed him. The scholar of Democritus reviled the pupil of Aristotle. Why, protests Tatian, do you who are so inharmonious fight us Christians who are at least harmonious? "Your philosophers maintain that God has a body: I maintain that He is without a body; that the world shall be often consumed by fire, I once for all; that Minos and Rhadamanthus will be the judges of mankind, I God Himself (cf. c. vi.); that the soul alone is immortal, I the body together with the soul." We, he continues, do but follow the Logos of God, why do you hate us? We are not eaters of human flesh; the charge is false. It is among you that Pelops the beloved of Poseidon is made a banquet for the gods, that Saturn devours his own children, and Zeus swallows Metis.
After all, the philosophers do but make a boast of language taken from others (c. xxvi.), like the jackdaw strutting about in borrowed plumes. The reading of their books is like struggling through a labyrinth, the readers must be like the pierced cask of the Danaids. Why should they affirm that wisdom was with them only? The grammarians were at the bottom of all this folly; and philosophers who parcelled out wisdom to this and that system-maker knew not God and did but destroy each other. "Therefore," Tatian concludes scornfully, "you are all nothing—blind men talking with deaf; handling builder's tools but not knowing how to build; preaching but not practising; swaggering about in public but hiding your teaching in corners. We have left you because this is your character. We can have nothing more to do with your instructions. We follow the word of God."
Tatian then explains (c. xxix.) how he became a Christian. It was not through
want of knowledge of what he was leaving. He had been initiated into the (Eleusinian)
mysteries, and had made trial of every kind of religious worship. The result had
sickened him. Among the Romans he had found the Latiarian Jupiter delighting in
human gore, Diana Aricina similarly worshipped, and this or that demon systematically
urging on to what was evil. He withdrew to seek by some means to discover the truth.
"As," he says, "I was earnestly considering this I came across certain barbarian
writings, older in point of antiquity than the doctrines of the Greeks, and far
too divine to be marked by their errors. What persuaded me in these books was the
simplicity of the language, the inartificial style of the writers, the noble explanation
of creation, the
Tatian, with all the energy of a convert, loudly proclaimed the truth which satisfied him. He goes on to shew (cc. xxxi.–xli.) that the Christian religion was a "philosophy" far more ancient than that of the Greeks. He compares Homer and Moses, "the one the oldest of poets and historians, the other the founder of our barbarian wisdom." The comparison proves the Christian tenets older than those of the Greeks, and even than the invention of letters. After enumerating numerous variant opinions as to the date, parentage, and poetry of Homer, he remarks upon such discordant testimony as proving the history untrue; so different from the unanimity common among Christians. "We reject everything," he says, "which rests upon human opinion; we obey the commandments of God and follow the law of the Father of immortality. The rich among us follow philosophy, and our poor are taught gratuitously. We receive all who wish to be taught, aged women and striplings: every age is respected by us. . . . We do not test them by their looks, nor judge them by their outward appearance. In body they may be weak, but in mind they are strong. . . . What we do keep at a distance is licentiousness and falsehood." His mention of the women who received Christian instruction leads him to a digression in defence of them. The Gentiles scoffed, he says, at them, and alleged that the Christians talked nonsense among them. Tatian retorts (cc. xxxiii. xxxiv.) by pointing to the disgrace the Greeks cast upon themselves, not only by their unbecoming conduct to women generally, but by the statues they erected to courtesans and wanton poetesses. "All our women," bursts forth Tatian, "are chaste; and our maidens at their distaffs sing nobler songs about God than a Sappho." The Greeks should repudiate the lesson of immorality which their statues had immortalized and the foul practices inculcated by indecent writers, and turn to Christianity which enjoined truth and purity of thought and life. "I do not," says Tatian (c. xxxv.), "speak of these things as having merely heard about them. I have travelled much; I have studied your philosophy (al. rhetoric, cf. Eus. H. E. iv. 16, and Otto's note here), and your arts and inventions. At Rome I saw the multitude of statues you have collected there. And, as the result, I have turned from Roman boastfulness, Athenian exaggeration, ill-connected doctrines, to the barbaric Christian philosophy."
He now returns to the subject started in c. xxxi., after one word in deprecation of the sneer at himself: "Tatian, the man so superior to the Greeks, so superior to the numberless teachers of philosophy, has opened up a new vein of learning—the doctrines of the barbarians!" Whether Homer was contemporary with the Trojan war, or a soldier under Agamemnon, or even lived before the invention of letters, Moses yet lived long before either the building or taking of Troy. In proof of this, Tatian appeals to the Chaldeans, Phoenicians, and Egyptians. E.g. Berosus, the Babylonian historian, "a most competent authority," spoke of the wars of Nebuchadnezzar against the Phoenicians and Jews which happened 70 years before the Persian rule, and long after the age of Moses. Phoenician historians, such as Theodotus, Hypsicrates, and Mochus had referred to events connected with Hiram of Tyre, whose date was somewhere about the Trojan war. Both Solomon and Hiram lived long after Moses. The Egyptians were noted for the accuracy of their chronicles, and Ptolemy, the priest of Mendes, spoke of the departure of the Jews from Egypt as having taken place under the leadership of Moses under king Amosis. This king, according to him, lived in the time of the Argive king, Inachus, after whose reign, dating 20 generations, the taking of Troy was reached. Therefore, if Moses was a contemporary of Inachus, he lived some 400 years before the Trojan war. It was not till after the time of Inachus that the most illustrious deeds of gods and men in Greece were committed to writing and became known. Such records, therefore, were far less ancient than the time of Moses. Tatian sums up (c. xl.) by affirming it self-evident that Moses was of far greater antiquity than the ancient heroes, wars, or gods (demons). Men ought, therefore, to believe the more ancient authority in preference to the Greeks, who had borrowed from Moses, as from a spring, without acknowledgment (al. unconsciously); and in many cases had perverted what they took. Moses was, moreover, older than all the writers before Homer, e.g. than Linus, the teacher of Hercules, who lived in the generation before the Trojan war, than Orpheus, who was a contemporary with Hercules, and than the wisest of the wise men of Greece, e.g. Minos—so famous for his wisdom, shrewdness, and legislative powers—who lived in the 11th generation after Inachus; Lycurgus, the Lacedemonian lawgiver, who was born long after the taking of Troy; Draco, Solon, Pythagoras, and those seven wise men, the oldest of whom lived about the 50th of those Olympiads which began about 400 years after the taking of Troy.
The treatise is a defence of Christianity rather than of Christians, and not so much a defence of doctrines as an answer or oration to those who sneered at them. He depicts Christianity as contrasting by its goodness, wisdom, and truth with the heathenism which revelled in vice, foolishness, and error. Unlike other apologists, there is little care to discuss Thyestean banquets (cf. c. xxv.), or refute want of patriotism (c. iv.) His weapons are weapons of offence rather than of defence. In Tatian "barbaric (i.e. Christian) philosophy" dares to carry the war into the enemy's camp, and scorn is turned upon the scorners. It is a typical specimen of the class to which the lrrisio Gentilium Philosophorum of HERMIAS also belongs.
The Opinions of Tatian.—(a) God (see c. iv.).—With Tatian, as with Justin, God, not contemplated as He is in His nature but as revealed in His works, is the starting-point of all Christian philosophy. Tatian's doctrine about the creation is in c. v. In the creation itself he recognizes two stages (c. ii.): (α) matter, shapeless and unformed, is put forth (προβεβλημένη) by God; and (β) the world, separated from this matter, is fashioned into what is full of beauty and order, though eventually to be dissolved by fire (c. xxv.).
(b) The Logos (see c. v.).—The relation between God (ὁ δεσπότης) and the Logos Who subsists in Him, the Hypostasis, is conceived from a different point of view, and set forth in different terms from those of Justin. With Tatian the Logos springs forth (προπηδᾶ) by the Will of God. The process of begetting, the relationships of Father and Son, and the worship due to the Son, are not brought forward. The inward communion between them which carries with it these truths is indeed expressed by the deep phrase σὺν αὐτῷ διὰ λογικῆς δυνάμεως αὐτὸς καὶ ὁ λόγος; but the outward exhibition of this communion—the "springing forth"—is suggestive of emanation rather than of begetting. The distinction between the λόγος ἐνδιάθετος and the λόγος προφορικός, so strongly expressed by the apologist Theophilus (ii. 10), is more than visible. Tatian, in fact, presents the Logos as the personification of an abstraction.
(c) The Holy Spirit is evidently with Tatian a distinct personal
Being. He does not, as Justin (Apol. i. 60), speak directly of His share
in the creation; he rather leads up to His work and office as "the Minister of the
suffering God" (c. xiii.), when he would present its bearing upon the nature of
man. Starting from the initial positions, "God is Spirit," and the Logos "a Spirit
born of the Father," Tatian recognizes two varieties of Spirit: (α)
"the spirit which pervades matter, inferior to (β)
the more Divine Spirit" (c. iv.). To the Spirit is attributed prophetic powers.
Abiding with the just and locked in the embrace of the soul (συμβλεκόμενον
τῇ ψυχῇ), He proclaims to other souls by means of prophecies that which is
concealed. He uses the Prophets as His organ (cf. c. xx.). This action Tatian has
also attributed to "the Power of the Logos" (c. vii.). Perhaps, as with Justin,
this title of the Logos, ἡ δύναμις, defines
for Tatian the meaning of the πνεῦμα (cf.
(d) Angelology and Demonology.—Of good angels Tatian says nothing; but he speaks as strongly as Justin of evil angels, though he presents their work and ways in different language and (in some respects) from a different point of view. When expelled from heaven the fallen angels or demons lived with animals. Some of these they placed—the dog, the bear, the scorpion, etc.—in the heavens as objects of worship. Of demons, Tatian recognizes two classes. Receiving alike their constitution from matter, and possessing the spirit which comes from it, few only turned to what was purer, the many chose what was licentious and gluttonous (c. xii.); they became the very "effulgences of matter and wickedness" (c. xv.). Though material, none of the demons possess flesh; their structure is spiritual like that of fire or air (ib.).
(e) Man.—Tatian recognizes the three parts of body, soul, and spirit. At the fall man lost the spirit or highest nature, which had in it immortality (c. vii.). As the angels were cast down from heaven, so man was driven forth from earth, "yet not out of this earth, but from a more excellent order of things than exists here now." Tatian would seem to place Paradise above our earth; he describes it (c. xx.) as one of the better aeons unaffected by that change of seasons which is productive of various diseases, as partaking of a perfect temperature, as possessing endless day and light, and as unapproachable by mortals such as we are. Man, though deprived of the spirit, must aim at recovering his former state. Body and soul are left him. The soul is composite: it is the bond of the flesh; yet also that which encloses the soul is the flesh. The soul cannot appear without a body, nor can the flesh rise again without the soul.
Faith is a necessity for knowledge of divine things; ὁ πιστεύων ἐπιγνώσεται (c. xix.); faith and knowledge together help towards the victory over sin and death. Men, after the throwing away (ἀποβολήν) of immortality; have conquered death by the death which is through faith (cf. c. xi.: "Die to the world! Live to God!"); and through repentance a call has been granted to those who (according to God's word) are but a little lower than the angels (c. xv.). Through faith, and as the object of faith, Tatian proclaims that "God was born in the form of a man" (c. xxi.), and speaks of the Holy Spirit as the minister of the God Who hath suffered (τὸν διάκονον τοῦ πεπονθότος θεοῦ, c. xiii.). If he never mentions the names Jesus or Christ, it is because the facts of the Incarnation and Passion would commend themselves independently of names to Gentiles, to whom such facts were illustrated by their mythology (cf. Justin, Apol. i. 21). Faith animates the famous passage on the soul (c. xiii.), and especially in connexion with the resurrection. "We have faith in this doctrine," he exclaims (c. v.); but he does not rest his reasons on the resurrection of Christ (as St. Paul), but on an argument which may have suggested the more elaborate reasoning of Tertullian (Apol. c. xlviii.): There was a time when as man he was not; after a former state of nothingness he was born. Again, there would be a time when he would die; and again there would be a time when he should exist again. There was nothing of metempsychosis or transmigration of souls in his conception. Though the flesh were destroyed by fire or wild beasts, or dispersed through rivers or seas, "I," says Tatian, "am laid up in the storehouses of a wealthy Lord. God the King will, when He pleases, restore to its former state my substance which is visible to Himself alone" (c. vi.).
As regards free will, Tatian uses even more emphatic language than Justin (e.g. Apol. i. 43). He opposes the Scriptural (and Platonic) belief in free will to the fatalism of philosophers (cc. viii.–x.), and while he pours scorn upon their views, pens a touching appeal to them as men "not created to die" (see c. xl. end).
Christian Practice.—Though Tatian does not speak of his co-religionists as Christians, but accepts willingly the contemptuous expression "barbarians," it is the doctrines of Christ which alone have, in his opinion, raised them above a world deluded by the trickeries of frenzied demons (c. xii.), and wallowing in matter and mud (c. xxi.). Where the old nature has been laid aside, men have not only apprehended God (c. xi.), but through a knowledge of the True One have remodelled (μεταῤῥυθμίζειν) their lives (c. v.). Holy baptism and membership in the church did not enter into his argument. A passing allusion to the Holy Eucharist perhaps underlies his indignant protest against the frequent defamation that Christians indulged in Thyestean banquets (c. xxv.). He seems to prefer advancing the great help which the Scriptures had been to himself, and might be to his philosophical opponents. "Barbaric" though these Scriptures were, they were in the O.T. portion both older and more divine, more full of humility and of deep knowledge, more marked by excellence and unity than any writings claimed by the Greeks (c. xxix.). These "divine writings" made men "lovers of God" (c. xii.); and men thus God-taught were helped by them to break down the slavery in the world, and gain back what they had once received, but had lost through the deceit of their spiritual foes (c. xxix.).
The O.T. seems to have greatly attracted Tatian. It probably formed the basis of the lost work προβλημάτων βιβλίον mentioned by Rhodon; and in his attempt to collect and solve O.T. difficulties, Tatian was among the first, if not the first, of Christian commentators. The Oratio shews that he knew well the Gospels, Acts, and Pauline Epistles. If reference to O. and N. T. is more marked by allusion than by direct quotation, the cause is the well-known practice of the apologists, who usually abstain from such quotations when writing to Gentiles who would have allowed little authority to them. Tatian's references to St. John's Gospel are, however, both exceptional and indisputable, and testify to a widespread knowledge of that Gospel at the period in question. Independently of coincidences of exposition, three passages may be specified:
| TATIAN. | ST. JOHN. | ||
| Ch. iv. | πνεῦμα ὁ Θεός | Ch. |
πνεῦμα ὁ Θεός. |
| Ch. xiii. | ἡ σκοτία τὸ φῶς οὐ καταλαμβάνει. | Ch. |
τὸ φῶς ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ φαίνει, καὶ ἡ σκοτία αὐτὸ οὐ κατέλαβεν. |
| Ch. xix. | πάντα ὑπ᾿ αὐτοῦ καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ γέγονεν οὐδε ἕν. | Ch. |
πάντα δι᾿ α αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν. (Westcott & Hort.) |
Of these the second is prefaced by τὸ εἰρημένον,
the expression which in N.T. introduces the Scriptures (cf.
B. The Diatessaron.—(1) History.—The history of the recovery of this work is sufficiently romantic. In the literature of the Western church there is no serviceable testimony to it till the middle of 6th cent.; in the Eastern church Eusebius († 339–340) is the only Greek writer of the first four cents. who gives any information about it. It was apparently (see Codex Fuldensis, ed. Ranke, 1868, ix. 1) mere chance which put into the hands of bp. Victor of Capua († 554) a Latin book of the Gospels without title or author's name, but evidently compiled from the four canonical books. This unknown work excited his interest; and searching in vain the Latin Christian literature of the past, he turned to the Greek, and found in Eusebius two notices of Harmonies. (a) In the letter to Carpianus the harmony of Ammonius of Alexandria (3rd cent.) was described. Its principle was that of comparison. The Gospel of St. Matthew was followed continuously, and the passages—and only those—from the other Gospels which tallied with the text of St. Matthew were referred to or inserted in the margin or in parallel columns. This excluded the greater part of St. John's Gospel and much of St. Luke's. The Harmony was for private use, not for the public service of the church. Whether or not the descriptive title given to it in Eusebius—τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων εὐαγγέλιον—was that of the church historian or of Ammonius remains undetermined. (b) In his Church History (iv. 29, 6), Eusebius refers to Tatian as having composed a "sort of connexion or compilation, I know not how, of the Gospels, and called it the Diatessaron" (συνάφειαν τινα καὶ συναγωγὴν οὐκ οἶδ᾿ ὅπως τῶν εὐαγγελίων συνθείς.) Cf. Bp. Lightfoot in Contemp Rev. May 1877; Zahn, i. pp. 14, 15); and he adds that this work was current in his day. Its principle was amalgamation, not comparison. Victor came to the conclusion that his unknown work was substantially the Diatessaron of Tatian. This acute verdict—purged of some unimportant errors (see Lightfoot, l.c.; Zahn, i. pp. 2, 3)—has survived the difficulties which a comparison of the Codex Fuldensis with the Diatessaron at first presented.
A notice in the treatise on Heresies, written in 453 by Theodoret († 457–458),
bp. of Cyrrhus on the Euphrates, is the first definite evidence to the Diatessaron
after the time of Eusebius. The identification of it by Epiphanius (Haer.
xlvi. 1) with the Gospel according to the Hebrews is an earlier testimony in point
of date (Epiphanius † 403), but is connected with a blunder which, though capable
of explanation, somewhat disqualifies the evidence. Testimony to the Diatessaron
comes rather from the Syriac-speaking church of the East than from the Greek. Theodoret
says of Tatian: "He composed the Gospel which is called Diatessaron, cutting
out the genealogies and such other passages as shew the Lord to have been born of
the seed of David after the flesh. This work was in use not only among persons belonging
to his sect, but also among those who follow the apostolic doctrine, as they did
not perceive the mischief of the
Theodoret's language implies, moreover, that the Diatessaron had been current in his diocese for a very long period; and this is confirmed by an examination of the commentary of Ephrem Syrus († 378). Dionysius bar Salibi, bp. of Amida in Armenia Major († 1171 Mösinger and Bickell, or 1207 Assemani and Lightfoot, see Zahn, i. p. 98, n. 4), states in the preface to his own commentary on St. Mark (quoted in Assemani, Bibl. Or. i. 57, ii. 159; see Mösinger, p. iii.; Zahn, i. pp. 44, 99) that Tatian, the pupil of Justin, made a selection from the four Gospels (al. Evangelists), which he wove together into one Gospel, and called a Diatessaron, i.e. Miscellanies. This writing St. Ephrem interpreted. Its opening words were, "In the beginning was the Word." An Armenian version (5th cent.) of Ephrem's Commentary was printed at Venice in 1836, but remained unserviceable until a MS. Latin and literal translation of the Armenian made by J. B. Aucher, one of the Mechitarist monks of that city, together with one of the Armenian codices, was placed in the hands of a Salzburg professor, Dr. G. Mösinger, who revised, corrected, and published the Latin text at Venice in 1876. Internal and external evidence (see Mösinger, pp. vi–x) combine in justifying the conclusion that in this Latin translation of the Commentary of Ephrem is contained substantially Tatian's Diatessaron, and that from it Tatian's text may be in a great measure recovered.
The bearing of Mösinger's translation upon the corresponding portion of the Codex Fuldensis may be briefly summarized. Dr. Wace (Expositor for 1881, pp. 128 seq.) may be said to have proved that Victor of Capua's Harmony preserved in that Codex is not only very closely allied with Tatian's Diatessaron, but exhibits substantially the document on which Ephrem commented with some occasional alterations of order and few additions; the difference being remembered that in Victor's Evangelium Tatian has been transferred into the Latin text of St. Jerome, whereas Ephrem commented upon him in a Syriac translation. The Mösinger text and the Codex proceed pari passu, and agree in order where that order is certainly remarkable. The very interesting fact is thus established, that Tatian's Diatessaron found acceptance in the West as well as the East, and was transferred rather than translated into a Western version. This is not surprising. Theodoret's statement as to its popularity in his diocese may well account for its existence in a Latin form a century later.
It remains to indicate the manner in which the Syriac Diatessaron passed into Latin form, such as is preserved in the Codex Fuldensis (Zahn, i. pp. 298–328) The interesting fact comes out that this took place without the use of any intermediary Greek Diatessaron. In language and form the Latin Harmony is based upon St. Jerome's version; and the differences between the Codex and Tatian—such as alterations in chronological order, expansions and abbreviations, coincidences and deviations—indicative as they are of dependence of the Codex upon Tatian, do not require the explanation which an intermediate Greek text would easily supply. The Codex Fuldensis must be dated between 383 (when Jerome put forward his revision of the translation of the Gospels) and 546 (when Victor of Capua wrote down the Latin Harmony preserved in the Codex); or, more approximately, c. 500 (Zahn, i. p. 310). Translations from Syriac into Greek existed in 4th cent. (Eus. H. E. i. 13, iv. 30), and the fact—with its consequence, a further translation from Greek into Latin—might be quoted in proof of a more early date than a.d. 500 for the Codex Fuldensis; but, independently of other reasons, the age of Victor of Capua has yielded proofs of direct translations from Syriac into Latin, which render appeals to a Greek Diatessaron unnecessary. Kihn (Theodor von Mopsuestia und Junilius Africanus; see Zahn, i. p. 311) has shewn that in the days of Victor of Capua, JUNILIUS, Quaestor sacri palatii at Constantinople (c. 545–552) sent to Primasius, bp. of Adrumetum, a Latin introduction to the Scriptures (Instituta regularia divinae legis) which was a free rendering of a work written (c. 533–544) by the Syrian Nestorian Paul, a pupil and teacher of the school of Nisibis.
(2) Recovery of the Diatessaron.—This is due to the energetic scholarship
of Zahn. By the use principally of Ephrem's commentary (ed. Mösinger) and of the
quotations in the
(3) The Theological Opinions of Tatian.—Until the death of Justin Martyr he was considered orthodox; after that heterodox. The change can only be roughly sketched. In the Oratio are found traces of the three heretical views which Irenaeus attributed to him. (i) The allusion to Aeons above the heavens (c. xx.) may very well have led on to theories akin to those of Valentinus (Iren. adv. Haer. i. 28). (ii) The doctrine that the protoplast lost the image and likeness of God (cc. viii. xii. xv.) might lead to the denial of the salvation of Adam (ib. iii. 23, § 8). (iii) His allusion (c. xv.) to man as distinguished from the brute—implying by contrast points of resemblance between them—makes possible a transition to the severer views of denouncing marriage as defilement and fornication as did Marcion and Saturninus (Iren. c. xv.; Hieron. Comm. l.c. in Ep. ad Gal. vi.), and also the use of meats (Hieron. adv. Jovin. i. 3). Were the heretical writings in existence which Irenaeus affirmed that Tatian had written and he himself had read (Zahn, i. p. 281), we might be able to judge how far they justified Irenaeus in describing him as "elated, puffed up as if superior to other teachers, and forming his own type of doctrine," and to trace something of his erroneousness in the Problems, and other lost works, e.g. Concerning Perfection according to the Saviour; and in the criticisms, paraphrases, or translations of some of St Paul's Epistles, which Eusebius (H. E. iv. 29) had heard of, and which Jerome described as repudiations of those apostolic writings (Praef. in Comm. to Titus, see Zahn, i. p. 6, n. 4). A few hints only are forthcoming on these points, and these filtered through unfriendly channels. But the general impression cannot be resisted. Tatian became first suspected and then denounced. He left Rome, possibly pausing at Alexandria to teach, among his pupils being Clement of Alexandria (cf. Lightfoot, p. 1133; Zahn, i. p. 12), and then proceeding to the East, to Mesopotamia (Epiphan. Haer. xlvi. i. Correct his error in chronology by Lightfoot and Zahn, i. p. 282), there to live until his death. It is more than probable that on leaving Rome he carried the Diatessaron with him, unpublished. In the West he had become unacceptable. The language of Irenaeus c. 185—i.e. probably after Tatian's death—leaves no doubt upon this point. Men honoured and valued the Oratio (cf. int. al. Hilgenfeld, Ketzergeschichte, pp. 386, 387); but say nothing of the Diatessaron. In the Greek-speaking churches of the East the writer of the Oratio was not less valued (cf. Eus. H. E. iv. 29, v. 28), and they speak of the Diatessaron; but it is by report or at second-hand only. Ugly rumours circulated. Tatian, described broadly as "connexio omnium haereticorum" (Iren. adv. Haer. iii. 23), had become, in defiance of historical probability (Zahn, i. p.288), an ENCRATITE, one whose tenets had spread into Asia Minor from Antioch, and who blossomed out at last into "Encratitarum acerrimus haeresiarches" (Hieron.). Had Irenaeus, Eusebius, or Jerome known the Diatessaron, would they not have examined it as they had examined Tatian's Oratio and other works? Would not the very compilation of a Diatessaron have been obnoxious to one who, like Irenaeus, counted the fourfold Gospels (neither more, nor less) an absolute necessity? But in the Syriac-speaking East he was unknown, or not followed by troublesome reflections upon his orthodoxy, and there the teacher who was eclectic rather than heterodox could produce and circulate that work, which commended itself to the "simplicity" of the churches around Edessa "on account of its brevity," till Theodoret enlightened them.
The date of his death is unknown, but if he left Rome c. 172 or 173 he would have been about 62 years of age, and, humanly speaking, with time before him to circulate the Diatessaron before he died.
Literature.—In the prolegomena (pp xiii–xxix) to Otto's ed. of the Oratio will be found a description of the MSS., edd., etc., in existence (cf. also Harnack, op. cit. pp. 1–97; Donaldson, History of Christian Literature and Doctrine, iii. pp. 60–62). For other works besides those freely used and specified in this art. see Preuschen's art. s.n. in Herzog's R. E.³ The text of the Diatessaron ed. by J. White is pub. by Oxf. Univ. Press, and a trans. in Ante-Nicene Lib.
"Teaching of the Twelve Apostles." Bryennius discovered at Constantinople a MS. thus entitled in a vol. containing an unmutilated MS. text of the two Epp. ascribed to Clement, and pub. it at the close of 1883, no other copy being known to exist in MS. or print.
The MS. bears the heading "Teaching of the Twelve Apostles," followed by the
fuller title "Teaching of the Lord by the Twelve Apostles to the Gentiles." That
both titles belong to the original form appears probable from the phrase "the Twelve
Apostles." The phrase διδαχὴ τῶν ἀποστόλων
occurs in
The title was only intended to describe the substance of the work, not to assert anything as to its direct authorship. Though called "Teaching (Didaché) of the Lord," our Lord is certainly not represented as the speaker; see such expressions as "concerning these things spake the Lord," "as the Lord ordered in His Gospel," "as ye have in the Gospel of our Lord." Neither is it written in the name of the twelve apostles; for the author uses the singular, addressing his disciple as "my child." Nor does the treatise contain any indication that the author of the whole claimed to be one of the apostles, or that the work is to be broken up into sections supposed to be spoken by successive apostles. In this respect it is favourably distinguished from a number of spurious works which claimed apostolic authorship in early times. But, as in the case of the Apostles' Creed, a title apparently originally only intended to assert conformity with apostolic teaching, came to be understood as an assertion of authorship, and later authorities undertook to specify the portions contributed by each apostle; and later works founded on the Didaché are divided into sections supposed to be contributed by individual apostles.
The work divides into two parts: the first, which we shall refer to as the " Two Ways," forming the first 6 chapters of Bryennius's ed., contains moral instruction; the second (cc. 7–15 Bryennius) deals with church ritual and discipline, a chapter (16) being added on our Lord's Second Coming. Several very early writers exhibit coincidences with pt. i., such as to prove that they borrowed from the Didaché, or the Didaché from them, or that both had a common source. With pt. ii. similar coincidences are much later and much more scanty. Part i. was intended for catechumens, or at least for use in their instruction, for part ii., which begins by treating of baptism, directs that candidates shall first have received the preceding teaching.
Contents.—The work begins by declaring that there are two ways: one of
Life, the other of Death; phrases borrowed from
As c. i. is based on the Sermon on the Mount, so is c. ii. on the second table of the Decalogue. C. iii. instructs the disciple to flee not only from every evil, but from everything like it. C. iv. contains miscellaneous precepts. C. v. gives an enumeration of the sins which constitute the way of death. C. vi. is a short exhortation to abide in the foregoing teaching; but giving permission if the disciple cannot bear the whole yoke, especially as regards food, to be content with bearing as much as he can; provided always he abstains from things offered to idols. Here terminates the section addressed to the catechumen. Then follow (c. vii.) directions for the baptism of candidates who have received the preceding instruction. It is to be in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; in running water if it can be had; if not, in any water, even warm water. If sufficient water for immersion is not at hand, it will suffice to pour water three times on the head. Baptizer and baptized must fast beforehand; the baptized for a day or two: others, if possible, to join in the fast. This rule of fasting may be illustrated by the account given in the Clementines (Hom. iii. 11; Recog. vii. 36) of the baptism of Clement's mother. Peter directs that she shall fast one day previous to baptism.
C. viii. relates to fasting and prayer. The disciples must not fast "as the hypocrites,"
on the 2nd and 5th days of the week; but on the 4th and on the preparation day.
Neither must they pray as the hypocrites, but as the Lord ordered in His Gospel.
The Lord's Prayer is given in conformity with St. Matthew's text with but trifling
variations, but adding the doxology "Thine is the power and the glory for ever."
This prayer is to be used thrice daily. Chaps. ix. x. contain Eucharistic formulae.
In the opening words "Concerning the thanksgiving, give thanks in this manner,"
we can scarcely avoid giving to the word εὐχαριστία
the technical meaning it had as early as Ignatius (Philad. 4; Smyrn.
6, 8; Eph. 13; cf. Justin, Apol. 66). This interpretation is confirmed
by a direction that of this "Eucharist" none but baptized persons should partake,
since the Lord has said "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs." But the forms
themselves are more like what we should expect in prayers before and after an ordinary
meal than the Eucharist proper. There is no recital of the words of institution;
no mention of the Body and Blood of our Lord, though both Ignatius and Justin Martyr
so describe the consecrated food. The supposition that we have here private prayers
to be said before and after reception is excluded by the direction that "prophets"
should be permitted to offer thanks as they pleased, where it is plain that public
thanksgiving is intended. The explanation seems to be that the celebration of the
Eucharist still accompanied the Agape or Love Feast, and that we have here the thanksgivings
before and after that meal. In the Clementines, which in several points manifest
affinity with the Didaché, it is not merely the Eucharist from which the
unbaptized are excluded. They can take no food of any kind at the same table with
the initiated. An unbaptized person is the home of the demon, and until this demon
has been driven out by baptism, no Christian can safely admit him to a common table
(Recog. ii. 71; see also i. 19, vii. 36); and all
Chaps. xi. xii. xiii. treat of the honour to be paid to Christian teachers, who
are described as "apostles and prophets." This combination of terms reflects N.T.
usage (
There is a command in which commentators have found a difficulty, that a prophet
speaking in the spirit must not be proved nor tested. "Every sin shall be forgiven,
but not that." Yet there follow marks for discerning the false prophet from the
true. The subsequent history of Montanism casts a clear light on the subject. The
bishops attempted to test the Montanist prophetesses by applying to them the formulae
of exorcism, to find whether it were possible to cast out an evil spirit who possessed
them. This the Montanists naturally resisted as a frightful indignity. Such testing
by exorcism is here manifestly forbidden, as involving, if applied to one really
inspired by the Spirit of God, the risk of incurring the penalties denounced by
our Lord, in words plainly here referred to, upon blasphemy against the Holy Ghost.
That this precept of the Didaché was apparently not quoted in the Montanist
disputes is one of many indications that our document had only a very limited circulation.
Hilgenfeld's notion, that the Didaché is as late as Montanism, is condemned
both by the whole character of the document and by its silence on the vital question
in the Montanist controversy, whether true prophets lost their self-command when
prophesying. To label every early document which speaks of prophesying Montanistic
is to ignore the fact that prophetical gifts were recognized in the early church,
and that Montanism was an unsuccessful local attempt to revive pretensions to them
after they had generally ceased to be regarded as an ordinary feature of church
life.
C. xiv. directs Christians to come together each Lord's Day to break bread and
give thanks, having confessed their sins in order that their sacrifice may be pure.
Those at variance must not pollute the sacrifice by coming without having been first
reconciled. Our document then quotes
C. xvi. is an exhortation to watch for our Lord's Second Coming, in order to
be able to pass safely through the heavy trial that was immediately to precede it.
This time of trial was to be signalized by the appearance of one who is called the
"deceiver of the world" (κοσμοπλάνος), who
should appear as God's Son and do signs and wonders, and into whose hands the earth
should be delivered, so that under the trial many should be scandalized and be lost
(cf.
External Attestation.—The sketch just given shews that our document bears marks of very high antiquity. We next ask what ancient writers expressly speak of the Didaché, or manifest acquaintance with it, earlier than the appearance in its present shape of the Apostolic Constitutions, the first half of bk. vii. of which contains an expansion of the Didaché. The forger of this book was plainly acquainted with the whole Didaché; for he goes through it from beginning to end, making changes and additions, the study of which throws interesting light on the development of church ritual during the interval between the two works. Harnack has given good reasons for thinking that the same forger manipulated the Didaché and the Ignatian letters, and that his work may have been as early as a.d. 350. Hence the Didaché was by then an ancient document, but one in such small circulation that it could be tampered with without much fear of detection.
It is necessary here to notice the tract professing to contain apostolic constitutions, published by Bickell in 1843 and described D. C. A. i. 123. This is quite independent of and earlier than the work commonly known as the Apostolic Constitutions. The two forms employ some common earlier documents, but there is no reason to think that the framer of either was acquainted with the other. Bickel calls this tract Apostolische Kirchenordnung, and to avoid confusion with the Apostolic Constitutions, we refer to it as the Church Ordinances. It had been translated into various languages, and is the foundation of Egyptian Canon Law. It has so much in common with Bryennius's Didaché that either the Church Ordinances certainly used the Didaché or both drew from a common source. In form they differ; for in the Ordinances the precepts are distributed among different apostles by name, the list being peculiar, Cephas appearing as distinct from Peter; he and Nathanael taking the place of James the Less and Matthias. In substance the two works closely coincide, but only in the section on the "Two Ways."
Writers earlier than the Apostolic Constitutions know of a work which
professed to contain the teaching of the apostles, but concerning them we cannot
say with certainty whether the work to which they witness is the same as ours. The
list of direct witnesses is indeed much shorter than it must have been if the work
had obtained any wide acceptance as containing really apostolic instruction. Earliest
is Eusebius, who to his list of canonical Scriptures (H. E. iii. 25) adds
a list of spurious books of the better sort, recognized by church writers, and to
be distinguished from writings which heretics had forged in the names of apostles.
Among these he enumerates next after the Ep. of Barnabas, "what are called the Teachings
of the Apostles" (τῶν ἀποστόλων αἱ λεγόμεναι διδαχαί).
Some years later Athanasius (Ep. Fest. 39) adds to his list of canonical
Scriptures a list of non-canonical books useful in the catechetical instruction
of converts, viz. the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit,
the so-called Teaching of the Apostles (διδαχὴ καλουμένη
τῶν ἀποστόλον), and the Shepherd. The only obstacle to our supposing our
Didaché to be here referred to is the Eucharistic formulae it contains, which
Athanasius would scarcely place in the hands of the uninitiated, unless indeed he
thought them so unlike the truth as to make no revelation of Christian mysteries.
It will be observed that Eusebius uses the plural (διδαχαί),
Athanasius the singular. Unmistakable coincidences with the Didaché have
been pointed out in writings ascribed to Athanasius, but rejected as spurious in
the Benedictine ed., though the genuineness of at least the second of these is still
urged: viz. de Virginitate (Migne, p. 266), Syntagma Doctrinae ad Monaches
(p. 835), and Fides Nicena (p. 1639). Among the spurious writings printed
with those of Athanasius is a Synopsis Sacrae Scripturae, which, because
of its coincidences with the Stichometry of Nicephorus, Credner has dated
as late as 10th cent. The Stichometry doubtless preserves an ancient list,
and there among the apocryphal books appended to the N.T. Canon we find the
διδαχὴ ἀποστόλων. Those that precede it are
heretical apocrypha; but those that follow, viz. the Epp. of Clement, Ignatius,
Polycarp, and the Shepherd, are all orthodox. The number of
στίχοι attributed to the Didaché is 200; whereas
1,400 are
Western testimony to the Didaché is scanty, and rather indicates that any book which circulated in the West as the Teaching of the Apostles was not the same as Bryennius's Didaché. Rufinus (Comm. in Symb. Apost. 38) gives a list of canonical books which bears marks of derivation from that of Athanasius; but where the Didaché should come he has "qui appellatur Duae Viae vel Judicium Petri." This suggests that either the entire Didaché or at least the first half, the "Two Ways," had been translated into Latin and circulated under the name of the Judgment of Peter, to whom, and not to the apostles generally, the authorship would seem to have been ascribed. The existence of a Latin "Two Ways" is independently proved by the discovery of a fragment by von Gebhardt, reprinted in his Texte und Untersuchungen, ii. 277. It is so short as to leave it undetermined whether the Latin version contained anything corresponding to what follows the "Two Ways" in Bryennius. Lactantius (Div. Instit. vi. 3, etc., and Epit. c. 59) gives an unmistakable expansion of the teaching of the "Two Ways," who must have used our Latin version, thus proving it older than a.d. 310.
The treatise de Aleatoribus, falsely ascribed to Cyprian, contains a quotation from Doctrina Apostolorum (Hartel, ii. 96) not found in the Didaché, though there is one passage (xiv. 2) which might have suggested the idea to the framer of the Latin. If we may ever rely on the argument from silence, we should gather from Tertullian's discussion on the "Stations" (de Orat. 19, de Jejun. 2, 10, 14) that he was unacquainted with our document. Thus, scanty though the Western notices are, they seem to prove that the Didaché, in Bryennius's form, never circulated in the West; that the Latin Doctrina Apostolorum, even as regards the section on the "Two Ways," was not a translation of Bryennius's Didaché, but contained a different manipulation of a probably common original; and that beyond the "Two Ways" there is no evidence that the Latin form had anything in common with the Didaché.
We now come to coincidences with the Didaché in works which do not mention
it by name. Far the most important of these are found in the Ep. of Barnabas, in
which, after the conclusion of the doctrinal teaching, the writer proposes to pass
to another doctrine and discipline (γνώσιν καὶ διδαχήν),
and adds an appendix of moral instructions. This appendix agrees so completely in
substance with the section on the Two Ways that a literary connexion between the
two documents is indisputable. But there is great diversity of detail. The precepts
in Barnabas are without any orderly arrangement, while the Didaché contains
a systematic comment on the second table of the Decalogue. Bryennius differs from
later critics and some earlier ones who consider it probable that Barnabas was the
borrower. The whole character of the Didaché makes it unlikely that its author
collected the precepts scattered in Barnabas's appendix, digested them into systematic
order, and made a number of harmonious additions; while if in what Barnabas says
about the "Two Ways" he is but reproducing an older document, his unsystematic way
of quoting its precepts, just as they came to mind, is quite like his mode of dealing
with O.T. We have still to inquire whether Barnabas borrowed from the Didaché
or from a common source. Now a study of the Didaché, as compared with Jewish
literature, shews very clearly its origin among men with Jewish training, and the
work from which both borrowed may have been not only Jewish but pre-Christian. For
Barnabas's letter is of so early a date that, if we suppose him to have copied an
earlier Christian document, we bring that document into the apostolic age, which
would give it all the authority that has been claimed for it. We must, then, in
comparing Barnabas with the Didaché, distinguish carefully the specially
Christian element from those parts which might have been written by a Jew unacquainted
with Christianity. If Barnabas copied the Didaché, he would have naturally
included the Christian element. If Barnabas and the Didaché independently
copied an originally Jewish document, the Christian elements they might add would
not be likely to be the same. In the section in Barnabas we are struck by the extreme
meagreness of the Christian element. There is no mention of our Lord, scarcely any
coincidence with N.T. language, very little that might not have been written by
a Jew before our Lord's coming. In the Didaché coincidences with N.T. are
extremely numerous, end it begins with a whole section embodying
This conclusion is confirmed on taking into the comparison also the Latin "Two Ways," and the Egyptian Church Ordinances, both of which, like Barnabas, do not recognize the Didaché section founded on the Sermon on the Mount. Neither is this section recognized in Pseudo-Athanasius. The Church Ordinances exhibit signs of acquaintance with Barnabas; the Latin form does not. In the order of the precepts the Ordinances and the Latin both agree with the Didaché against Barnabas. The Ordinances differ from the Latin by excess, but scarcely at all otherwise. The same reasons that forbid us to think that Barnabas, if he had known the Didaché, would have left out its Christian element, prove the Ordinances and the Latin likewise independent of the Didaché. The phenomena are explained if we assume an original document in substantial agreement with the Latin, enlarged in the Didaché by additions from N.T., and afterwards independently enlarged by the framer of the Church Ordinances, who broke it up into sections supposed to be spoken by different apostles; while Barnabas worked up in his own way the materials he drew from the document. We cannot say positively whether this original proceeded beyond the "Two Ways." The Latin fragment breaks off too soon to give any information as to the length of the original: the Church Ordinances cease to present coincidences with the Didaché after the section on the "Two Ways"; but this may be because the directions for ritual and discipline had become out of date when the Ordinances were put together, the editor therefore designedly substituting what better agreed with the practice of his own age. The quotation by Pseudo-Cyprian leads us to think that the Latin Doctrina Apostolorum did go beyond the "Two Ways." No great weight can be attached to the length ascribed to the Didaché in the Stichometry, but this rather favours the idea that the document intended was longer than the "Two Ways," but shorter than the Didaché of Bryennius.
It remains to be mentioned that there is a coincidence between Barnabas and the
Didaché outside the "Two Ways." The opening of the Ep. of Barnabas and the
last or eschatological chapter of the Didaché both contain the warning that
the disciples' faith would not profit them unless they remained stedfast in the
last times. There is a good deal of difference in the wording of the warning, but
not more than is usual in quotations by Barnabas. The supposition that Barnabas
was acquainted with Bryennius's form of the Didaché has already been excluded;
therefore either (1) the earlier form which Barnabas did use included an eschatological
chapter containing this warning, or (2) the editor who changed the earlier form
into that of Bryennius was acquainted with the Ep. of Barnabas. We prefer (2), on
account of the reasons we shall presently give for thinking the document used by
Barnabas to have been pre-Christian. If the editor of Bryennius's form knew Hermas,
he might also have known Barnabas, with whom he has a second coincidence in a passage
about almsgiving, which, as implying a knowledge of Acts and Romans, Barnabas was
not likely to have found in his original. Possibly there is a third coincidence;
for a plausible explanation of the difficult word
ἐκπέτασις in c. xvi. is that it means the sign of the cross, being derived
from Barnabas's interpretation of ἐξεπέτασα in
Hermas also presents coincidences with the Didaché, but it is not easy to say that there is literary obligation on either side, except in one case, viz. a coincidence between the second "commandment" of Hermas and the "Sermon on the Mount" section, which we have already seen reason to think belongs to a later form of the Didaché. In this case the original seems clearly that of Hermas. His instructions as to almsgiving are perfectly clear. The corresponding passage in the Didaché has many coincidences of language, but expresses the thought so awkwardly as to be scarce intelligible without the commentary of Hermas. It begins, "Blessed is he that giveth according to the commandment, for he is blameless: woe to him that receiveth." The words "for he is blameless," as they stand, are puzzling; for we should expect the "for" to introduce something stronger than merely an acquittal of blame. By comparison with Hermas we see that the case contemplated is that of giving to an undeserving person. Then the receiver deserves the woe; the giver obtains an acquittal. We conclude, then, without disputing the greater antiquity of the original Didaché, that the interpolator who brought the work to the form published by Bryennius was later than Hermas, and drew from him.
Clement of Alexandria was certainly acquainted with the Didaché in some form. He expressly quotes one sentence as Scripture (Strom. i. 20, p. 377), "My son, be not a liar, for lying leads to theft." This saying is not quoted by Barnabas; but the Church Ordinances attest that it belongs to the earlier form of the Didaché. Even the later form of the Didaché may well be considerably older than Clement; and he might easily have met with a copy during his travels in the East. He uses (Quis Dives Salv. 20) the phrase "vine of David," found in one of the benedictory prayers of the Didaché. He shews a knowledge (Strom. vii. 7, p. 854) of the Wednesday and Friday fasts (c. 12, p. 877), but does not seem to attribute to these institutions the authority which belongs to the name Scripture bestowed by him on the Didaché.
Origen was later than Clement and must have been well acquainted with the literature current in Egypt and Palestine; so that we might naturally expect him to be familiar with the Didaché. Yet no satisfactory proof of his knowledge of it has been produced.
Place of Composition.—The Church Ordinances, at the basis of which lies the Didaché in some form, are with good reason regarded as of Egyptian origin; Clement, one of the earliest to quote the Didaché, wrote in Egypt, and so very possibly did Barnabas. Hence, it was natural to think that the Didaché also is of Egyptian origin. But attention was called to the petition in the prayer of benediction of the bread, that as it had been scattered on the mountains, and collected together had become one, so the church might be collected together from the ends of the earth into the Lord's kingdom; and it was pointed out the words "on the mountains" could not have been written in Egypt; and, moreover, the proper inference from the use made of the Didaché in the Church Ordinances is that when the latter work was put together, the former was almost unknown in Egypt. There is nothing to contradict the inference suggested by the intensely Jewish character of the book, that it emanated from Christian Jews who, after the destruction of Jerusalem, had their chief settlements E. of Jordan.
Time of Composition.—The theory set forth is that the original, alike of Barnabas and of all the forms of the Didaché, was a Jewish manual for the instruction of proselytes. If Palestinian Christians had habitually used such a manual while still Jews, it would be natural for them to employ it, improved by the addition of some Christian elements, in the moral instruction of converts before admission into the church. The document, being a formula in constant practical use, would be added to and modified; and we seem to be able to trace three stages in its growth.
(1) Barnabas represents for us the original Jewish manual; probably quoting, not from any written document, but from his recollection of the instruction he had himself received or had been given to others. Barnabas's quotations do not proceed beyond the section on the "Two Ways," corresponding to cc. i.–iv. of the Didaché.
(2) In the Church Ordinances and in the Latin Doctrina we have the manual as it was modified for use in a Christian community. The Latin book may have been the first publication of this catechetical manual of Palestinian Christians, brought to the West by one himself instructed in it. It was probably called the Teaching of the Apostles, because the authorized formulary of a church founded by apostles and claiming to derive its institutions from them. We are without evidence whether this manual contained more than the "Two Ways," though it probably did. The only clue to the date of this publication is that the Church Ordinances contain that precept about almsgiving which we have already noted as the solitary instance of use of the N.T. in this section of Barnabas. Reasons have been already given for thinking that Barnabas was not here employing a Christian document, and we find it hard to believe that the phrases in which coincidences occur are older than N.T., so we seem forced to conclude that the first editors of the Teaching of the Apostles knew Barnabas. This would not be inconsistent with a date before the end of 1st cent.
(3) In the Didaché published by Bryennius we have the manual enlarged by further Christian additions; the precepts in the original manual being expanded, others added from N.T., and also some wholly new sections. Yet the whole character of the Didaché, and in particular the lively expectation of our Lord's Second Coming in c. xvi., disposes us to give it in its present form as early a date as we can; and since we place Hermas at the beginning of 2nd cent., we have no difficulty in dating the Didaché as early as a.d. 120.
Literature.—The publication of the Didaché by Bryennius produced an enormous crop of literature. The lists in Schaff's and in Harnack's editions may be supplemented by an article of Harnack's Theol. Literaturz. 1886, p. 271. Here we only mention, of editions, those by De Romestan (1884), Spence (1885), Schaff (1885 and 1886), Sabatier (1885), Hilgenfeld in a 2nd ed. of pt. iv. of his Nov. Test. ext. Can. (1884), and by Gebhardt and Harnack, Texte und Untersuchungen, vol. ii. (1884). Bp. Lightfoot's paper at the Church Congress of 1884, pub. in the Expositor, Jan. 1885; Zahn's discussions in his Forschungen, pt. iii. p. 278 (1884), and Taylor's Lectures at the Royal Institution, 1885, in which the Didaché is illustrated from Jewish literature. A new ed. with a fascimile (autotype) text and a commentary from the MS. of the Holy Sepulchre, Jerusalem, ed. by J. R. Harris, is pub. by Camb. Univ. Press, as is also an Eng. trans. from the Syriac by Dr. Margaret Gibson; while S.P.C.K. pub. an Eng. trans. with intro. and notes by Dr. C. Bigg. See also Bigg's Notes on the Didaché in Journ. of Theol. Stud., July 1904.
Teilo, bp. of Llandaff and one of the principal saints of Wales, was son of Enlleu ap Hydwn Dwn and cousin to St. David. He was born near Tenby, and educated with St. David and other celebrated Welsh saints. He opened a school near Llandaff, called Bangor Deilo, and on account of his proficiency in the Scriptures is said to have received the name Elios or Eliud. His withdrawal to Armorica on the outbreak of the yellow plague in Wales is counted by Pryce (Anc. Brit. Ch. 163) one of the few incidents in his life which can be considered historical. In the Chron. Series of the Bpp. of Llandaff (Lib. Landav. by Rees, 623) he is said to have become bp. of Llandaff in. 512, so that Rees (Welsh SS. 243) is probably safest in saying that his period in that see ended in its first stage with the appearance of the plague. [DUBRICIUS.]
Returning from Armorica after a stay, as is said, of 7 years and 7 months, he
found St. David dead and the see of Menevia vacant. St. Teilo is said to have been
elected to the vacant chair as archbp. of Menevia, but, preferring his old see,
he consecrated Ishmael, one of St. David's earliest disciples, to be his suffragan
at Menevia, raised others to the same rank in different parts of South Wales, while
he himself removed to Llandaff, and, carrying with him the primacy, became archbp.
with the title of the inferior see (Stubbs, Reg. 154, 156; Haddan and Stubbs,
Counc. i. 115 seq.; Rees, Welsh SS. 174, 243 seq.; Pryce, Anc. Br.
Ch. 158 seq.). The date of his death is variously fixed from 563 (Lib.
The chief authority for his Life is Vita S. Teliavi Episcopi a Magistro Galfrido Fratre Urbani Landavensis Ecclesiae Episcopi dicata, belonging to 12th cent., and printed, with trans. and notes, in Lib. Land. by Rees, 92 seq., 332 seq. For MS. and other authorities see Hardy, Desc. Cat. i. pt. i. 130–132, pt. ii. 897, app.; Haddan and Stubbs, Counc. i. 146, app. C. 159.
Telesphorus (2), bp. of Rome, accounted the 7th from the apostles. According to Eusebius H. E. iv. 5) he succeeded Xystus in the 12th year of Hadrian (a.d. 128), and suffered martyrdom in the 11th year of his episcopate and the 1st of the reign of Antoninus Pius (iv. 10). Lipsius (Chron. der röm. Bischöf.) considers his earliest probable dates to have been 124 to 135 or 126 to 137 as the latest. If so, Eusebius erred in placing his martyrdom in the reign of Antoninus Pius instead of Hadrian. For the fact of his martyrdom he alleges the authority of Irenaeus; the assertion of the date is his own. Telesphorus is remarkable as being the only one of the early Roman bishops, afterwards accounted martyrs, who appears on the early authority of Irenaeus as such (Iren. Haer. iii.; cf. Eus. l.c.).
Tertullianus (1), Quintus Septimius Florens.
I. LIFE.—The earliest of the great Latin Fathers, their chief in fire and daring, and the first to create a technical Christian Latinity, is known almost entirely through his writings. It can only be conjectured that he was born between a.d. 150 and 160, and died between 220 and 240, with preference for the later dates. He was born at Carthage (Hieron. Catal. Script. Eccl. 53; cf. Tertull. Apol. c. ix.) of heathen parents (de Poen. c. i.; Apol. c. xviii. "de vestris sumus"), his father being a proconsular centurion (Hieron.). Tertullian received a good education (Apol. c. xiv.; adv. Prax. c. iii.). In after-life he recalled his school studies in Homer (ad Nat. i. c. x.); but poetry attracted him less than philosophy, history, science, and antiquarian lore. He spoke and composed in Greek, but his Greek writings are lost. He studied the systems of the philosophers if he mocked and hated the men (cf. de Anima, cc. i.–iii.). Possibly destined for state-official life, he was celebrated for his knowledge of Roman law (Eus. H. E. ii. 2), and the legal fence and juridical style of the advocate are observable throughout his apologetic and polemical writings.
He was probably attracted to Christianity by complex irresistible and converging forces: "Fiunt, non nascuntur Christiani" (Apol. c. xviii.). The constancy of the Christians in times of persecution staggered him. He knew men who began by denouncing such "obstinacy," and ended in embracing the belief which dictated it (Apol. c. l.; ad Scap. c. v.). Demons confessed the superiority of the new faith (Apol. c. xxiii.), and Tertullian, in common with his heathen and Christian contemporaries, was a profound believer in demons (cf. Réville, La Religion à Rome sous les Sèvéres, pp. 44, 46. 130 seq.). These facts led him to examine the faith which seemed to promise a foothold which no philosophical system furnished. It was illustrated by a life of holiness and humility—that of its Founder, the Just One—in contrast with which the life of the Cynic and the Stoic sickened him.
His conversion took place c. 192, in Carthage more probably than in Rome. Carthage was his home and usual dwelling-place (de Pallio, c. i.; Apol. c. ix.; Scorpiace, c. vi.; de Resur. Carnis, c. xlii.); Rome he had visited (de Cultu Femin. i. c. vii.), and he was well known there for his abilities (Eus. l.c.), but critics are by no means agreed whether he ever went there as a Christian (cf. Baron. Annal. Eccl. ii. 476, ed. Theiner). He was married but childless (cf. the two treatises ad Uxorem), and became a priest of the church. He probably exercised his presbyterate at Carthage and not at Rome.
In middle age (c. 119–203), says Jerome, Tertullian became a Montanist, his constitution and temperament predisposing him to a rigour opposed to the laxity prevalent at Rome, and so finding the austere doctrines and practices of Montanus perfectly congenial (Kaye, Account of the Writings of Tertullian,³ p. 34). He became the head of the Montanist party in Africa—a party which existed till the 5th cent. under the name of "Tertullianists."
II. TIMES.—The golden age of the empire died with Marcus Aurelius (161–180); the age of iron began with his son Commodus (180–193). The golden age of the church began with that iron age of the empire (Aubé, Les Chrétiens dans l’empire romain, a.d. 180–249, pp. iii, 495–498). Expiring polytheism and ancient philosophy were confronted by a new philosophy and a nascent faith.
From one quarter only of the empire was the comparative peacefulness noticeable elsewhere absent. In Africa persecution, sharp, short, fitful, and frequent, marked the reign of Septimius Severus and the most active period of Tertullian's life. It is stamped in letters of blood upon his pages.
The church in Africa has no historian before Tertullian, though its foundation is placed, with much probability, at the end of cent. i. or the beginning of cent. ii. By the end of cent. ii. the Christians in Roman Africa were to be counted by thousands (cf. Aubé, p. 152) if not by millions (cf. Apol. c. xxxvii.; ad Scapulam, cc. ii. v.). They were fully organized and had their bishops, priests, deacons, places of assembly, and cemeteries. Immunity from the wholesale decimation which had befallen, by imperial command (cf. Apol. c. v.), other Christian bodies of the East and West, allowed in Africa growth and development, accelerated by occasional suffering and martyrdom. But the tempest broke upon the African church at last.
Facts connected with the persecutions can be followed in those writings of Tertullian which all critics place between a.d. 197 and 212, from the ad Martyres to the ad Scapulam.
The tract ad Martyres depicts men and women in prison, visited and relieved
by the brethren, exhorted to unity, and prepared by fasting and prayer for the death
which should be a victory for the church. Vigellius Saturninus was the first proconsul
to draw the sword against Christians (ad Scapulam, c. iii.), and his date
is not apparently earlier than 198 (see Aubé, p. 191, etc.). The martyrology
Again there came a respite, and again must the character of the proconsul have
been instrumental in securing it. Of Julius Asper (proconsul in 205 or 206) it is
told that not only did he refuse to force a Christian to sacrifice who under the
torture had lapsed from the faith, but publicly expressed regret to his assessors
and the advocates at having to deal with such cases (ad Scapulam, c. iv.).
For five or six years persecution was stayed, years of literary activity on the
part of Tertullian. In 211, for some unknown reason, the religious war broke out
afresh, and its cruel if brief progress is told in the ad Scapulam. Tertullian's
last "Apology" is worthy of the Christian gladiator. Stroke upon stroke he deals
his ponderous blows against the proconsul. "We battle with your cruelty," he cries;
but his weapons are the "offensive" weapons which Christ had put in his hands—prayer
for the persecutors, love for enemies (
In 212 the blessing of peace rested again upon Africa and continued for some years.
III. WRITINGS.—Tertullian's literary activity is by some confined to 197–212; by others, with far greater probability, it is extended to at least c. 223. A general chronological arrangement only is possible, the dates given being few and uncertain. The only work which supplies positive evidence of date is the first book adv. Marcionem (3rd ed.). In c. xv. Tertullian says he is writing in the 15th year of Severus, now considered to be a.d. 207 (Bonwetsch, Die Schriften Tertullians nach der Zeit ihrer Abfassung, p. 42). Tertullian was then a Montanist, but his pen had for some years been employed in behalf of the church.
Tertullian's writings represent him variously as layman, priest, and schismatic; and divide broadly into works written in the Catholic or Montanist periods of his life. The latter must further be subdivided into treatises in which Catholic or schismatic elements are respectively prominent. In character they are threefold: (a) Apologetic; (b) Dogmatic and polemical; (c) Moral and ascetic. The arrangements of Bp. Kaye and Bonwetsch have in the main suggested that which follows; though the dates attached are in almost all cases conjectural.
(1) Works written while still in the church: (a) Apologetic writings (c. 197–198): ad Martyres; Apologeticum; de Testimonio Animae; ad Nationes, i. ii; adv. Judaeos.
(b) Other works of this period, but of less certain date: de Oratione; de Baptismo; de Poenitentia; de Spectaculis; de Cultu Feminarum, i.; de Idololatria; de Cultu Feminarum, ii.; de Patientia; ad Uxorem, i. ii. (the last five c. 197–199); de Praescriptione Haereticorum (c. 199); adv. Marcionem i. (1st ed.), c. 200.
(2) Montanistic writings: —
(a) Defending the church and her teachings (c. 202–203): de Corona; de Fuga in Persecutione; de Exhortatione Castitatis.
(b) Defending the Paraclete and His discipline: de Virginibus Velandis (c. 203–204, a transition work); adv. Marcion. (2nd ed.; c. 206); ib. (3rd ed.; c. 207). Between 200–207 or later: adv. Hermogenem; adv. Valentinianos; adv. Marcion. (iv.); de Carne Christi; de Resurrectione Carnis; adv. Marcion. (v.). De Pallio and de Anima (c. 208–209); Scorpiace (c. 212; al. 203 or 204); ad Scapulam (c. 212). Three c. 217, al. 203–207: de Monogamia; de Jejunio; de Pudicitia; and adv. Praxean (c. 223, al. c. 208–209).
A. Tertullian, Layman and Apologist.—Ad Martyres.—Two thoughts (c. iii.)
should animate the martyrs. (1) Christians were soldiers, "called to the military
service of the living God" by a sacramental oath, to which they must be true. (2)
They were Christian athletes whose prison was their training-school (palaestra),
where "virtus duritia extruitur, mollitia vero destruitur." The words of Christ
(
Apologeticum.—This Apology—the greatest of his works—was a cry for bare justice.
(1) A heading to c. i., "Quod religio Christiana damnanda non sit, nisi qualis sit prius intelligatur," sums up its protest: The rulers of Carthage were persecuting and condemning a "sect" which forthcoming evidence proved unworthy of condemnation. Their conduct was the reverse of that enjoined by the emperor Trajan—that Christians were not to be sought out; but if brought before Pliny were to be punished. Tertullian reminds the rulers (c. v.) that the laws against Christians had been enforced only by emperors whose memory men had learnt to execrate: e.g. Nero and Domitian. Not such as these was Tiberius (cf. Eus. H. E. ii. 2), in whose day Christ came into the world (cf. c. vii.), and who had desired the senate to admit Him among the Roman deities. Marcus Aurelius was a protector. Not even Hadrian, Vespasian, Pius, nor Verus had put into force the laws against Christians. The men who were demanding this were daily and contemptuously infringing laws of all kinds. In proof he draws a sad picture of luxury and immorality. The good old laws had gone which encouraged in women modesty and sobriety.
(2) Chaps. vii.–ix. What were the charges against the Christians? "We are called miscreants"—and the evidence was only rumour! "Fama malum, quo non aliud velocius ullum." It was, Tertullian retorts, the existence (secret or open) of evil practices among the heathen which explained their belief in similar deeds among Christians.
(3) Chaps. x.–xxvii. Tertullian faces the first of the two great charges, "sacrilege and treason." His "apology" as regards the former consists, briefly speaking, of (a) "demonstratio religionis eorum" (cc. x.–xvi. xxiv.–xxvii.) and of (b) "demonstratio religionis nostrae" (cc. xvii.–xxiii.), a most valuable evidential passage.
(a) You Christians, said the heathen, do not worship our gods: No, said Tertullian, and we won't, because we do not recognize them to be gods. They were nothing but men of long ago, whose merits should have plunged them into the depths of Tartarus. How much better would it have been if the deus deificus had waited and taken up to heaven in their place such men as Socrates, Aristides, Themistocles, and others. The images excite Tertullian's intense scorn, as "the homes of hawks and mice and spiders." Caustically does he describe the heathen treatment of their household gods. "You pledge them, sell them, change them. They wear out or get broken, and you turn your Saturn into a cooking-pot and your Minerva into a ladle! You put your national gods in a sale-catalogue; and the man who will sell you herbs in the herb-market will sell you gods at the Capitol. Or what could be more insulting than the company you give them? You worship Larentina, the prostitute, together with Juno or Ceres or Diana. You erect (at Rome) a statue to SIMON MAGUS and give him as inscription the title of sanctus deus (see Kaye's Tertull. p. 542, and Oehler's note here). You turn into a god a sodomite like Antinous" (see Kellner's note).
What then, it was asked, did Christians worship if not the gods? Tertullian answers, "Take in this first of all: they who are not worshippers of a lie are worshippers of truth." From this might be deduced the whole of the Christian religious belief. But before Tertullian proceeds to do this, he refutes some very false, but common, opinions about the Christians, e.g. the vulgar belief that the god of the Christians was an ass's head, that they worshipped the cross, or the sun. Lately a bestiarius (see Semler's and Kellner's notes) had exhibited a picture at Rome inscribed Deus Christianorum ονοκοιτης. The figure had the ears of an ass, one foot was hoofed, in his hand was a book, and he was dressed in a toga (see D. C. A. s.n. "Asinarii"). The name and the form only made us laugh, says Tertullian; and then he retorts: "But our opponents might well have worshipped such a biformed deity: for they have dog-headed and lion-headed gods, gods with horns, gods with wings, gods goat-limbed, fish-limbed, or serpent-limbed from the loins!"
(b) Tertullian turns from what Christianity was not to what it was, and the main lines of the evidences of Christianity in the 2nd cent. are still those of our own. These chapters (xvii.–xxiii.), so valuable in the history of religious belief, deserve the student's close attention. The eloquence, fervour, humility, and devoutness of the writer will be felt to be contagious. Irony and passion are comparatively absent. The section details (b₁) the nature and attributes of the Creator, (b₂) the mission of the prophets, men full of (inundati) the Holy Spirit, (b₃) the character of the Scriptures, and (b₄) the history of the Lord. Under b₃Tertullian notes two things. These Scriptures were marked, first, by that antiquity which his opponents rightly valued. The most ancient heathen writings were far less ancient than those of Moses, the contemporary of the Argive Inachus, and (as some thought) 500 years older than Homer. Nay, the very last prophet was coeval with the first of the (heathen) philosophers, lawgivers, and historians. "Quod prius est, semen sit necesse est." Secondly, the Scriptures were marked by majesty. "Divinas probamus (scripturas), si dubitatur antiquas." This internal evidence was a proof of their antiquity, while the external and daily fulfilment of prophecy was a reason for expecting the verification of what was not yet fulfilled.
b₄is in answer to the questions, Why
did Jews and Christians differ? Did not these differences argue worship of different
gods? Tertullian's reply (c. xxi.) is a history of the origin of the Christian sect
and name, and an account of the Founder of Christianity, such as we have in the
Gospels. His account is interspersed with most interesting statements,
One more point remained. Romans considered their position as masters of the world the reward of their religious devotion to their gods, and affirmed that they who paid their gods the most service flourished the most. Tertullian traverses this "assumption" in ironical terms, or meets it with positive denial.
(4) Chaps. xxviii.–xxxvi.—The charge laesae augustioris majestatis is now reached. The evil spirits stirred up the heathen to compel Christians to sacrifice pro salute imperatoris; and that compulsion was met by resistance not less determined. Ironically does Tertullian commend in the heathen the dread with which they regarded Caesar as more profound and reverential than that which they accorded to the Olympian Jupiter. Christians were counted publici hostes, because they would not pay to the emperor vain, lying, or unseemly honours; and because, as verae religionis homines, they kept the festival days not lasciviously, but as conscientious men. Truly if public joy was to be expressed by public shame, the Christians deserved condemnation.
(5) Chaps. xxxvii.–xlv.—This section, dealing with minor points of objection to the Christians, opens with an impassioned protest on behalf of men who, actuated by the principle "Idem sumus imperatoribus qui et vicinis nostris," never took vengeance for the wrongs done to them. Mob-law had attacked them with stones and fire, or with Bacchanalian fury had torn their dead from the graves to rend their bodies asunder. Had Christianity tolerated repaying evil with evil, what secret vengeance could have been wrought in a single night with a torch or two! Or, had they determined to act as open enemies, what numbers and resources would they have had! "We are but of yesterday," is Tertullian's proud boast (cf. c. i.), "and yet we have filled your cities, fortresses, towns, assemblies, camp, palace, senate, and forum: sola vobis reliquimus templa. Should we determine to separate from you and betake ourselves to some remote corner of the globe, your loss of so many citizens would cover you with shame. The solitude, silence, and stupor as of a dead world would fill you with fear. You would have to seek subjects to govern. Your enemies would be more numerous than your citizens. At present it is your Christian citizens who make your enemies so few." Tertullian therefore asks that Christians should be admitted "inter licitas factiones." The "sect" was incapable of any such acts as were dreaded in forbidden societies. If they had indeed their own occupations (negotia), why should that give offence? For what were the "negotia Christianae factionis"? (c. xxxix.). Tertullian's answer is a touching picture of the simple Christendom of his day. "We are a body linked together by a common religious profession, by unity of discipline, and by a common hope. We meet as a congregation and pray to God in united supplication. Haec vis Deo grata est. We pray for the emperors, their ministers, and those in authority, for the welfare of the world, for peaceful times, and for the delaying of the end (see c. xxxii.). We come together to listen to our Holy Scriptures (cf. Just. Mart. Apol. ii.); and by holy words we nourish faith, raise hope, stablish confidence, and strengthen discipline. Our presidents are elders of approved character, who have obtained this honour not by purchase but by desert. On the monthly day appointed each gives to the chest what he likes; the money is disbursed not in feasting and drinking, but in supporting and burying the poor, in providing for destitute orphan boys and girls, in supporting the aged, the infirm, and the shipwrecked, and in succouring those sent to the mines or incarcerated in prisons ex causa Dei sectae."
(6) Chaps. xlvi.–l.—Accusations had been met and the case of the Christian stated. What remained? One last perversion on the part of unbelief: "Christianity was no divine institution, but simply a kind of philosophy." The refutation of this closes the Apology. Tertullian, if frequently satirical, is at first grave and dignified, sober and patient, more than is his wont; but the smouldering fire bursts out at last; his last chapter is a climax of withering scorn and impassioned appeal.
Ad Nationes (i. ii.) is practically a short form of the Apology. It covers the same ground, uses the same arguments and largely the same language. But the Apology was addressed to the rulers and magistrates of Carthage, this to the people. Its whole cast is consequently more popular, its arguments less prolonged, its illustrations less reserved (cf. I. cc. iv. viii. xvi.; II. c. xi.).
De Testimonio Animae was written very soon after the Apology, to
which it refers (c. v.). Some have thought it the most original and acute of his
works (see Neander, Antignosticus, p. 259). Many of his predecessors, says
Tertullian (c. i.), had ransacked heathen literature to discover in it support of
the Christian efforts to expel error and admit equity. The attempt was, in his opinion,
a mistake and a failure. He would not repeat it. Neither would he adduce Christian
writings when dealing with heathen, for nobody consulted them unless already a Christian.
Therefore he turns to another and a new testimony, that of the soul. Apostrophizing
it, he cries, "Thou art not, so far as I know, Christian. The soul is not born Christian
[cf. Apol. xviii.], but becomes Christian. Yet Christians beg now for a testimony
from thee, as from one outside
Adversus Judaeos.—The authenticity and integrity of the treatise, as usually
printed, have both been disputed; the latter with justice, the former needlessly,
and principally on account of the discredit attaching to the latter portion. Chaps.
i.–viii. are certainly Tertullian's, written while still a churchman. The latter
chapters are different, both in character and style. The treatise was occasioned
by a dispute between a Christian and a heathen converted, not to Christianity but
to Judaism. Practically, the question between them was the exclusion or not of Gentiles
from the promises of God. But there was a preliminary question. Was any one expected,
and if expected, had any one come, "novae legislator, sabbati spiritalis cultor,
sacrificiorum aeternorum antistes, regni aeterni aeternus dominator," or was His
advent still matter of hope? (c. vii.). The fulfilment of prophecy rightly understood
was the answer. Tertullian does not need to prove that the Christ should come. Every
Jew believed and hoped it.
B. Tertullian the Priest.—Tertullian had hitherto written as a layman. The writings now to be considered indicate more or less directly that he had become a priest (cf. de Baptismo, cc. xvii. xviii.). Persecution was for a time suspended. It is highly probable that about this time a synod of African bishops met at Carthage to discuss matters affecting the organization, discipline, and teaching of the church; and the occasion may have been used to ordain one who, as an "apologist," had proved himself so fearless a champion of the church. Questions concerning heretical baptism, and the attitude of the church towards the heretical sects, were very probably discussed, and Tertullian's lost treatise on heretical baptism was written in Greek to circulate the synod's decisions beyond the confines of the African church.
Other points, however, dealing with Christian life and ethics, came before him in his work in Carthage as a priest. The flock looked to their pastors for guidance: prayer, baptism, repentance, and the discipline connected with them; woman's dress and woman's life, married or unmarried; pleasures, amusements, how far lawful or unlawful,—all were matters upon which direction was desirable, and to all does Tertullian apply himself. Roughly divided, the treatises were practical and doctrinal, but the division must not be pressed too closely.
(1) Practical Treatises.—De Oratione. (a) Of the Lord's Prayer specifically (cc. i.–xi.); (b) of prayer generally—times, places, and customs (cc. xii.–end).
(a) As Christ was Spirit, Word, and Reason, so His prayer was formed of three parts: the word by which it was expressed, the spirit by which alone it had power, the reason by which it was appropriated (the reading is disputed); and the practice of prayer was recommended with three injunctions: that it should be offered up in secret, marked by modesty of faith," and distinguished by brevity. It was in very truth "breviarium totius evangelii." It is reckoned as containing seven clauses, the doxology not being given; and each clause is considered separately. The comments are reflections rather than interpretations; and if unequal and sometimes fanciful, they are very beautiful and can never be read without profit. His own summary (c. ix.) is a mine of spiritual thought. He approves of other prayers being used corresponding with the special circumstances of him who prays, but never to the omission of this, the regular and set form of prayer.
(b) Certain ceremonies, "empty" (vacuae) Tertullian calls them, but illustrative of many an interesting point of ritual and practice of the time, are next considered: Washing the hands before prayer; praying with the cloak taken off; sitting after prayer; the kiss of peace; the "Stations" (c. xix. ; see Oehler's note); the dress of women, and veiling or non-veiling of virgins; kneeling in prayer; place and time of prayer; prayer when brethren met or parted; prayer and psalm. The closing chapter, dealing with the power and effect of prayer, is one of the gems of Tertullian's writings. "Never," he cries, "let us walk unarmed by prayer. Under the arms of prayer guard we the standard of our emperor; in prayer await we the angel's trump. Angels pray; every creature prays. 'Quid amplius? Etiam ipse Dominus oravit.'"
De Baptismo.—One Quintilla, "a viper of the Cainite heresy," had sought
to destroy baptism. "What good could water do? Was it to be believed that a man
could go down into the water, have a few words spoken over him, and rise again the
gainer of eternity?" (see c. vi.). Quintilla was apparently a Gnostic, and the very
simplicity of the means of grace repelled her. "Miratur simplicia quasi vana, magnifica
quasi impossibilia." Her sneers had corrupted some; others were disturbed by such
doubts as, Why was baptism necessary? Abraham was justified without it. The Christ
Himself did not baptize. No mention was made in Scripture of the baptism of the
apostles; St. Paul himself was bidden not to practise it.
(a) The foundation for the sacrament (religionem) of baptism Tertullian finds in (cc. i.–ix.) the history of the creation. The hovering of the Spirit of God over the waters was typical of baptism; and water still, after invocation of God, furnished the sacrament of sanctification. Shortly but beautifully he describes the baptismal ceremonies (cf. de Spect. c. iv.), notes the types and figures of baptism in O.T., and the testimony to baptism in the life and passion of the Lord.
(b) Larger questions acquiescing in the necessity of baptism awaited consideration.
(i) Heretical Baptism.—Christians held firmly to a belief in one God, one Baptism, one Church. This unity was, as regards baptism, imperilled by heretical baptism. The ademptio communicationis (by some = deprivation of communion; by others = excommunication) stamped heretics as strangers. "We and they have not the same God, nor one [i.e. the same] Christ. Therefore we and they have not one [i.e. the same] baptism. What [baptism] they have, they have it not rightly, and therefore have not baptism at all." On these grounds he rejected heretical baptism. On the whole subject consult Libr. of the Fath. x. pp. 280 seq.
(ii) Second Baptism.—The belief and practice of the church Tertullian
states thus: "We enter the font but once; our sins are washed away but once, because
they ought not to be repeated." The Christian had, nevertheless, a second baptism,
viz. the Baptism of Blood (cf.
(c) The remainder of the treatise deals with points of church practice
and discipline as regards baptism (cc. xvii.–xx.). Laymen as well as clerics could
administer it, but only if disciples and in cases of necessity. "Layman" was not
taken to include women. Baptism was not to be administered rashly (cf.
De Poenitentia.—Repentance of sin before baptism (cc. i.–vi.). True repentance had its measure and its limit in the fear of God. God Himself initiated repentance, when He rescinded His sentence on Adam. He exhorted men to it by His Prophets; by St. John He pointed out its sign and seal in baptism. Its aim was the salvation of man through the abolition of sin. There was a tendency to say "God was satisfied with the devotion of heart and mind. Even if men did sin in act, they could do so without prejudice to their faith and fear." With an intensity of sarcasm Tertullian replies, "You shall be thrust down into hell without prejudice to your pardon." Such Antinomianism explained another frequent and lamentable practice. The Christians of the day most firmly believed in the washing away of sins in Holy Baptism, and in the necessity of true repentance as preparatory to the reception of it; but this led "novices" ("inter auditorum tirocinia") not to a willing and holy eagerness to receive baptism, but to a presumptuous and unholy spirit of delay, that they (the soldiers of the Cross) might steal the intervening time as a furlough ("commentum") for sinning rather than for learning not to sin. Tenderly and wisely does Tertullian plead with them. "If a man who has given himself to God is not to cease sinning till he be bound by baptism, I hardly know whether he will not feel, after baptism, more sorrow than joy."
De Spectaculis.—A period of temporary peace after persecution (cf. c.
xxvii.) had fallen upon the church in Carthage. Spectacular shows and games were
being given, possibly in commemoration of the victory of Severus over Albinus, and
the grave question had to be faced—Should Christians attend them? The seal (signaculum)
of baptism supplied the reason against attendance. All the preparations connected
with the spectacles were based upon idolatry, and idolatry was renounced at the
font. In cc. v.–xiii. Tertullian draws out in detail the origin of the spectacles,
their titles, apparatus, localities, and arts; and the reader can realize to the
very life the places and scenes he describes in impassioned but often one-sided
invective. Everywhere in the circus were images and statues, chariots dedicated
to gods, their thrones, crowns, and equipments. Religious rites preceded, intervened,
and succeeded the games; guilds, priests, and attendants served the conventus
daemoniorum. Consecrated to the sun, the solar temple rose in the midst, the
solar effigy glittered on the summit. The chariots of the circus were dedicated
to the gods, the charioteers wore the colours (white, red, green, and blue) of idolatry.
The designator and the haruspex were two most befouled masters of
the ceremonies connected with the funereal and sacrificial rites. The theatrum
was the home of Venus and Bacchus; the performances there claimed their patronage.
The very artistic gifts employed in producing the spectacles were the inspiration
of demons, glozed over by a fallacious consecration. Men pleaded, "We cannot live
without pleasure." Well, Christians had
De Cultu Feminarum, i. and ii.—The luxury and extravagance of the women of the time is matter of notoriety. Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria do not express one whit more strongly than Seneca their ambition, cruelty, and licentiousness. Therefore, when women became Christians, and matronly and wifely virtues or virgin purity and modesty characterized them, it extorted the admiration of some and the impatient scorn of others. But luxury began to creep in and overrule the daughters of the church. Tertullian saw it, and the above works were among other efforts to recall Christian women to the Christian life.
De Idololatria is a protest against serving two masters—Christianity and
heathenism. Many Christians had in adult age come over to Christianity from heathenism,
and many Christian craftsmen gained their living by distinctly heathen trades, and
would not or could not see that they were wrong. Many "servants of God" had official
or professional engagements which brought them perpetually in contact with heathen
customs, legal forms, sacrificial acts, and social courtesies. They drew sophistical
distinctions between what they might write but not speak, or the image they might
make but not worship. To Tertullian such contact and collusion, and therefore such
professions and trades, were radically wrong. Heathenism in all its shapes was idolatry.
Two professions connected with idolatry were especially obnoxious to him, (a)
the astrologer (c. ix.), arguing that "astrology was the science of the stars which
affirmed the Advent of Christ"; (b) the schoolmaster (ludimagister)
and other professors of letters (c. x.), who had to teach the names, genealogies,
honours of heathen gods, and keep their festivals from which they derived their
income. On festival-days, in honour of emperors, victories, and the like, the doors
of Christians were more decorated with lamps and laurels than those of the heathen
(cf. Apol. c. xxxv.), men quoting Christ's command; "Render unto Caesar the
things which are Caesar's" (
De Patientia, one of the most spiritual of Tertullian's compositions, is a sermon preached to himself quite as much as to others. His experience as a priest had taught him the need of patience every time he confronted pettiness not less than pride, frivolity not less than idolatry.
Ad Uxorem, i. and ii.—Among the questions discussed in, and disturbing, the Christian church at Carthage was that of second marriages. These were evidently numerous. Tertullian gave his advice in a treatise in two books addressed to his wife, which he hoped might be profitable to her and to any other woman "belonging to God." He does not go here beyond the position taken by St. Paul. If he evidently considered celibacy the higher state, though himself married, he does not forbid marriage. But second marriages were different, and he argues strongly against them.
(2) Doctrinal Treatises.—Three positions laid down by Tertullian (de Praes. Haer. cc. xxi. xxxii. xxxvi.), (a) apostolic doctrine, (b) episcopal succession from the apostles, (c) the apostolic canon of Scripture, were rocks on which the church was then firmly fixed.
(a) His Regula Fidei (cf. de Praes. Haer. c. xiii.; de
Virg. Vel. c. i.; adv. Prax. c. ii.) is the form given by Irenaeus (contr.
Haer. 1 c. x.; cf. the two in Denzinger's Enchiridion, pp. 1, 2), expanded
upon points which had come to the front during a lapse of about 30 years. But it
had become something more than a mere regula; it had risen to a doctrina;
and in the brotherhood of Carthage it was the contesseratio (cf. de Praes.
Haer. cc. xx. xxxvi.) which reason and tradition united in approving. (b)
The regula had come down to them through bishops "per successionem ab initio
decurrentem" (cf. ib. c. xxxii.), and those bishops had received "cum successionem
charisma veritatis certum" (Iren. iv. c. xxvi. 2). The former fact gave historical
value to the regula, the latter dogmatic credibility. The unworthy life of
many a successor of the apostles (cf. de Pudicitia, c. i.) did not annul
the validity of the doctrine. For (c) it was supported by the Scriptures.
In the time of Irenaeus and Tertullian the Law and the Prophets, the Gospels and
the Apostolic Epistles (cf. de Praes. Haer. c. xxxvi.)
De Praescriptione Haereticorum.—This treatise, with its title drawn from
the language of jurisprudence, consists of (i), an introduction (cc. i.–xiv.), (ii)
the main division of the work (cc. xv.–xl.). It is more than probable that it originated
in the desire to emphasize the doctrinal stability of the African church in the
face of some fresh tendency towards Gnosticism in general and the views of Marcion
especially. (i), Persons of weak faith and character (c. iii.) were unsettled because
some once accounted firm in the faith were passing over to heresy; and it was not
sufficient simply to refer to Scripture, which the Gnostic teachers could apply
as much as the orthodox. For the time Tertullian conceived no better way of meeting
their difficulty than by positive injunction to refuse appeal to Scripture to their
would-be seducers, to note the character of the heretics, and to surrender themselves
entirely to the guidance of the church. The authority men advanced for their deviations
from the faith was nothing less than the words of the Lord, "Seek, and ye shall
find" (
This mention of the regula fidei leads (c. xiii.) to the statement of
it. This passage is therefore one of the most important in Tertullian's writings
as an index to the articles of the Christian faith believed and accepted in his
day (consult Pusey's notes in loco). This "rule" the Christians held to have
been taught by Christ. Tertullian is quite willing (c. xiv.) that it should be examined,
discussed, and explained to novices by some "doctor gratia scientiae donatus." But
he gives a caution. It was not Biblical skill ("exercitatio scripturarum") but faith
which saved (cf.
(ii) Chaps. xv.–xl.—Heresy was sometimes defended on the ground that heretics
used and argued from the Scriptures. But, answered Tertullian, their use of them
was "audacious" and not to be admitted. None but they whose were the Scriptures
had a right to use them. Tertullian adopts this position not from any distrust of
his cause, but in accordance with apostolic injunctions (c. xvi.; cf.
Heretics advanced two "mad" objections to these rules: (a) The apostles
did not know all things (c. xxii.). (b) Arguing from
C. Tertullian and Montanism.—About the end of 2nd cent. Montanism invaded Africa. Tertullian would seem to have embraced it wholeheartedly. It suited his temperament; it furnished the logical solutions to problems practical and theological which had been disturbing him. But his Montanism was not the Montanism of 172–177 or of Asia Minor; it had come to him through the purifying medium of distance and time. He knew or remembered nothing of the extravagances connected with the first deliverances of the "new prophets." Montanism was in truth to Tertullian little more than a name; development and restoration rather than novelty underlie the intention, and are stamped upon the thoughts, of every treatise which follows those hitherto considered. The practices Tertullian favoured and advocated, the doctrines he loved and enforced, had alike their roots in the existing practices and doctrines of the church. It is the manner in which he has insisted upon the one which has so much discredited it; it is the juridical fence with which he has driven home the other which has angered opponents. He defended his practice and teaching as necessary for his day. New fasts, protests against second marriages, a sterner accentuation of discipline, were conceived as absolutely necessary by the man who, beginning by tightening bonds which the church had wisely left relaxed, ended by the Pharisaic assumption that he and his were πνευματικοὶ and his opponents ψυχικοί. But if he drew his descriptive language from Gnostic codes, he burned in the spirit to depose Gnostic heresy. The merit he assigned to ecstasy, dream, vision, new prophecy, and special endowment by the Paraclete, were expansions of simpler but Scriptural teaching, with something of Pharisaic lordliness, but ever directed against the Sadduceeism, the materialism, the Patripassianism, and the Monarchianism of his day.
The career of Tertullian, his whole being and character, left him no choice when he had to make his decision. He was bound to side with the sterner party, and he did. If at first he retained his position in the church, that position before long became intolerable. The breach took place of which the de Virg. Vel. gives the ostensible cause; and the passion which animated the apologist in defence of the church was presently employed to revile, discard, and injure her. Few treatises are more painful to read than the de Monogamia, de Jejunio, and de Pudicitia. It is a relief to turn from them to the adv. Praxean. If the heart of the ascetic has been alienated from the church, he can still defend her faith with all his old loving energy, and, by his last existing writing, command respect from those whose affection he had lost.
(1) Practical Treatises.—De Corona is usually counted the first treatise which indicates traces of Montanism (cf. c. i.; Hauck places the de Virg. Vel. before it), and it was written after the de Spectac. (cf. c. vi.). Opinions were divided as to the soldier's conduct. Some blamed him as rash, as eager to die, some as bringing trouble on the Christian name about a mere matter of dress. Tertullian, with one word of laudation of the man—"solus scilicet fortis inter tot fratres commilitones, solus Christianus"—turns furiously upon his decriers.
De Fuga in Persecutione.—It may well have been that excitement threatening
persecution was aroused against Christians by the conduct of the soldier specified
in the de Corona. In Carthage (c. iii.) the question was anxiously debated,
"May Christians flee from persecution or not?" The clergy answered "Yes," and set
an example (c. xi.), which they probably defended by Christ's words (
De Exhortatione Castitatis.—Some years had elapsed since Tertullian had written ad Uxorem, deprecating for women a second marriage. The death of a friend's wife gave him an opportunity of urging upon men a like continence; and he did so in language declaratory of views far more exaggerated.
De Virginibus Velandis.—The veiling of virgins was a burning question
among Christians at Carthage; and partisans in Carthage took sides according as
they argued from what St. Paul (
(2) Doctrinal Works.—The majority of these were written when Tertullian had become a Montanist. They present more or less the catch-words of the sect, and refer to the Paraclete and the new prophecy, if the doctrines inculcated and defended are those of the church Catholic. To be a Montanist was not with Tertullian to be a seceder from the church in points of faith, though the church found it necessary for the sake of her unity in life and doctrine to count him and his outside her.
Adv. Hermogenem.—For the nature of the opinions of this heretical teacher
and of Tertullian's treatise against him see HERMOGENES.
Adv. Valentinianos.—For a review of the opinions of this school ("frequentissimum plane collegium inter haereticos") see VALENTINUS. Tertullian's treatise does not so much discuss these opinions as state them; it is not so much a refutation as a satire, intended to provoke mirth (c. vi.). It claims no originality, but to be a faithful reflection of the teaching of Justin, Miltiades (cf. Eus. H. E. v. 17) Irenaeus, and Proculus.
De Carne Christi.—This is Tertullian's principal contribution to the Christological problem of the time: Was the flesh of Christ born of the Virgin and human in its nature (c. xxxv.)? In his de Resurrectione Carnis (c. ii.) he himself specifies the tenets he opposes here to be those of Marcion, Basilides, Valentinus, and Apelles. These "modern Sadducees" (c. i.; de Praes. Haer. c. xxxiii.) were apprehensive lest if they admitted the reality of Christ's flesh, they must also admit His resurrection in the flesh, and consequently the resurrection generally. It was necessary to discuss, therefore, His bodily substance. (i) (a) Marcion's views are examined (cc. ii.–v.); then (b) those of Apelles (cc. vi.–ix.) ; then (c) that of the Valentinians (cc. x.–xvi.). (ii) The second part of the treatise deals more especially with the single point—"Did Christ receive flesh from the Virgin" (cc. xvii.–end)?
The treatise fully responds to the intention of the writer. It examines the arguments employed and the Scriptures advanced (see esp. c. xviii.) ; and does so, on the whole, in a style moulded by the recollection that the subject was a grave and solemn one. There are bursts of irony (e.g. cc. ii. iv.); paradoxes (see c. v., perhaps the most famous of Tertullian's many paradoxes) and retorts; but the total result is a valuable contribution to the literature of the subject. His line of argument and his statement of the church's doctrine is that of Irenaeus. For a general view of the opinions attacked see APELLES, MARCION, and VALENTINUS.
De Resurrectione Carnis.—Tertullian wrote this (c. ii.) in fulfilment of the intention expressed in the de Carne Christi (c. xxv.), against those who allowed that the soul would rise again, but refused resurrection to the flesh on account of its worthlessness. It was a logical sequence to their fundamental position that the works of the Demiurge, or the god who created the world and was opposed to the supreme God, were marked by corruption and worthlessness, and that the flesh of man was consequently so also. Tertullian grants that his subject was invested with uncertainty; but it was too important to be passed over. The question affected the very Oneness of the Godhead. To deny the resurrection of the flesh would be to shake that doctrine, to vindicate the resurrection of the flesh would establish it. In contrast to the unseemly language (spurciloquium) of heathen and heretic, he will adopt a more honourable and modest style (cf. de Anima, c. xxxii.); and he has kept his word. There are few sentences which grate upon the ear, while there are many passages of considerable beauty and profound Christian faith.
Adv. Marcionem, bks. i.–v.—This work in its present form is assigned to the 15th year of Severus (bk. i. c. xv.) or c. 208; and comes to us as a work touched and retouched during many years (cf. i. c. xxii.). Tertullian had in other cases felt dissatisfaction with his writings of an earlier period, or altered his arguments to meet the ever-altering phases of false belief. Thus in the earlier work, de Praes. Haer. c. xix., he declines to allow appeal to the Scriptures in the discussion of heresy; in a later treatise, de Resurr. Carnis, c. iii., he demands of heretics that they should support their inquiries from Scripture alone (cf. adv. Prax. c. xi.). So now, his earliest edition of this treatise, if placed (conjecturally) c. 200, would have seemed to him very defective when writing c. 208. He had separated from his old friends, now branded as the "Psychics" (iv. c. xxii.), to find among the Montanists the true church (i. c. xxi.; iv. c. v.). To him "the new prophecy" was now the highest authority, the Paraclete the sole guide unto all truth. The doctrinal controversy between Tertullian and Marcion turned principally on questions of anthropology and Christology. All that Tertullian has to say upon it has been summed up under MARCION.
De Anima.—In the treatise de Testimonio Animae Tertullian had sought
to prove that the soul of man bore natural testimony to the truth of the representations
given in Holy Scripture of the unity, nature, and attributes of God, and of a future
state. In the treatise de Anima, written some ten years or so later, he deals
with the soul itself. Between these surviving treatises is to be placed one now
lost, de Censu Animae, in which he had combated the opinion of Hermogenes
that the origin of the soul was to be found in matter by the counter-opinion that
it was formed by the afflatus of God (cf. de Anima, cc. i. iii. xi.;
adv. Marc. ii. c. ix.). The attributes of the soul (animae naturalia)
pointed, in his opinion, to propinquity to God and not to matter (cf. de Anima,
c. xxii.), an opinion supported by the views of Plato, who had taught the divinatio
animae (cf. de Anima, c. xxiv.). The discussion of its origin is followed
by a general inquiry respecting the nature, powers, and destiny of the soul. An
admirable analysis is that of Bp. Kaye (pp. 178–207; cf. also Neander, the careful
analysis of Böhringer, and Hauck). In c. xxii. Tertullian gives his definition of
the soul as deriving its origin from the breath of God (iv. xi.). The soul is immortal,
corporeal (v.–viii.), and endowed with form (ix.); simple in its substance (x. xi.);
possessing within itself the principle of intelligence (xii.); working in different
ways or channels (xiii.–xv.); endued with free will; affected by external circumstances,
and thus producing the infinite variety of disposition observable among mankind;
rational (xvi.); supreme over man (xvii. xviii.); and possessing natural insight
into futurity (xix.). The Gospels, in (e.g.) the history of the rich man
in torment (
The main purpose of cc. xxiii.–xxvii. is to prove that the souls of all mankind are derived from one common source, the soul of Adam. In cc. xxviii.–xxxv. Tertullian ridicules the conclusions necessitated by metempsychosis and metemsomatosis.
As a preliminary to the consideration of the manner in which the soul encounters death, Tertullian considers the subject of sleep—the image of death (cc. xlii.–end). He adopts by preference the Stoic definition of sleep as the temporary suspension of the activity of the senses ("resolutionem sensualis vigoris"), and limits the senses affected to those of the body; the soul, being immortal, neither requiring nor admitting a state of rest. While the body is asleep or dead, the soul is elsewhere.
Death, to which Tertullian now turns (c.1.), was to be the lot of all, let Epicurus
and Menander say what they would. The voice of God (
De Pallio.—This, a treatise intentionally extravagant, is a vindication of the philosopher's mantle (pallium) ridiculed by the people of Carthage. It might be called a juridical plea, couched in witty and forensic language, in an imaginary case of Pallium (see description s.v. in D. C. A.) v. Toga. Some have seen in Tertullian's assumption of the pallium an indication that he adopted it to show his separation from the church. The conjecture has nothing to prove or disprove it. The mantle had virtues of its own (cc. v. vi.). Did it not illustrate simplicity and capacity, economy and austerity, in protest against the follies and effeminacies, the gluttony and extravagance, the impurity and intemperance of the togati? "Grande pallii beneficium est." It was the garb not only of the philosopher, but also of those benefactors of the human race—the grammarian and the rhetorician, the sophist and the physician, the poet and the musician, the student of astronomy and the pupil of national history. In face of such facts, why mind the sneer, "The pallium ranked below the toga of the Roman knight," or the indignant question, "Shall I give up my toga for the pallium"? There was no indignity in the matter. "'Gaude gallium et exsulta!' Thou art honoured by a better philosophy from the time that thou didst become a Christian garment."
Scorpiace.—A defence of martyrdom stronger than is found in the Montanist works of his previous period, perhaps c. 211.
Ad Scapulam.—Probably at the beginning of the reign of Caracalla, a.d.
211, the African proconsula Scapula authorized the persecution to which this work
refers. He was a fierce opponent of the Christians, and permitted his fanaticism
to override his sense of justice (c. iv.). This treatise uses the arguments of the
Apology, but with a change in tone. Tertullian's passion is still strong,
but gravely and soberly expressed. There is the same appeal for justice, but defiance
has given place to prayer, and hatred of the persecutor to love for the enemy. The
treatise may fairly take rank among the best and most interesting of all which have
been preserved. Scapula is told frankly that they who had joined the "sect" of Christians
were prepared to accept its conditions. The persecutions of men ignorant of what
they were doing did not alarm them or make them shrink from heathen "savagery."
Against the charges usually brought against them (cf. c. ii.; Apol. cc. vii.–ix.)
Scapula should set one plain fact—the behaviour of Christians. They formed the
De Monogamia.—Some years passed, of peace from without but not from within; and a third time (c. 217) Tertullian returns to that question—marriage—which had occupied him in the ad Uxorem and de Exhortatione Castitatis. The third treatise is the bitterest. Tertullian now claims for his party that they and they alone were guided by the Paraclete. From Him they had received their teaching on monogamy. He had come to supersede the teaching of St. Paul by yet higher counsels of perfection. Much of Tertullian's argument—e.g. from Scripture—is repeated from his former treatises, and much of it is strained and conjectural, as he felt it would be said to be (c. ix.); but no one will dispute Tertullian's earnestness. Immorality was prevalent and contagious, and in monogamy—supposing celibacy and widowhood to be impossible—he saw a counteracting agency. Discipline and spirituality would be at least practicable to those who would rally round the standard of monogamy.
De Jejunio Adversus Psychicos (al. de Jejuniis).—Another great subject of difference between churchmen and Montanists had reference to fasts. Tertullian's paper is most distressing to read, scanty in argument, plentiful in abuse. Both sides indulged in unmeasured invective; both had lost their temper. The charges of luxury, gluttony, and immorality unhesitatingly and almost exultingly brought by Tertullian against church ecclesiastics and laymen are so gross as almost to refute themselves by their very exaggeration. They are more than the retort of a man infuriated by unjust accusations and meeting them by counter-charges. The ascetic has become a fanatic, and in his mad hatred besmirches and calumniates the church he had once so tenderly loved.
De Pudicitia.—This work has been placed before the de Monogamia and the de Jejunio, but internal and negative evidence, if slight, seems to assign it a place after them. An edict (c. i.) of the bp. of Rome (Zephyrinus, 202–218, or Callistus, 218–223) lashed Tertullian into fury, and completely dissolved the last links of union between him and the Psychics. The treatise is marked by intense bitterness from beginning to end.
Adversus Praxean.—For the history of Praxeas, the nature of his views and Tertullian's answer, see PRAXEAS.
Tertullian was the first who, in the controversy against the Monarchians, introduced
prominently the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. Praxeas did not touch it. Hence the
value of such chapters as viii. ix. xxv. xxx. He fully maintains the personality
of the Third Person of the Trinity (cf. ad Mart. c. iii.) if his language
is occasionally ambiguous (cf. c. xii., his comment on
IV. SUMMARY.—The brief sketch here presented of these powerful writings will have indicated the investigation of many a doctrine and the record of contemporaneous practices heathen and Christian, as well as illustrated the mind, character, and style of their writer.
(a) Tertullian and Heathenism.—On its moral side, extravagance, luxury, immorality, and cruelty were to all external appearance as rampant in his day as ever. Tertullian knows heathenism only in its coarseness and repulsiveness. Yet a reformation was proceeding, religious in origin and intention, which must not be forgotten in any true estimate of the age. Tertullian lived when old pagan traditions and new tendencies were co-operating; when there had risen that religious movement which, owing its impulse to the eclecticism of a Julia Domna, passed through the stirring phases successively represented in the neo-Pythagoreanism of her salon, in the subordination by Elagabalus of every other cultus to that of the Oriental sun-god, and in the equalization by Alexander Severus of all worshipful beings in his common cultus of the heroes of humanity. That movement was the product of a real awakening.
The main centre of these changes and developments was Rome, but Tertullian's
writings against heathenism prove that Carthage at least felt the effects of this
great tidal wave of religiousness. They are as full of attack as of defence. He
strikes at a vigorous paganism as much as he beats off the charges alleged against
Christianity. Every page teems with allusions which reflect without effort the firm
foothold acquired by all forms of heathen cultus. Ridicule of the worship of the
ancient deities of Greece and Rome, of the cultus of the emperors, of the "genius,"
and of demons is found allied with contempt of the gods of Alexandria (Isis and
Serapis), of Phrygia (the Magna Mater and Bellona), of Syro-Phoenicia (the Dea Syra),
and of Carthage (the Juno Coelestis). The very fierceness of his invective and scorn
against the
(b) Tertullian and Christianity.—In passing from heathenism to Christianity, Tertullian believed himself to be passing from darkness to light and from corruption to purity. He embraced it with all the strength of a matured mind and life. All the more intelligible, therefore, is his vehement anger with any form of Christian precept and practice, whether at Rome or Carthage, which fell short of his ideal. The church was to him the Virgin and spotless Bride of the Ascended Lord, and her children—bishops, priests, and people—must worthily reflect her purity and faith. He would permit no shortcomings because he would admit no failure. A writer of the 4th cent. has left on record that the Africans as he knew them were "faithless and cunning. There might be some good people among them, but they were not many" (quoted in Mommsen, The Provinces of the Roman Empire, ii. p. 340). This estimate is reflected a century earlier in Tertullian's pages. It is a summary of his opinion of the spurious devotion which marked the Christian fop (de Poenit. c. xi.; cf. de Cultu Fem. ii. c. viii.), the would-be penitent (de Poenit. c. ix.), the rich Christian lady (de Cultu Fem. i. c, ix., ii. cc. v.–vii.; de Virg. Vel. c. xvii.), the fashionable virgin (ib. c. xii.; in contrast with her holy sister, c. xv.), the drugged and petted martyr (de Jej. c. xii., in contrast with the willing and happy martyr, ad Martyres, cc. i.–iii.); and it explains that final revulsion of mind which, spurning every kind of compromise, heaped indiscriminate abuse on what was best as well as what was worst in the life of the Christians of the church, and turned to find in asceticism and Montanism a seriousness and elevation impossible to him elsewhere. Paradoxical as it may seem, it was the same impulsive spirit which kept him staunch to the faith of that church whose discipline and ritual he abjured or carried with him to a schismatic body. Gnosticism was to Tertullian the embodiment of theological corruption, darkness, and falsehood, and he fought it with all his natural vehemence. His theology, if developed by Montanism, is in substance that which the church accepted, and accepts. The admiration felt for his writings by his countryman Cyprian (200–258), bp. of Carthage, should never be forgotten. Cyprian, says St. Jerome, never passed a day without reading a portion of Tertullian's works; he frequently asked for them with the words, "Da mihi magistrum"; and it is impossible to read Cyprian's existing treatises without seeing how largely the thoughts of Tertullian have been absorbed by him, if the language has been softened and deepened. In our own country Bp. Bull (Defensio Fidei Nicenae) and Pearson (On the Creed) have used many an argument which the Montanist of Africa had prepared for them, and Bp. Kaye's illustrations of the Articles of the Church of England from Tertullian's writings (pp. 246, etc.) concur in establishing the force of Möhler's description of his dogma as "so homelike" (Patr. i. p. 737). It is based on the teaching of Christ as handed down by apostles and apostolic men, and formulated in the "regula fidei una, sola, immobilis et irreformabilis" (cf. de Praes. Haer. cc. viii. ix.; de Virg. Vel. c. i.). Theology owes practically to him such words (int. al.) as Trinitas, satisfactio, sacramentum, substantia, persona, liberum arbitrium, transferred (some of them) from the Latin law courts to take their definite place in the language of Latin divinity (cf. the index verborum at the end of Oehler, vol. ii.).
(c) Tertullian, the Man.—Of no one, says Ebert, is Buffon's saying truer,
"the style is the man," and the best illustration of his style he finds in the
Apology (Geschichte der Christlich-Lateinischen Literatur, pp. 34–37).
Tertullian cared nothing for form save as it best expressed his thought. He said
right out from his heart what he had to say about friend or foe, without attempt
to clothe his speech with the graceful charm of the Greek or the dignified periods
of the Roman. Abrupt and impetuous, eloquent and stern, his sentences follow one
another with the sweeping, rushing force of storm-waves. The very exceptions do
but prove the. rule. Such tender or beautiful passages as those which depict the
life of Christ on earth (de Pat. c. iii.; Apol. c. xxi.; were these
written with any acquaintance with the Life of the pagan Christ, Apollonius of Tyana,
edited by Philostratus at the command of Julia Domna?), the power and effect of
prayer (de Orat. c. xxix.), the virtues and portrait of patience (de Pat.
c. xv.), contemporary civilization (de Anima, c. xxx.), the happy marriage
(ad Uxor. ii. 8), and faith, the barque of the church (de Idol. c.
xxiv.); or the impressive analogies of the resurrection he finds in nature (re
Resurr. Carnis, c. xii.), and the illustrations of the Trinity (adv. Prax.
c. viii.), come upon the reader as a surprise, as something so unlike one who is
more in his recognized element when describing the place-hunter (de Poenit.
c. xi.), the traitor (Apol. c. xxxv.), and the knowing Valentinian (adv.
Val. end), or painting that ghastliest of his portraits, murder and idolatry
crooning over adultery (de Pud. c. v.). His paradoxes are characteristic:
To him the unity of heretics was schism (de Praes. Haer. c. xlii.); and heresy
itself "tantum valeat quantum si non fuisset" (ib. c. i.). "God is great
when little" (adv. Marc. ii. c. ii.); "Lie to be true " (de Virg. Vel.
c. xvi.), contain thoughts only a shade less startling than the "Mortuus est Dei
Filius; prorsus credibile est quia ineptum est; et sepultus resurrexit; certum est
quia impossibile est" (de Carne Christi, c. v.), or the well-known "the blood
of martyrs is the seed of the church" (Apol. c. i.). His right appreciation
of the methods of Scripture
What that character was he has himself told: "Miserrimus ego, semper aeger caloribus impatientiae" (de Pat. c. i.). The sentence, caught up by Jerome, explained to him the man ("homo acris et vehementis ingenii"), as it explains his secession to Montanism and his intellectual and moral defects. Perverse in the sense of wrongheaded he often was in his narrow estimates, but he was never wrong-hearted. His life and work, full of the shades and contrasts of one who loved well and hated well, were after all a life and a work from which more has been gained than lost. If Hilary can regret that his "later error took away from the authority of what he had written," Vincentius can remind us that those writings were "thunderbolts"; they were hurled forth in defence of faith and practice. It will be to his earlier life or less polemical treatises that the reader will turn with Cyprian by preference, and in the perverse impatience of his later life see at once "the fire which kindles and the beacon which warns" (Pusey).
V. LITERATURE.—Oehler's ed. of Tertullian is on the whole the best extant. A new and scientific ed. was commenced by Rufferscheid and Wissowa in the Vienna Corpus Scr. Eccl. Lat. xx. See a full list of recent litt. in Bardenhewer's Patrology (Freiburg im Br. 1908). Kaye is most serviceable in elucidating many points as to his life, era, teaching, and style. Translations into Eng. of some of his apologetic and practical treatises are in Lib. of the Fathers, vol. x., and of almost all his works in Ante-Nicene Lib. vols. ii. vii. xi. xviii.; but the translations are very unequal. Recent edd. are de Praescrip. Haer., ad Martyres, and ad Scapulam in one vol. with intro. and notes, and adv. Gentes, both ed. by T. H. Bindley (Oxf. Univ. Press); de Baptismo, ed. with intro. and notes by J. M. Lupton (Camb. Univ. Press); de Poen. and de Pud. with French notes and intro. by Prof. de Labriolle (1906); and a reprint of the bp. of Bristol's illustrations of Ecclesiastical History from Tertullian's writings in the A. and M. Theol. Libr. (Griffith).
Thaddaeus. Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. i. 13) gives a story, which he says he found in the archives of Edessa, that after the ascension of our Lord, the apostle Judas Thomas sent Thaddaeus, one of the seventy disciples, to Edessa, to king Abgarus the Black, and that he cured the king of a serious illness, converted him with all his people to Christianity, and died at Edessa after many years of successful labours. The name of this apostle of the Edessenes is given by the Syrians as Addaeus (Doctrina Addai, ed. Phillips, p. 5, Eng. trans. 1876), and it is possible that Eusebius misread the name as Thaddaeus. Thaddaeus was at a later date confused with the apostle Judas Thaddaeus. The documents given by Eusebius contain a correspondence between Abgar and our Lord, which of course is spurious. Cf. R. A. Lipsius, Die Edessenische Abgarsage kritisch untersucht (Braunschweig, 1880), and in D. C. B. vol. iv.; also, by the same, Die apokryphen Apostelgeschichten, vol. ii. 2, 178–201, and Suppl. p. 105; also Texeront, Les Origines de l’Eglise d’Edesse et la légende d’Abgar (Paris, 1888).
Thaïs, St., a penitent courtesan of Egypt, converted c. 344 by Paphnutius of Sidon. Her story illustrates her age. Her fame reached to Paphnutius's monastery, whereupon he determined to make a great effort to convert her, though she was evidently a nominal Christian. He assumed a secular dress and put a single coin in his pocket, which he offered to Thaïs on arriving at her house. Recognizing his true character, she cast herself at his feet, destroyed all her precious dresses, and entered a female monastery, where Paphnutius shut her up in a cell, sealing the door, and leaving only a small window, through which to receive food. After 3 years she received absolution, and died 15 days after (Vit. PP. in Migne's Patr. Lat. lxxiii. 661).
Thecla (1), the heroine of a romantic story which from a very early date
has had a strong hold on the imagination of the church, and which, though under
the form in which it is now extant it can only be received as a fiction, has enough
appearance of a foundation in fact to warrant us in treating of her as a real person.
She was, as we read in the Acts of Paul and Thecla, a contemporary of St.
Paul, a Virgin of Iconium, daughter of a woman of rank (apparently a widow) named
Theocleia, and affianced to Thamyris, a youth who was first among the nobles of
that city. At the time when the narrative opens St. Paul is represented as being
on his way to Iconium, after having been driven from Antioch of Pisidia; but whether
his flight from Antioch, related in
Though the story was undoubtedly written originally in Greek, the oldest Greek
MS. is not earlier than 10th cent. But ample proofs of its high antiquity are forthcoming.
The so-called Decree of Gelasius, de Libras Recipiendis et non Recipiendis,
which is probably of the early years of the 7th cent., formally excluded (c. vi.)
from the list of "scriptures received by the church" the "book which is called the
Acts of Paul and Thecla." The Syriac version, extant in four MSS., one of
6th cent., contains internal evidence that the Greek text had been long in existence
and frequently copied before the Syrian translator did his work. We have also an
expanded Life of Thecla, composed before the middle of 5th cent. by Basil,
bp. of Seleucia (in Isauria), professedly framed on the lines of a previous work
then ancient. A comparison of our Acts of Paul and Thecla with this Life
leaves no doubt that the former is the basis of the latter. These Acts (as
we shall now call them") were thus "ancient" early in the 5th cent., and can hardly
therefore be later than 300. In the 4th cent. Hilary (the Ambrosian) has several
clear references to these Acts (Comm. on
The story thus traced back, certainly as regards its substance and probably as regards its existing written form, to 2nd cent., was widely current in the church, East and West, thereafter. But though she is frequently mentioned by the Fathers, none of them, except Basil of Seleucia, cite our Acts or any written narrative. But of all the references to Thecla in ecclesiastical writers, not one (except that already noticed in Jerome) lies distinctly outside the range of the incidents which the Acts relate; so that a history of Thecla reconstructed out of the references to her in early Christian writers would be in fact an abridgment of these Acts, containing nearly all its chief points and adding nothing to them. Of these writers, the earliest seems to be Methodius, in his Symposium Decem Virginum (written c. 300; see Migne, Patr. Gk. xviii. ). The incident of Thecla's sacrificing her ornaments to purchase access to Paul is turned to account by Chrysostom, "Thecla, for the sake of seeing Paul, gave her jewels; but thou, for the sake of seeing Christ, wilt not give an obolus" (Hom. 25 in Acta App. 4). Isidore of Pelusium (lib. i. Ep. 87) is apparently the first to style her by the glorious title, ever since appropriated to her, of proto-martyr—that is, as Basil of Seleucia explains (p. 232), first among women as Stephen among men. Theodore of Mopsuestia is stated by Solomon of Bassora, a 13th-cent. Nestorian (cf. Assem. B. O. iii. p 323), to have composed an oration on Thecla, in which it appears that her prayer for Falconilla was mentioned. Epiphanius (Haer. lxxviii. 16; lxxix. 5) praises her for sacrificing under St. Paul's teaching her prospects of prosperous marriage, and reckons her near to Elias, John the Baptist, and even the Virgin Mother. In the West her name is similarly joined with that of Agnes as a virgin worthy to rank with Mary herself, by Ambrose (de Lapsu Virg. p. 307); and by Sulpicius Severus (c. 400), who relates (Dial. ii. 13) how St. Martin of Tours was favoured with a vision, in which Mary, Agnes, and Thecla appeared and conversed with him (Migne, Patr. Lat. t. xx. col. 210). Ambrose likewise associates her with Mary the Lord's mother, and Miriam, Moses' sister (Ep. 63, ad Vercell. Eccl. t. ii. pt. 1, p. 1030); and here and in de Virginibus (ii. 19, p. 166) dwells on her deliverance from the wild beasts. Jerome in one of his Epp. (xxii. p. 125) also associates her with Mary and Miriam, promising that they shall welcome Eustochium, to whom he writes, into the virgin choir of heaven. And in his Chronicle (s.a. 377) he tells of one Melania, a Roman lady who by her sanctity earned the name of Thecla.
That the book as we have it is a fiction few will doubt; but it is a fair question
whether it has been formed on a nucleus of fact; and if so, how far we can distinguish
fact from fiction. The incidental reference to Thecla by Eusebius proves that he
regarded her as a real person; and if Athanasius wrote her Life, he must be reckoned
on the same side. Tertullian, even in rejecting her written history, raises no doubt
as to her existence, as he certainly would if he had suspected her to be
The history of Thecla, as we have it, whether this account of its origin be accepted
or not, is not without literary merit. It has many touches of pathos, its incidents
are striking and effectively told, and here and there the speeches (never of tedious
length) rise nearly to the height of eloquence. Defective as we have seen it to
be in structure, yet even here, as well as in interest of narrative, it compares
advantageously with the clumsy dullness of the Clementine literature; its marvels,
however startling, are less extravagant than those of the apocryphal Gospels and
Acts; and on the whole it is distinctly above the level of the class of writings
(most, if not all, of later date) to which it is usually referred. Its chief defect
is the failure to realize and reproduce the spirit and personality of St. Paul.
Schlau's opinion (p. 17), that the local knowledge displayed in the work is such
as might naturally belong to a resident in Asia Minor, is not to be accepted without
qualification. It might, on the contrary, be said that if the author had more carefully
studied the canonical Acts with a view to local and chronological knowledge, he
might have assigned the scene and date of his narrative with much more definiteness
and accuracy. For instance, he seems uncertain how Lystra lay relatively to Iconium
(cc. 1, 3 ), and his idea of the position and distance of Daphne seems equally indistinct
(c. 23). So too in his records of Thecla's journeys he is content to name the starting-point
and the terminus, never noting any place on the way. His knowledge of political
geography is shewn to be lacking when he represents the chief magistrates of Iconium
(c. 16) and Antioch (c. 33) as addressed by the title of proconsul (ἀνθύπατε),
thus betraying that he supposed these cities to belong to proconsular provinces,
whereas Iconium, though territorially included in Lycaonia, was in St. Paul's time
extra-provincial, as the head of an independent tetrarchy (Pliny, Nat. Hist.
v. 25), and Antioch was the capital of Syria, an imperial province governed by a
propraetor. Even if we regard Iconium as of Lycaonia, and the Antioch meant to be
the Pisidian, in neither city would so high an official as the proconsul of Asia
be resident, as the Acts represent. The author, being of Asia—that is, of
the Roman province supposed a proconsul to be found at Iconium and at Antioch, because
he had himself been accustomed to see a proconsul at Ephesus or Smyrna; and thus
Tertullian's statement that he was of Asia (taken in that limited sense) is borne
out, not by his exact knowledge, as Schlau supposed, but by his mistake. He has
such knowledge of places and political arrangements, and only such, as would naturally
belong to an untravelled ecclesiastic of the Roman province of Asia, possessing
a familiar but far from critical or precise knowledge of N.T. in general and the
book of Acts in particular. The contents of these Acts serve indirectly to
confirm the authenticity of the canonical Acts by shewing how difficult—it may safely
be said how impossible—it would be for a falsarius, even if writing at no
great distance in place or time from the scene and date of his fictitious narrative,
to avoid betraying himself by mistakes; and the history of the reception of his
work proves that such attempt to palm off pseudo-apostolic documents for genuine
was not difficult of exposure, nor passed over as a light offence. The Asian church
of the 2nd cent. was quick to detect the pious fraud and severe in punishing it;
and in her dealing with the case there is no trace of uncritical promptitude to
receive whatever offered itself as apostolical, or of the lax morality that would
accept as true whatever seemed edifying-such as some writers have imputed to the
early generations of Christians. Dr. Lipsius, indeed, maintains (p. 460) that the
work and its author were condemned, not because of the fraud attempted, but because
of the Gnostic doctrine which he supposes it to have originally embodied. But this
is mere conjecture; and, moreover, one which, while professedly based on Tertullian's
authority, substitutes for his express statement an essentially different one. Tertullian,
writing of a matter on which he was apparently well informed, and which was recent,
is surely a competent witness; and his testimony is express, that the author of
the Acts was deposed
Of edd. the best is Tischendorf's (in his Acta Apost. Apocrypha, p. 40; 1851). For Eng. translations see Hone's Apocryphal N.T. p. 83, and Clark's Ante-Nicene Libr. vol. xvi. p. 279. The principal authorities on which this article is based have been specified. To Dr. Schlau's work it is largely indebted for its materials, and in some cases for its conclusions. For further discussion of the story see Tillem. Mém. t. ii. p. 60 (2nd ed.); Spanheim, Hist. Christiana, i. 11; Ittig, de Bibliothecis, c. xx. p. 700; Ritschl, Die Entstehung der altkath. Kirche (2 Aufl.), pp. 292–294 ; Harnack, Zeitschrift f. Kirchengesch. ii. pp. 90–92; Ramsay, Church in Roman Empire before 170 (2nd ed. Lond. 1893). pp. 375–428; and by the same, A Lost Chapter of Early Christian Hist. (Acta Pauli et Theclae), in Expositor, 1902, pp. 278–295.
Themistius. [AGNOËTAE.]
Theoctistus (2), bp. of Caesarea in Palestine, who on Origen's visit to Palestine received him at Caesarea and, like Alexander of Jerusalem, permitted him, though still a layman, to preach before him (Phot. Cod. 118). On the remonstrance of Origen's bishop, Demetrianus, he joined with Alexander in a letter defending their conduct (Eus. H. E. vi. 19). Later, c. 230, Theoctistus and Alexander ordained Origen (ib. vi. 8, 23). Theoctistus probably died when Xystus was bp. of Rome 257–259, and was succeeded by Domnus (ib. vii. 14). Clinton, Fasti Romani, i. 245, 271, 287, No. 83; Le Quien, Or. Christ. iii. 541.
Theoctistus (3) Psathyropola (Ψαθυροπώλης), or the cake-seller, the head of a sect among the Arians of Constantinople c. 390. His followers were called, from his occupation, Psathyrians. Led by a certain Marinus from Thrace, they maintained that the First Person of the Trinity was in a proper sense Father, and so to be styled before the Son existed; while their opponents, the followers of the Antiochene Dorotheus, maintained that He was only a Father after the existence of the Son. A large party of the Arian Goths, taught by their bp. Selena, adopted the Psathyrian view, which continued to divide the church of Constantinople for 35 years, till in the reign of Theodosius Junior a reconciliation was effected (Socr. H. E. v. 23).
Theodebert (1) I., king of the Franks (534–548), the most capable and ambitious of the Merovingian line after Clovis. For the extent of the kingdom inherited from his father in 533 see THEODORICUS I. It was increased in 534 by a portion of the now finally conquered Burgundy (Marius, Chron. ad ann. 534). In 538 an army of Theodebert's Burgundian subjects entered Italy with his connivance and helped the Goths to conquer Milan (Procop. de Bell. Gotth. ii. 12; Marius, Chron. ad ann.). In 539 Theodebert, invading Italy at the head of 100,000 Franks, overran a great part of Venetia, Liguria, and the Cottian Alps, till hunger and disease drove the remnant of his army back to France (Marius, ann. 539; Marcell. Chron. ann. 539; Procop. u.s. 25). Death cut short his ambitious projects in 548.
Theodebert was perhaps the best of the Merovingian kings. Marius calls him "the Great" (Chron. ad ann. 548); and according to Gregory of Tours, when he had come to the throne "he shewed himself governing with justice, honouring the priests, doing good to the churches, succouring the poor and distributing benefits charitably and liberally " (Hist. Franc. iii. 25, 36). Instances of his good qualities appear in his liberality to the churches of the Auvergne, which his father had plundered (iii. 25), and his generosity to the impoverished city of Verdun, at the suit of their bishop (iii. 34). See, too, Aimoin, ii 25, and the letter of Aurelianus; archbp. of Arles, in Bouquet, iv. 63.
Theodelinda, queen of the Lombards, daughter of Garibald, king of the Bavarians, married to king Authari probably in 589. On Sept. 5, 590, Authari died (Greg. Epp. i. 17). Theodelinda, taking counsel with her wise men, chose in Nov. Agilulf, the duke of Turin, a kinsman of her late husband (Paul. Diac. iii. 55), who in the following May was accepted by all the Lombards as king in Milan. The Lombards, like the other Teutonic nations, except the Franks, had received Christianity under an Arian form, to which they still adhered. Further, nearly all who held the orthodox creed in the territories conquered by the Lombards were in schism from their refusal to accept the fifth general council which had condemned the Three Chapters. In this complication the position of Theodelinda was peculiar. By her influence king Agilulf became eventually a Catholic, though apparently not till after A.D. 603 (Greg. Epp. xi. 4; xiv. 12), gave munificently to the church, and restored the orthodox bishops to their positions (Paul. Diac. iv. 6). On the other hand, she continued to support the Three Chapters, threatened to withdraw from communion with Constantius, archbp. of Milan, and refused to accept the fifth council (Greg. Epp. iv. 2, 3, 4, 38, 39; cf. Columbanus, Epp. 5 in Migne, Patr. Lat. lxxx. 274). Gregory touches this difference most delicately, and was, notwithstanding, on most friendly terms with Theodelinda. Mainly by her influence Agilulf was induced to make peace (Paul. Diac. iv. 8; Greg. Epp. ix. 42, 43), and Gregory congratulated her upon the birth of her son Adaloald in 602, and sent him a cross containing a piece of the true cross and a lection from the gospels, and three rings to his sister Gundiperga. Theodelinda built and endowed the basilica of St. John Baptist at Monza. After the death of Agilulf in 616, Adaloald succeeded with Theodelinda as regent. The date of her death was probably before 626 (Paul. Diac. iv. 41). Her crown, the most ancient in existence except the Iron Crown, her fan, her comb, the golden hen and chickens she gave to the church, and the cross sent by Gregory, are still preserved in the treasury of the cathedral at Monza.
Theodora (10) I., empress, wife of Justinian I., daughter of Acacius,
a bear-keeper at the amphitheatre at Constantinople, who died in the reign of Anastasius
when she was 7 years old. When old enough, she appeared on the stage, as her elder
sister had done. Though from the whole animus of his work and the absolute silence
of all other writers we may
Her portrait in the mosaics at St. Vitale at Ravenna has been well engraved in Hodgkin's Invaders of Italy, vol. iii. 606.
Sources.—The three works of Procopius, esp. the Anecdota; Evagr. H. E. iv. 10, 11; Victor. Tunun. Chron.; Liberat. Breviar. 20–22; Lib. Pont., Vitae Silverii et Vigilii.
Literature.—Gibbon, cc. 40–41; Dahn, Prokopius von Cäsarea; Hodgkin, Invaders of Italy, iii.–iv.; Prof. Bryce, in Contemp. Rev. Feb. 1885; M. Debidour, Thesis (pub. in 1877), who tries to make the best of Theodora.
Theodoretus (2), bp. of Cyrrhus, or Cyrus, in the province of Euphratensis, was born at Antioch probably c. 393 (Tillemont). His parents held a high position at Antioch. His maternal grandmother was a lady of landed property (Relig. Hist. p. 1191, vol. v. ed. Schulze, Halae, 1771). His writings indicate a well-trained and highly cultivated mind, enriched by complete familiarity with the best classical authors. But his chief study was given to the Holy Scriptures and the commentators upon them in several languages. He was master of Greek, Syriac, and Hebrew, but unacquainted with Latin. His chief theological teacher, to whom be never refers without deserved reverence and admiration, was Theodore of Mopsuestia, "the great commentator," as he was called, the luminary and pride of the Antiochene school, but one who undoubtedly prepared the way for the teaching of Nestorius by his desire to provide, in Dorner's words, "for a free moral development in the Saviour's manhood." Theodoret speaks also of Diodorus of Tarsus as his teacher, but this can only have been through his writings.
The parents of Theodoret were both dead when he was 23 years old. Being their sole heir, he immediately proceeded to distribute his inheritance among the poor (Ep. 113), taking up his abode in a monastery, one of two founded in a large village called Nicerte, 3 miles from Apamea, and about 75 from Antioch (Ep. 119).
After some 7 years in the Apamean monastery, he was drawn to assume the cares
of the episcopate. Of the circumstances of his consecration we are entirely ignorant.
The see was that of Cyrus, or more properly Cyrrhus, the chief city of a district
of the province of Euphratensis, called after it Cyrrhestica, an extensive fertile
plain between the spurs of the Amanus and the river Euphrates, intersected by mountain
ranges. His diocese was 40 miles square, and contained 800 distinct parishes, each
with its church. It was singularly rich in monastic houses for both sexes, some
of them containing as many as 250 inmates, and it boasted of a large number of solitaries.
All of these enjoyed Theodoret's unremitting and affectionate solicitude and frequent
visits. Cyrrhus was equally fertile in heretics. The East has ever been the nursery
of heresy. Lying, as it were, in a corner of the world, not reached by the public
posts, isolated by the great river to the E. and the mountain chains to the W.,
peopled by half-leavened heathen, Christianity there assumed many strange forms,
sometimes hardly recognizable caricatures of the truth. Eunomians, Arians, Marcionites,
and others who still more wildly distorted the pure faith abounded. To the recovery
of these Theodoret devoted his youthful ardour and still undiminished strength,
at personal risk. "often," he writes, "have I shed my blood; often have I been stoned;
nay, brought down before my time to the very gates of death." Nor were his labours
fruitless. Eight villages polluted by Marcionite errors, with their neighbouring
hamlets comprising more than a thousand souls, one village filled with Eunomians,
another with Arians, were brought back to the sound faith. He could boast with all
honesty to pope Leo I. in 449 that by the help of his prayers not a single plant
of tares was left among them, and that his whole flock had been delivered from heretical
errors (Epp. 81, 113, 116, vol. vi. pp. 1141; 1190, 1197). He carried his
campaign against error, which embraced Jews and heathen as well as misbelieving
Christians, beyond his own diocese. He was unwearied in preaching, and his acquaintance
with the Syrian vernacular enabled him to reach the poorest and most ignorant. His
care for the temporal interests and material prosperity of his diocese was no less
remarkable. The city of Cyrrhus, though the winter quarters of the tenth legion,
could boast little dignity or architectural beauty. He calls it "a small and desolate
city," with but "few inhabitants, and those poor," whose ugliness he had striven
to redeem by costly buildings erected at his own expense (Ep. 183, p. 1231).
>From his own ecclesiastical revenues—which cannot have been small—he erected public
porticos, two large bridges, and public baths, and, finding the city without any
regular water-supply, constructed an aqueduct, and by a catchwater drain guarded
the city against inundation from the marshes (Epp. 79, 81). These works attracted
architects and engineers to the city, and afforded remunerative employment to many
people, for whose benefit he secured the help of presbyters skilled in medical science
(Epp. 114, 115). Finding that the severity of the state imposts caused many
to throw up their farms, leaving the civil authorities to make good their deficiency,
a liability they were seeking to avoid by flight, he wrote to the empress Pulcheria,
entreating her to lighten so intolerable a burden (Ep. 43, p. 1102), as well
as to the patrician Anatolius (Ep. 45, p. 1104). With considerable trouble
he obtained from Palestine relics of prophets, apostles, and
The critical period in the life of Theodoret was in connexion with the Nestorian
controversy, through which he is chiefly known to us. His personal share in it began
towards the end of 430, with the receipt by John, the patriarch of Antioch, of the
letters of Celestine and Cyril, relative to the condemnation of the doctrines of
Nestorius obtained by the Western bishops in Aug. 429. The high-handed behaviour
of the patriarchs of Rome and Alexandria towards the bp. of the new Rome, a personal
friend of long standing to both of them, was no less offensive to Theodoret than
to John. When these documents arrived, Theodoret was at Antioch with other bishops
of the province. The admirable letter (see Labbe, iii. 390 seq.; Baluz. col. 445,
c. xxi.) despatched in the name of John and his suffragans to Nestorius, exhorting
him to give up his objections to the term "Theotokos," seeing that its true sense
was part of the Church's faith, and entreating him not to throw the whole of Christendom
into confusion for the sake of a word, has been with great show of probability ascribed
to the practised pen of Theodoret. The controversy was speedily rendered much fiercer
by the publication of Cyril's celebrated twelve "Anathematisms" or "Articles." Designed
to crush one form of heretical teaching as regards our Lord's personal nature, these
"articles" (detached, against Cyril's intention, from the letter on which they were
based) hardly escaped falling into the opposite error. The Godhead of Christ was
asserted with such emphasis that to some readers His manhood might seem obscured.
John was shocked at what he deemed the positive affinity to Apollinarian doctrine
of some of these articles, and applied first to Andreas of Samosata and then to
Theodoret to confute them. Theodoret readily replied to the anathematisms seriatim.
So completely at variance with orthodoxy did he regard them, that in the letter
to John (reckoned as Ep. 150) prefixed to his observations upon them, he
expresses a suspicion that some "enemies of the truth" had been sheltering themselves
under Cyril's name. For the nature of these documents and for the objections urged
by Theodoret and his friends, which, with much that is illogical and inconsistent,
contain much that is prima facie Nestorian see CYRILLUS.
The documents were prior to the council of Ephesus and to the formal condemnation
of Nestorius then passed. At that gathering Theodoret, accompanying his metropolitan,
Alexander of Hierapolis, was among the earlier comers, anticipating the Oriental
brethren, whose arrival he, with 68 bishops, vainly urged should be waited for before
the council opened (Baluz. c. vii. 697–699). On the arrival of John and his Oriental
brethren, Theodoret at once united himself to them, and gave his voice for the deposition
and excommunication of Cyril, Memnon, and their adherents (Labbe, iii. 597–599).
He took part also in the proceedings which ensued, when the "concilium" and the
"conciliabulum" launched thunderbolts against each other, deposing and excommunicating.
Theodoret was one of the Oriental commissioners to the emperor Theodosius II. at
Constantinople, representing his metropolitan Alexander (ib. 728). The deputies
not being allowed to enter Constantinople, audiences with the emperor were held
at Chalcedon, Sept. 431. Theodoret's name appears in the letters and other documents
passing between the Oriental party at Ephesus and their representatives in Chalcedon,
in which much was said and written in a bitter spirit (Labbe, vol. iii. 724–746;
Theod. ed. Schulze, vol. iv. pp. 1336–1354). Of the five sessions held at Chalcedon
the proceedings of the first alone are recorded. We have also a few scanty fragments
of speeches and homilies of Theodoret at this period, characterized by distressing
acrimony (Theod. ed. Schulze, vol. v. pp. 104–109), and a letter of his to Alexander
of Hierapolis, whom he was representing, informing him how matters were going on
at Chalcedon, telling him of the popularity of the deputies with the people, who,
in spite of the hostility of the clergy and monks by whom they had been repeatedly
stoned, flocked to hear them, assembling in a large court surrounded with porticos,
the churches being closed against them; but Theodoret laments their ill-success
with the emperor. Before the deputies finally left Chalcedon, the Orientals delivered
addresses to the adherents of the deposed Nestorius who had crossed the Bosphorus
from Constantinople. The first of these was by Theodoret. He and his companions,
he said, were shut out from the royal city on account of their fidelity to Christ,
but the Heavenly Jerusalem was still open to them. On their way home from Ephesus
the Orientals, Theodoret among them, held a synod at Tarsus and renewed the sentence
of deposition on Cyril in conjunction with the seven orthodox deputies to Theodosius
II., which they published in a circular letter. They engaged also never to abandon
Nestorius. Theodoret returned to his diocese, and devoted himself to composing a
fresh work assailing the obnoxious anathematisms, entitled Pentalogus, from
its division into five books. Only a few fragments remain. Other treatises he wrote
then are lost. But we have, in a Latin version, a long letter addressed to the followers
of Nestorius at Constantinople, declaring his adherence to the orthodox faith, although
he had felt unable to acquiesce in the condemnation of Nestorius, not believing
that the doctrines ascribed to him were actually held by him (Baluz. Synod.
c. 40, 742). Cyril found it impossible to accept the terms proposed in Theodoret's
articles. He explained his objections in a
The succession of Dioscorus to Cyril's patriarchal throne led to fresh trials
for Theodoret. Dioscorus was resolved to bring about Theodoret's overthrow, as Theodoret
was one of the first to discern the nascent heresy of Eutyches, and directed the
powers of a well-trained intellect and great theological learning to exposing it.
The ear of the emperor was gained, and Theodoret was represented as a turbulent
busybody, constantly at Antioch and other cities, taking part in councils and assemblies
instead of attending to his diocese; a troublesome agitator, stirring up strife
wherever he moved (Ep. 79, p. 1135, etc.). He was also accused on theological
grounds. Dioscorus, who seems to have regarded himself as "the lawful inheritor
of Cyril's guardianship of anti-Nestorian orthodoxy," wrote to Theodoret's patriarch,
Domnus, who c. 442 had succeeded his uncle John in the see of Antioch, informing
him that Theodoret was creating a crypto-Nestorian party, practically teaching Nestorianism
under another name and striking at "the one Nature of the Incarnate." These accusations
were accepted at court, and Dioscorus obtained an imperial edict (dated by Tillemont
From the "Latrocinium" or "Robbers' Synod," at Ephesus (449) [DIOSCORUS;
EUTYCHES], Theodoret was
excluded by an imperial edict of
Dioscorus was now master of the whole Eastern church; "il règne partout." Theodoret knew that deposition was usually followed by exile, and prepared for the worst. He was allowed to retire to his monastery near Apamea (Ep. 119, p. 1202). An appeal to the West, forbidden him in person by Theodosius, was now prosecuted by letter, which, though addressed to Leo individually, was really meant for the bishops of the West assembled in the synod, to which he begs his cause may be submitted (Mém. eccl. xv. 294). "In this remarkable letter," writes Dr. Bright (Hist. of Church, p. 395), "he traces the primacy of Rome to her civil greatness, her soundness of faith, and her possession of the graves of the apostles Peter and Paul. He eulogizes the exact and comprehensive orthodoxy with which the Tome of Leo conveys the full mind of the Holy Spirit." He entreats Leo "to decide whether he ought to submit to the recent sentence. He awaits his decision. He will acquiesce in it, whatever it be, committing himself to the judgment of his God and Saviour." Theodosius continued to pay no heed to the remonstrances of Leo, asserting that everything had been decided at Ephesus with complete freedom and in accordance with the truth, and that the prelates there deposed merited their fate for innovations in the faith. The interposition of Pulcheria and of the Western princesses was employed in vain. On July 29, 450, Theodosius II. was killed by a fall from his horse, and the imperial dignity passed to the resolute hands of the orthodox Pulcheria and her soldier-husband Marcian. All was now changed. Eutychianism became the losing cause, and the orthodox sufferers were speedily recalled. Theodoret appears to have been mentioned by name in the edict of recall. The stigma of heterodoxy was speedily removed from him. There is no reason to doubt that he was one of the bishops who signed the Tome of Leo, prefixing a short résumé of his own faith regarding the Incarnation, and that on this Leo recognized him as a Catholic bishop (Tillem. xv. 304; Baron. 450, §§ 22–24). Though now at liberty to go where he pleased, Theodoret preferred to remain in his monastery (Ep. 146). His chief desire was to witness the complete triumph of truth, and to convince others of the purity of his own teaching. This desire he saw in part fulfilled. But for his complete satisfaction an oecumenical council was necessary, and to bring that about he laboured with all his might.
The council of Chalcedon met on Oct. 8, 451. Theodoret's entrance was the signal for outrageous violence on the part of the adherents of Dioscorus. The hall re-echoed with cries and counter-cries which interrupted all proceedings. Theodoret sat down "in the midst," not among his brother-bishops. He continued to attend the sessions of the council, but without voting, and taking no part in the deposition of Dioscorus. His own cause came on at the eighth session, Oct. 26. Although his orthodoxy had been acknowledged by Leo and his restoration required by the emperor, the anti-Nestorian section would not hear of his recognition as a bishop until he had in express terms anathematized Nestorius. This step he had repeatedly declared he would never take, and he now tried to satisfy the remonstrants with something short of it, but in vain. Wearied out, at last he yielded to their clamour and pronounced the test words, "Anathema to Nestorius, and to every one who denies that the Holy Virgin Mary is the mother of God, and who divides the one Son, the Only-begotten, into two Sons." The imperial commissioners now declared that all doubt had been removed and that Theodoret should now receive back his bishopric. The whole assembly raised the cry that Theodoret was worthy of his throne, and that the church must receive back her orthodox teacher. The leading bishops voted for his restoration, the rest signified their assent by acclamation, and the commissioners gave sentence that by the decree of the holy council Theodoret should receive again the church of Cyrrhus (Labbe, iv. 619–624).
But few years remained to Theodoret, and of these very little is known. It is not even certain whether he returned to his episcopal duties at Cyrrhus or remained in the quiet Apamean monastery, devoting himself to literary labours. Tillemont thinks that he probably did not live beyond 453. But if the statement of Gennadius (c. 89) be true, that his death took place under the emperor Leo, he must have lived till 457 or 458.
His writings may be divided roughly into I. Exegetical, on the Scriptures of O. and N. T. II. Controversial, dealing with the anathematisms of Cyril, the Eutychian heresy, and, in a work written towards the end of his life, with heresies in general. III. Theological, including the Graecarum affectionum Curatio, Orations on Divine Providence, and sundry orations and lesser treatises. IV. Historical, and V. Epistolary.
I. Exegetical.—These include works on (1) the Octateuch, (2) the books of Sam., Kings, and Chron., (3) the Pss., (4) the Canticles, (5) the Major Prophets, (6) the Twelve Minor Prophets, (7) the Fourteen Epistles of St. Paul, including that to the Hebrews. The work on the Octateuch consists of answers to difficult points, for the most part characterized by the sound common-sense literalism of the Antiochene school, with but little tendency to allegory. He often, instead of his own opinion, cites that of his great masters Diodorus of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Origen. In Leviticus and Numbers he naturally adopts more of the allegorical method, regarding the whole Levitical ritual and the moral ordinances as typical of the sacrificial and mediatorial work of Christ, and of the new law He came to inaugurate. The commentary on the Canticles was his earliest exegetical work. He controverts the opinion that this book contains the story of the earthly loves of Solomon either with Pharaoh's daughter or with Abishag, or that it is a political allegory, in which the bridegroom represents the monarch and the bride the people, and adopts the spiritual interpretation by which the bridegroom stands for Jesus Christ and the bride for the church. From one passage in the very interesting prologue we learn that Theodoret held the then current opinion, that the whole of the O.T. books having been burnt under Manasseh and other godless kings, or destroyed during the Captivity, Ezra was divinely inspired to rewrite them word for word on the return from the Captivity. He denounces the iniquity of the Jews, who had excluded Daniel from the prophets and placed his book among the Hagiographa, because no prophet had so clearly predicted the advent of Jesus Christ, and the very time of His appearance. The only portions of the N.T. commented on by him are the Epistles of St. Paul, including that to the Hebrews. Of these bp. Lightfoot writes, "His commentaries on St. Paul are superior to his other exegetical writings, and have been assigned the palm over all patristic expositions of Scripture. For appreciation, terseness, and good sense they are perhaps unsurpassed, and if the absence of faults were a just standard of merit, they would deserve the first place; but they have little claim to originality, and he who has read Chrysostom and Theodore of Mopsuestia will find scarcely anything in Theodoret which he has not seen before. It is right to add, however, that Theodoret himself modestly disclaims any such merit. In his preface he apologizes for attempting to interpret St. Paul after two such men who are 'luminaries of the world,' and he professes nothing more than to gather his stores 'from the blessed Fathers."' (Gal. p. 220).
II. Controversial.—(1) The Refutation of the Twelve Anathematisms of Cyril. (2) Eranistes or Polymorphus, "a work of remarkable interest and of permanent value for theological students, to be read in connexion with the Tome of Leo and the definitions of Chalcedon" (Bright, Later Treatises of Athanas. p. 177). It consists of three dialogues between the "Mendicant" 'Ερανίστης who represents Eutychianism, and Theodoret himself as Ὀρθόδοξος. Their respective titles indicate the line adopted in each. These are Ἀτρεπτος, Immutabilis, Ἀσύγχυτος, Inconfusus, and Ἀπαθής, Impatibilis. (3) Λἱρετικῆς Κακομυθίας ἐπιτομή, Haereticarum Fabularum Compendium, a work directed against heresies in general, in five books. The fourth book, the most important as treating of matters with which he was more or less personally acquainted, begins with the heresies of Arius and Eunomius and comes down to those of Nestorius and Eutyches. His disgracefully violent language with regard to his former friend Nestorius—whom he stigmatizes as an instrument of Satan, a man who by his pride had plunged the church into disorders, and under the cloak of orthodoxy introduced the denial of the Divinity and of the Incarnation of the Only-begotten Son, and who at last met with the punishment he deserved, a sign of his future punishment—would warrant the charitable hope that this chapter has been erroneously ascribed to Theodoret. Of this, however, there is no evidence, and we are, though most reluctantly, compelled to accept it as his work, together with the equally atrocious letter to Sporacius on the Nestorian heresy. It is accepted by Photius (Cod. 56) and Leontius of Byzantius (art. 4, de Sectis) (cf. Neander, iv. p. 246, note, Ceillier, Aut. ecclés. x. 84).
III. Theological.—The chief is an apologetic treatise, intended to exhibit the confirmations of the truth of the Christian faith contained in the philosophical systems of the Gentiles, under the title Ἑληνικῶν θεραπευτικὴ παθημάτων, Graecarum Affectionum Curatio, seu Evangelicae Veritatis ex Gentilium Philosophia Cognitio. It is in 12 discourses, and furnishes a very able and eloquent defence of Christianity against the ridicule and ignorant accusations of pagan philosophers, written probably before 437. It was followed by another of a similar character, in ten orations, on Divine Providence, regarded by the best critics as exhibiting Theodoret's literary power in its highest form, as regards the careful selection of thoughts, nobility of language, elegance and purity of style, and the force and sequence of his arguments (Ceillier, p. 88, § 10). To these may be added a discourse on Charity, περὶ θείας καὶ ἁγίας ἀγάπης (Schulze, 14, 1296 seq.) and some fragments of sermons, etc., given by Garnier (Auctarium, ib. t. v. pp. 71 seq.).
IV. Historical.—This class contains two works of very different character
and of very different value: (1) the Ecclesiastical History, and (2) the
Religious History. (1) The former, in five books, was intended to form a
continuation of that of Eusebius. It commences with the rise of Arianism under Constantius
and closes with the death of Theodore of Mopsuestia,
A.D. 429. From his opening words he
has been thought to have had in view the histories of Socrates and Sozomen, and
to have written to supply their omissions and correct their mistakes (Valesius).
This is questioned by some, and must be regarded as doubtful. He gives more original
documents than either of his brother-historians, but is very chary of dates, and
writes generally without sufficient chronological exactness. Photius finds fault
with his too great fondness for metaphor, while he praises his style as "clear,
lofty, and
V. Epistolary.—No portion of Theodoret's literary remains exceeds in interest and value the large collection of his letters. As throwing light on his personal history and character, and as helping us to understand the perplexed relations of the principal actors in that stormy period of theological strife and their various shades of theological opinion, their importance cannot be over-estimated. They give us a heightened esteem of Theodoret himself, his intellectual power, theological precision, warm-hearted affection, and Christian virtues. An Eng. trans. of this remarkable series of letters, arranged according to date and subject, is much to be desired.
The Auctarium of Garnier also contains the following: (1) Prolegomena and Extracts of Commentaries on the Psalms, probably derived from Catenae. (2) A Short Extract from a Commentary on St. Luke. (3) Sermon on the Nativity of S. John Baptist. (4) Homily spoken at Chalcedon in 431. (5) Fifteen additional letters of Theodoret. (6) Seven dialogues composed a little before the council of Ephesus, 2 each against Anomoeans and Apollinarians, and 3 against Macedonians. Their authorship is doubtful; they have been ascribed to Athanasius or Maximus, but Garnier claims them for Theodoret.
Editions.—There are 2 edd. of his complete works in Gk. and Lat.; the first in 4 vols. fol. (Paris, 1642 ), by the Jesuit Jac. Sirmond, to which a 5th vol. was added after Sirmond's death by his fellow-Jesuit, J. Garnier (Paris, 1684), containing an auctarium, comprising fragments of commentaries and sermons and some additional letters, together with Garnier's 5 learned but most one-sided dissertations on (1) the life, (2) the writings, (3) the faith of Theodoret, (4) on the fifth general council, and (5) the cause of Theodoret and the Orientals. This was succeeded by another ed. based on it, with additions and corrections by Lud. Schulze and J. A. Noesselt (Halae Sax. 1769–1774), in 5 vols. and in 10 parts. To this edition our references are made. The ed. of T. Gaisford is pub. by the Clarendon Press. There is a trans. of Theodoret's works in Bohn's Lib. (Bell), and by Blomfield Jackson in Lib. of Post-Nicene Fathers. Cf. N. Ghibokowski, The Blessed Theodoret, bp. of Cyrus (Moscow, 1890, 2vols.); Harnack in Theol. Literatur Zeitung (1890), p. 502.
Theodoricus (1) I. (Theodericus), chosen king of the Visigoths on the death of Valia, A.D. 419. He was the real founder of the West Gothic kingdom. On his accession the Visigoths held nothing in Spain, but occupied in Gaul Aquitania Secunda, the region lying, roughly speaking, between the Loire and the Garonne, with some neighbouring cities, of which Toulouse, their capital, was the most important. This territory had been ceded to Valia as the price of the foedus with Rome. The history of Theodoric's reign consists of a series of endeavours to extend this territory when the Romans were otherwise occupied, with intervals of renewal of the foedus, the Goths, however, retaining what they had won. In the great battle of the Mauriac plains Theodoric, who was advanced in life, fell from his horse and was trampled to death by his own troops (A.D. 451). Salvian (de Gub. Dei, vii. 154) praises him for his piety, to which he attributes the defeat of the self-confident Litorius. Though, like the rest of his race, an Arian, he did not persecute the Catholics. Prosper and Idatius, Chronica; Jordanes, Get. 34–40; Isidorus, Hist. Goth., Hist. Suev., Dahn, Die Könige der Germanen, v. 71.
Theodoricus (3) (Theodericus), the Ostrogoth, king in Italy. The
second is the spelling of all inscriptions (Mommsen, Jordanes, 144). He was
the son of Thiudimer by his concubine Erelieva, and was born probably in 454. His
father was the second brother of Valamir, king of the Ostrogoths, Vidimer being
the third. The three lived in amity, occupying N. Pannonia, the part of the tribe
under Thiudimer being settled near Lake Pelso at Theodoric's birth. He succeeded
his father in 474 or 475 and assisted in 477 in Zeno's restoration. In 487 Zeno
induced Theodoric to undertake an expedition to Italy for the purpose of overthrowing
Odoacer. Theodoric willingly consented; his people, who in the course of their wanderings
had mostly settled in Lower Moesia, Nova near Rustchuk being his capital, were discontented
with their settlements; and in the autumn of 488 they started. It was not the march
of an army, but the migration of a whole people. Their progress by Sirmium and Pannonia
was slow, impeded by the winter weather and the opposition of the Gepidae and Sarmatians;
not till the summer of 489 did they force their way through the Julian Alps into
Italy. For the events of the war, terminated in
His first care after the overthrow of Odoacer was to arrange the settlement of his followers in Italy. A third part of the lands was distributed to them. The Goths were very unequally distributed. In Calabria and Apulia there were none (Procop. i. x1); they began to appear in Samnium, and then increased to the N. and E., the settlements being thickest in the Aemilia and Venetia. The Goths were probably settled by families and tribes (Var. v. 27), and did not, like the Vandals, clear out and occupy the whole of a continuous province. Their dispersion among the previous inhabitants had many important consequences, the most important perhaps being the increase of the royal power, which was further strengthened by Theodoric uniting to his hereditary kingship the derelict prerogatives of the Western emperor. He governed the two nations—the Romans and the Goths—who lived side by side without intermingling, in a twofold capacity: the former as the successor of the emperor, the latter as the king of immemorial antiquity. The Roman forms of government were kept up; the senate met, and Theodoric submitted his appointments of patricians, consuls, etc., for their ratification. The Roman systems of taxation and administration were maintained. The Goths, like the Romans, had to pay taxes, but their special obligation was that of military service. Theodoric's care for his dominions is shewn by the multifarious subjects of the Variarum—e.g. drainage of marshes, regulations of the posting service, repairs of harbours, roads, and public buildings, such as Pompey's theatre and the cloacae at Rome, fortifications, searches for mines, etc. Under his firm rule Italy enjoyed 33 years of peace and prosperity such as she had not known for nearly a century, and was not to know again for generations.
The state of affairs in Gaul after 507 demanded Theodoric's interference. When his negotiations failed to prevent a breach between Clovis and his son-in-law Alaric, and when the rout and death of Alaric threatened that all Gaul, and perhaps Spain, would pass into the hands of the Franks, he felt compelled to interpose. The result was the preservation of Spain and the district of Narbonne or Septimania for the Visigoths, and the acquisition by Theodoric of a territory corresponding with the modern Provence, including Arles and Marseilles. He was thus placed in immediate communication with the Visigoths, among whose kings he is reckoned by Spanish historians as guardian of his infant grandson.
Though, like his countrymen, an Arian, Theodoric for most of his reign acted not only with impartiality but favour to the Catholics, some holding high offices under him. On his one recorded visit to Rome in 500, where he spent six months (An. Val., Cassiod. Chron.), he gave magnificent presents to St. Peter's as if he had been a Catholic; he was on friendly terms with the most eminent bishops, such as EPIPHANIUS, whom he employed on an embassy to the Burgundians to obtain the release of the prisoners taken in their inroads into N. Italy during the war with Odoacer; and in his interference in the troubles following the disputed election of SYMMACHUS and LAURENTIUS he seems to have acted solely with a view to benefit the church. Nor did he object to the nullification by the synod, under Symmachus, of Odoacer's law against the alienation of ecclesiastical property, on the ground that it rested only on lay authority. He was careful also not to infringe on the privileges of the church, and extended his protection to the Jews.
During most of his reign the difficulties of his position were much lightened by the schism between the Eastern and Western churches. To the pope and the orthodox party a Eutychian emperor was as hateful as an Arian king. But when in 518 Anastasius was succeeded by Justin and the 37 years' schism was ended by the complete triumph of HORMISDAS, whose negotiations with the East had been conducted by Theodoric's permission (Vita Hormisdae), the obstacle to the desires of the orthodox Romans for reunion with the empire was removed. On the Eastern side the breach was widened by the persecution of heretics, commenced by Justin in 523. By the law of that year (Cod. i. v. 12), heretics were subjected to many civil and religious disabilities. The Goths serving in the army (foederati) were exempted from its provisions, but must, like the rest of their co-religionists, have felt the next measure, the seizure of all the churches belonging to heretics. Theodoric appears to have intended to occupy the churches of the Catholics and hand them over to the Arians as reprisals for the similar treatment they had experienced in the East, when he was seized with illness, and died Aug. 30, 526. He apparently never had a son. His only surviving daughter Amalasuintha he had given in marriage in 515 to Eutharic, a descendant of the Amals, whose consulship in 519 was celebrated with great magnificence at Rome. He died before Theodoric, leaving one son, Athalaric, whom his grandfather, shortly before his death, declared king, under the regency of his mother.
Theodoric was a great builder. He restored the aqueducts at Verona and Ravenna,
built palaces at Verona and Ravenna, and baths
Almost our only source of information as to his internal administration is the Variarum of Cassiodorus (vid. Mr. Hodgkin's preface to this work). Of modern writings, Dahn's Könige der Germanen, ii.–iv. is the most valuable. Du Roure has published a Life of Theodoric, and there is a brilliant sketch in Gibbon, c. 39, of his rule in Italy.
Theodoricus (5) I. (Thierry, Theuderich), king of the Franks (511–533), one of the four sons of Clovis, by a concubine. He was considerably older than his three half-brothers, the sons of Clotilda, and had a grown-up son, Theodebert, when his father died (Greg. Tur. Hist. Franc. ii. 28, iii. 1) in 511. The four sons divided the kingdom, nominally into equal portions, but really Theodoric, owing probably to his greater age and capacity, obtained the largest portion. His capital was Metz, and his kingdom comprised the Ripuarian Frankish territory, Champagne, the eastern portion of Aquitaine and the old Salian Frankish possessions to the Kohlenwald (Richter, Annalen, p. 46). Fauriel says that besides Frankish Germany he had so much of Gaul as lies between the Rhine and the Meuse and, as his share of Aquitaine, the Auvergne with the Velai and Gévaudan, its dependencies, the Limousin in part or whole, and certain other cantons of less importance (Hist. de la Gaule Mérid. ii. 92). Theodoric died in 533. He was a strong and capable king, but to the ferocity and lawlessness of his race he added an unscrupulous cunning of his own (ib. iii. 7). His attitude towards the church seems to have been one of indifference, influenced neither by fear nor superstition. Orthodoxy had been so useful a political weapon to his father that the son was presumably a professing Christian, though he is not mentioned among the members of Clovis's family baptized by St. Remigius. He did not shrink from involving churches in his army's pillage and destruction in the Auvergne (iii. 12), and though. he exalted St. Quintian, bp. of Clermont, it was not as a priest, but as a partisan who had suffered in his cause (iii. 2), while he bitterly persecuted Desiderius, bp. of Verdun (iii. 34). He has the credit of reducing to writing and amending the laws of the Franks, Alamanni, and Bavarians (Migne, Patr. Lat. lxxi. 1163).
Theodorus (6) Askidas (ὁ Ἀσκιδᾶς), archbp. of Caesarea in Cappadocia, the chief supporter of Origen's views in the first half of cent. vi. and the originator of the celebrated controversy concerning the "Three Chapters." The general history of his life belongs to that subject; we now give merely a brief outline. He was a monk of the convent of Nova Laura in Palestine, and made, c. 537, archbp. of Caesarea under Justinian. He supported the views of Origen when they were persecuted in Palestine. He secretly favoured Monophysite views, and, when Justinian condemned Origen, saw a chance of condemning the great authorities on the Nestorian side, Theodoret, Theodore, and Ibas. Working, therefore, through the empress Theodora, he persuaded Justinian to attempt to reconcile the Monophysite party; Justinian, at his suggestion, issuing his celebrated edict which gave rise to the great controversy concerning the Three Chapters. At the general council of Constantinople archbp. Theodore subscribed the condemnation of Origen on the one hand, and of Theodoret, Theodore, and Ibas on the other. He died probably c. 558 at Constantinople. The Testimonium of Theodore and of Cethegus the patrician concerning the contradictions of pope Vigilius about the Three Chapters is in Mansi, t. ix. col. 363 (Ceill. xi. 327, 865, 881; Hefele's Councils, § 258).
Theodorus (26), bp. of Mopsuestia; also known, from the place of his birth and presbyterate, as Theodore of Antioch, the most prominent representative of te middle Antiochene school of hermeneutics.
I. Life and Work.—Theodore was born at Antioch c. 350 (see Fritzsche,
de Th. M. V. et Scr. pp. 1–4, for the chronology; cf. Kihn, Theodor u.
Junilius, p. 39, n. 1). His father held an official position at Antioch, and
the family was wealthy (Chrys. ad Th. Laps. ii. in Migne, Patr. Gk.
xlvii. 209). Theodore's cousin, Paeanius, to whom several of Chrysostom's letters
are addressed (Epp. 95, 193, 204, 220, in Migne, lii.), held an important
post of civil government; his brother Polychronius became bp. of the metropolitan
see of Apamea. Theodore first appears as the early companion and friend of Chrysostom,
his fellow-townsman, his equal in rank, and but two or three years his senior in
age. Together with their common friend Maximus, afterwards bp. of Isaurian Seleucia,
Chrysostom and Theodore attended the lectures of the sophist Libanius (Socr. vi.
3; cf. Soz. viii. 1), then at Antioch in the zenith of his fame. We have the assurance
of Sozomen that he enjoyed a philosophical education (l.c.). Chrysostom credits
his friend with diligent study, but the luxurious life of polite Antioch seems to
have received an equal share of his thoughts. When Chrysostom himself had been reclaimed
from the pleasures of the world by the influence of Basil, he succeeded in winning
Maximus and Theodore to the same mind. The three friends left Libanius and sought
a retreat in the monastic school (ἀσκητήριον)
of Carterius and Diodorus, to which Basil was already attached. Whether Theodore
had been previously baptized is doubtful; Chrysostom, however, speaks of him shortly
afterwards in terms which seem to imply his baptism (ad Th. Laps.). He gave
himself to the new learning with characteristic energy. His days, as his friend
testifies, were spent in reading, his nights in prayer; he fasted long, lay on the
bare ground, and practised every form of ascetic self-discipline; he was full withal
of light-hearted joy, as having found the service of Christ to be perfect freedom.
His conversion was speedy, sincere, and marvellously complete, but was followed
by a reaction which threatened an utter collapse of his new-found life. He had but
just resigned himself to a celibate life when he
Chrysostom's connexion with Diodore was probably broken off in 374, when he plunged into a more complete monastic seclusion; Theodore's seems to have continued until the elevation of Diodore to the see of Tarsus a.d. 378. During this period doubtless the foundations were laid of Theodore's acquaintance with Holy Scripture and ecclesiastical doctrine, and he was imbued for life with the principles of scriptural interpretation which Diodore had inherited from an earlier generation of Antiochenes, and with the peculiar views of the Person of Christ into which the master had been led by his antagonism to Apollinarius. The latter years of this decade witnessed Theodore's first appearance as a writer. He began with a commentary on the Psalms, in which the method of Diodore was exaggerated, and which he lived to repent of (Facund. iii. 6, x. 1; v. infra, § III.). The orthodox at Antioch, it seems, resented the loss of the traditional Messianic interpretation, and, if we may trust Hesychius, Theodore was compelled to promise that he would commit his maiden work to the flames—an engagement he contrived to evade (Mansi, ix. 284).
Gennadius (de Vir. Ill. 12) represents Theodore as a presbyter of the church of Antioch; and from a letter of John of Antioch (Facund. ii. 2) we gather that 45 years elapsed between his ordination and his death. It seems, therefore, that he was ordained priest at Antioch a.d. 383, in his 33rd year, the ordaining bishop being doubtless Flavian, Diodore's old friend and fellow-labourer, whose "loving disciple" Theodore now became (John of Antioch, ap. Facund. l.c.). The epithet seems to imply that Theodore was an attached adherent of the Meletian party; but there is no evidence that he mixed himself up with the feuds which for some years after Flavian's consecration distracted the Catholics of Antioch. Theodore's great treatise on the Incarnation (Gennad. l.c.) belongs to this period, possibly also more than one of his commentaries on the O.T. As a preacher he seems to have now attained some eminence in the field of polemics (Facund. viii. 4). Theodore is said by Hesychius of Jerusalem (Mansi, ix. 248) to have left Antioch while yet a priest and betaken himself to Tarsus, until 392, when he was consecrated to the see of Mopsuestia, vacant by the death of Olympius, probably through the influence and by the hands of Diodore. Here he spent his remaining 36 years of life (Theodoret, l.c.).
Mopsuestia was a free town (Pliny) upon the Pyramus, between Tarsus and Issus, some 40 miles from either, and 12 from the sea. It belonged to Cilicia Secunda, of which the metropolitan see was Anazarbus. In the 4th cent. it was of some importance, famous for its bridge, thrown over the Pyramus by Constantine. It is now the insignificant town Mensis, or Messis (D. of G. and R. Geogr.).
Theodore's long episcopate was marked by no striking incidents. His letters, long known to the Nestorians of Syria as the Book of Pearls, are lost; his followers have left us few personal recollections. In 394 he attended a synod at Constantinople on a question which concerned the see of Bostra in the partiarchate of Antioch (Mansi, iii. 851; cf. Hefele, ii. 406). Theodore preached, probably on this occasion, before the emperor Theodosius I., who was then starting for his last journey to the West. The sermon made a deep impression, and Theodosius, who had sat at the feet of St. Ambrose and St. Gregory of Nazianzus, declared that he had never met with such a teacher (John of Antioch, ap. Facund. ii. 2). The younger Theodosius inherited his grandfather's respect for Theodore, and often wrote to him. Another glimpse of Theodore's episcopal life is supplied by a letter of Chrysostom to him from Cucusus (a.d. 404–407) (Chrys. Ep. 212, Migne, Iii. 668). The exiled patriarch "can never forget the love of Theodore, so genuine and warm, so sincere and guileless, a love maintained from early years, and manifested but now." Chrysostom (Ep. 204) thanks him profoundly for frequent though ineffectual efforts to obtain his release. No titles of honour, no terms of affection, seem too strong to be lavished on his friend. Finally, he assures Theodore that, "exile as he is, he reaps no ordinary consolation from having such a treasure, such a mine of wealth within his heart, as the love of so vigilant and noble a soul." Higher testimony could not have been borne, or by a more competent judge; and so much was this felt by Theodore's enemies at the fifth council that they vainly made efforts to deny the identity of Chrysostom's correspondent with the bp. of Mopsuestia.
Notwithstanding his literary activity, Theodore worked zealously for the good
of his diocese. The famous letter of Ibas (Mansi, vii. 247; Facund. vii. 7) testifies
that he converted Mopsuestia to the truth, i.e. extinguished Arianism and
other heresies there. Several of his works are doubtless monuments of these pastoral
labours, e.g. the catechetical lectures, the ecthesis, and possibly the treatise
on "Persian Magic." Yet his episcopal work was by no means simply that of a diocesan
bishop. Everywhere he was regarded as "the herald of the truth and the doctor of
the church"; "even distant churches received instruction from him." So boasts Ibas
to Maris, and his letter was read without a dissentient voice at the council of
Chalcedon (Facund. ii. i seq.). Theodore "expounded Scripture in all the churches
of the East," says John of Antioch (ib. ii. 2) with Oriental hyperbole, and
adds that in his lifetime Theodore
Theodore's last years were perplexed by a new controversy. When in 418 the Pelagian leaders were deposed and exiled from the West, they sought in the East the sympathy of the chief living representative of the school of Antioch. The fact is recorded by Marius Mercator, who makes the most of it (Praef. ad Symb. Theod. Mop. 72). With Theodore they probably remained till 422, when Julian returned to Italy. Julian's visit was doubtless the occasion upon which Theodore wrote his book Against the Defenders of Original Sin. Mercator charges Theodore with having turned against Julian as soon as the latter had left Mopsuestia, and anathematized him in a provincial synod (op. cit. 3). The synod can hardly be a fabrication, since Mercator was a contemporary writer; but it was very possibly convened, as Fritzsche suggests, without any special reference to the Pelagian question. If Theodore then read his ecthesis, the anathema with which that ends might have been represented outside the council as a synodical condemnation of the Pelagian chiefs. Mercator's words, in fact, point to this explanation.
A greater heresiarch than Julian visited Mopsuestia in the last year of Theodore's life. It is stated by Evagrius (H. E. i. 2; Migne, lxxxvi. 2425) that Nestorius, on his way from Antioch to Constantinople (a.d. 428), took counsel with Theodore and received from him the seeds of heresy which he shortly afterwards scattered with such disastrous results. Evagrius makes this statement on the authority of one Theodulus, a person otherwise unknown. We may safely reject it, so far as it derives the Christology of Nestorius from this single interview. The germ of the Nestorian doctrine was in the teaching of Diodore and in the earliest works of Theodore; it could not have been new to Nestorius, as a prominent teacher of the church of Antioch.
Towards the close of 428 (Theodoret, H. E. v. 39) Theodore died, worn out by 50 years (Facund. ii. 2) of literary and pastoral toil, at the age of 78, having been all his life engaged in controversy, and more than once in conflict with the popular notions of orthodoxy; yet he departed, as Facundus (ii. 1) triumphantly points out, in the peace of the church and at the height of a great reputation. The storm was gathering, but did not break till he was gone.
II. Posthumous History.—The popularity of Theodore was increased by his
death. Meletius, his successor at Mopsuestia, protested that his life would have
been in danger if he had uttered a word against his predecessor (Tillem. Mém.
xii. p. 442). "We believe as Theodore believed; long live the faith of Theodore!"
was a cry often heard in the churches of the East (Cyril. Alex. Ep. 69).
"We had rather be burnt than condemn Theodore," was the reply of the bishops of
Syria to the party eager for his condemnation (Ep. 72). The flame was fed
by leading men who had been disciples of the Interpreter: by Theodoret, who regarded
him as a "doctor of the universal church " (H. E. v. 39); by Ibas of Edessa,
who in 433 wrote his famous letter to Maris in praise of Theodore; by John, who
in 429 succeeded to the see of Antioch. Yet Theodore's ashes were scarcely cold
when in other quarters men began to hold him up to obloquy. As early perhaps as
431 Marius Mercator denounced him as the real author of the Pelagian heresy (Lib.
subnot. in verba Juliani, praef; Migne, Patr. Lat. xlviii. 110); and
not long afterwards prefaced his translation of Theodore's ecthesis with a still
more violent attack on him as the precursor of Nestorianism (ib. pp. 208,
1046, 1048). The council of Ephesus, however, while it condemned Nestorius by name,
contented itself with condemning Theodore's creed without mentioning Theodore; and
the Nestorian party consequently fell back upon the words of Theodore, and began
to circulate them in several languages as affording the best available exposition
of their views (Liberat. Brev. 10). This circumstance deepened the mistrust
of the orthodox, and even in the East there were not wanting some who proceeded
to condemn the teaching of Theodore. Hesychius of Jerusalem, about 435, attacked
him in his Ecclesiastical History; Rabbûlas, bp. of Edessa, who at Ephesus
had sided with John of Antioch, now publicly anathematized Theodore (Ibas, Ep.
ad Marin.). Proclus demanded from the bishops of Syria a condemnation of certain
propositions supposed to have been drawn from the writings of Theodore. Cyril, who
had once spoken favourably of some of Theodore's works (Facund. viii. 6), now under
the influence of Rabbûlas took a decided attitude of opposition; he wrote to the
synod of Antioch (Ep. 67) that the opinions of Diodore, Theodore, and others
of the same schools had "borne down with full sail upon the glory of Christ"; to
the emperor (Ep. 71), that Diodore and Theodore were the parents of the blasphemy
of Nestorius; to Proclus (Ep. 72), that had Theodore been still alive and
openly approved of the teaching of Nestorius, he ought undoubtedly to have been
anathematized; but as he was dead, it was enough to condemn the errors of his books,
having regard to the terrible disturbances more extreme measures would excite in
the East. He collected and answered a series of propositions gathered from the writings
of Diodore and Theodore (Migne, xxvi. 1438 seq.), a work to which Theodoret replied
shortly afterwards. The ferment then subsided for a time, but the disciples of Theodore,
repulsed in the West, pushed their way from Eastern Syria to Persia. Ibas, who succeeded
Rabbûlas in 435, restored the school of Edessa,
The 6th cent. witnessed another and final outbreak of bitter hatred against Theodore. The fifth general council (553), under the influence of the emperor Justinian, pronounced the anathema which Theodosius II. had refused to sanction and which even Cyril shrank from uttering. This condemnation of Theodore and his two supporters shook the fabric of the Catholic church. This is not the place to enter upon the history of the "Three Chapters," but we may point out one result of Justinian's policy. The West, Africa especially, rebelled against a decree which seemed to set at nought the authority of the councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, and also violated the sanctity of the dead. It was from no particular interest in Theodore's doctrine or method of interpretation that the African bishops espoused his cause. Bp. Pontian plainly told the emperor that he had asked them to condemn men of whose writings they knew nothing (Migne, Patr. Lat. lxvii. 997). But the stir about Theodore led to inquiry; his works, or portions of them, were translated and circulated in the West. It is almost certainly to this cause that we owe the preservation in a Latin dress of at least one-half of Theodore's commentaries on St. Paul. Published under the name of St. Ambrose, the work of Theodore passed from Africa into the monastic libraries of the West, was copied into the compilations of Rabanus Maurus and others, and in its fuller and its abridged form supplied the Middle Ages with an accepted interpretation of an important part of Holy Scripture. The name of Theodore, however, disappears almost entirely from Western church literature after the 6th cent. It was scarcely before the 19th cent. that justice was done by Western writers to the importance of the great Antiochene as a theologian, an expositor, and a precursor of later thought.
III. Literary Remains.—Facundus (x. 4) speaks of Theodore's "innumerable books"; John of Antioch, in a letter quoted by Facundus (ii. 2), describes his polemical works as alone numbering "decem millia" (i.e. μυρία), an exaggeration of course, but based on fact. A catalogue of such of his writings as were once extant in Syriac translations is given by Ebedjesu, Nestorian metropolitan of Soba, a.d. 1318 (J. S. Assem. Bibl. Orient. iii. i. pp. 30 seq.). These Syriac translations filled 41 tomes. Only one whole work remains.
(A) EXEGETICAL WRITINGS.—(i) Old Testament. (a) Historical Books.—A commentary on Genesis is cited by Cosmas Indicopleustes, John Philoponus, and Photius (Cod. 3, 8). Fragments of the Greek original survive in the catena of Nicephorus (Lips. 1772). Latin fragments are found in the Acts of the second council of Constantinople, and an important collection of Syriac fragments from the Nitrian. MSS. of the British Museum was pub. by Dr. E. Sachau (Th. Mops. Fragm. Syriaca, Lips. 1869, pp. 1–21). Photius, criticizing the style of this work in words more or less applicable to all the remains of Theodore, notices the writer's opposition to the allegorical method of interpretation. Ebedjesu was struck by the care and elaboration bestowed upon the work. The catenae contain fragments attributed to Theodore upon the remaining books of the Pentateuch and of Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Samuel, and Kings (Mai, Scr. Vet. Nov. Coll. i. praef. p. xxi.). Theodore is stated by Leontius (Migne, Patr. Gk. lxxxvi. 1368) to have rejected the two books of Chronicles, and there is no trace of any comments upon them bearing his name.
(b) Poetical Books.—Theodore's commentary on Job was dedicated to St. Cyril of Alexandria. Of all his works it seems to have been the least worthy of this dedication. Only four fragments survive (Mansi, ix. pp. 223 seq.), but they are sufficient to justify the censure pronounced upon the work by the Fifth council. Theodore regards Job as an historical character, but considers him as traduced by the author of the book, whom he considers to have been a pagan Edomite.
The Psalms were the earliest field of Theodore's hermeneutical labours. The printed fragments, Greek and Latin, fill 25 columns in Migne. More recently attention has been called to a Syriac version (Baethgen), and new fragments of a Latin version and of the original Greek have been printed. That his first literary adventure was hasty and premature was frankly acknowledged by Theodore himself (Facund. l.c.). His zeal for the historical method of interpretation led him to deny the application to Christ of all but 3 or 4 of the Psalms usually regarded as Messianic.
No fragments have hitherto been discovered of the commentary of Ecclesiastes, which Ebedjesu counts among the Syriac translations. From the remains of the commentary on Job it appears that Theodore expressly denied the higher inspiration of both the sapiential books of Solomon. Of the Canticles he writes in terms of positive contempt (Mansi, ix. 225). He repudiates imputations of immodesty on it, but denies its spiritual character. It is merely the epithalamium of Pharaoh's daughter, a relic of Solomon's lighter poetry, affording an insight into his domestic life. For this reason, he adds, it had never been read in synagogue or church.
(c) Prophetical Books.—A commentary on the four greater prophets
is in Ebedjesu's list;
(ii) N.T. (a) The Gospels.—Ebedjesu recounts commentaries on SS. Matthew, Luke, and John. Fragments of these, with the remaining N.T. fragments, were collected and ed. by O. F. Fritzsche (Turici, 1847), and reprinted by Migne. The commentary on St. John exists in a Syriac version, and has been pub. by J. B. Chabot (Paris, 1897).
(b) Acts and Catholic Epistles.—One fragment only remains of the commentary on the Acts; we owe it to the zeal of Theodore's opponents at the Fifth council. Notwithstanding Mai (l.c. p. xxi), it is more than doubtful whether Theodore wrote upon the Catholic Epistles. With the rest of the Antiochians he probably followed the old Syrian canon in rejecting II. Peter and II. and III. John.
(c) The Epistles of St. Paul.—Ebedjesu distinctly states that Theodore wrote on all the Pauline epistles, including among them Hebrews. The commentary on Hebrews is cited by the Fifth council, Vigilius and Pelagius II.; that on Romans by Facundus (iii. 6). A fortunate discovery last century gave us a complete Latin version of the commentary on Galatians and the nine following epistles. The Latin, apparently the work of an African churchman of the time of the Fifth council, abounds in colloquial and semi-barbarous forms; the version is not always careful, and sometimes almost hopelessly corrupt. But it gives us the substance of Theodore's interpretation of St. Paul, and we have thus a typical commentary from his pen on a considerable portion of each Testament (pub. by Camb. Univ. Press, 1880–1882).
(B) CONTROVERSIAL WRITINGS.—(a) Chief amongst these, and first in point of time, was the treatise, in 15 books, on the Incarnation. According to Gennadius (de Vir. Ill. 12) it was directed against the Apollinarians and Eunomians, and written while the author was yet a presbyter of Antioch, i.e. a.d. 382–392. Gennadius adds an outline of the contents. After a logical and scriptural demonstration of the truth and perfection of each of the natures in Christ, Theodore deals more at length with the Sacred Manhood. In bk. xiv. he approached the mystery of the Holy Trinity and the relation of the creature to the Divine Nature; in xv. the work was concluded, teste Gennadius, with an appeal to authority: "citatis etiam patrum traditionibus." Large fragments of this treatise have been collected from various quarters. None of the remains of Theodore throw such important light upon his Christology.
(b) Books against Apollinarianism.—Facundus (viii. 2) says that Theodore wrote several distinct treatises against Apollinarius. One, entitled de Apollinario et ejus Haeresi, was written, as Theodore states in the only surviving fragment, 30 years after the treatise on the Incarnation (Facund. x. 1). A number of important fragments preserved in the Constantinopolitan Acts and in the writings of Facundus, Justinian, Leontius, etc., are referred to bks. iii. and iv. "Against Apollinarius."
(c) Theodore wrote a separate polemic against Eunomius, and a single characteristic fragment has survived (Facund. ix. 3). The work professed to be a defence of St. Basil. In the original it reached the prodigious length of 25 (Phot. Cod. 4) or even of (Cod. 177) 28 books. Photius complains bitterly of the faults of style, and doubts the orthodoxy of the writer, but admits its clearness of argument and wealth of scriptural proof.
(d) Ebedjesu includes in his list "two tomes on the Holy Spirit"; probably a work directed against the heresy of the Pneumatomachi; but see Klener, Symb. Liter. p. 76.
(e) Three books on "Persian Magic." We learn from Photius that bk. i. was an exposure of the Zoroastrian system; bks. ii. and iii. contained a comprehensive sketch of the history and doctrines of Christianity, beginning with the Biblical account of the Creation. In this portion, especially in bk. iii., Theodore betrayed his "Nestorian" views, and even advanced the startling theory of a final restoration of all men. One cannot but regret the utter loss of so remarkable a volume, especially as it seems to have been written in the interests of Christian missions, an earnest of the missionary spirit which was afterwards so marked in the Nestorian church.
(f) According to Ebedjesu, Theodore wrote "two tomes against him who asserts that sin is inherent in human nature." The heading, as given in Marius Mercator, who published Latin excerpts from this book shortly after Theodore's death, is merely an ex parte description of its contents: "Contra S. Augustinum defendentem originale peccatum et Adam per transgressionem mortalem factum catholice disserentem." Mercator, a friend and disciple of St. Augustine, not unnaturally imagined Theodore's work to be directed against the great Western assailant of Pelagius; but Theodore seems actually to have selected Jerome as the representative of the principles he attacks. Such as they are, the remains of this book form our best guide to the anthropology of Theodore.
(C) PRACTICAL,
PASTORAL,
AND LITURGICAL
WRITINGS.—Ebedjesu mentions a treatise
On the Priesthood, which seems to have been an extensive one, probably unfolding
the doctrine of the Sacraments as based upon the doctrine of the Incarnation. It
was written, Hesychius tells us, in Theodore's old age. A more popular treatment
of the same subject seems to have been attempted in the Catechetical Lectures ("Catechismus,"
according to Marius Mercator; the Fifth council calls it "Allocutiones ad baptizandos,"
Facundus (ix. 3) less correctly, "Liber ad baptizatos"). The fragments, which are
chiefly from bk. viii., refer almost exclusively to the doctrine of the Incarnation.
A MS. of the whole in Syriac exists in the library of the American
Lastly, Leontius intimates that Theodore wrote a portion of a liturgy; "not content with drafting a new creed, he sought to impose upon the church a new Anaphora" (Migne, lxxxvi. 1367). A Syriac liturgy ascribed to "Mâr Teodorus the Interpreter" is still used by the Christians of Assyria for a third of the year, from Advent to Palm Sunday. The proanaphoral and post-communion portions are supplied by the older liturgy "of the Apostles" (so called), the anaphora only being peculiar. A Latin version of this anaphora is in Renaudot, pub. in English by Dr. Neale (Hist. H. E. Ch.) and Dr. Badger (Eastern Ch. Assoc., occasional paper, xvii., Rivingtons, 1875). Internal evidence confirms the judgment of Dr. Neale, who regards it as a genuine work of Theodore.
IV. Doctrine.—We deal with the peculiarities of Theodore's teaching under: (A) Anthropology, (B) Christology, (C) Soteriology.
(A) His whole doctrinal system hinges, as Neander and Dorner rightly judged, upon his conception of man's relation to the Universe and to God. (1) The Universe (ὁ κόσμος = ἡ σύμπασα κτίσις) is an organic whole (ἓν σῶμα), consisting of elements partly visible and material, partly invisible and spiritual. Of this organism man is the predestined bond (φιλίας ἐνέχυρον, σύνδεσμος, συνάφεια, copulatio), and therefore made a composite creature, his body derived from material elements, his spiritual nature akin to pure spirits, the νοηταὶ φύσεις. He was also to be the image of God, i.e. His visible representative, and as such to receive the homage of all creation. Hence all things minister to him, and even angelic beings superintend the movements of the physical world for his benefit. Man is thus the crowning work of the Creator, and the proper medium of communication between the Creator and the creature. (2) In the history of all intelligent created life, Theodore distinguishes two stages (καταστάσεις), the first a state of flux, exposed to conflict, temptation, and mortality; the second immutable, and free from all the forms of moral and physical evil. From the beginning God purposed that the second of these conditions (ἡ μέλλουσα κατάστασις) should be revealed through the Incarnation of His Son. Man was created in the former state, his nature being from the first liable to dissolution. "Earth to earth"—the human body naturally returns to the element from which it was taken. (3) The fall therefore did not introduce mortality, but converted the liability into a fact. It was not said, "Ye shall become mortal," but "Ye shall die." As a matter of fact, "death came by sin"; and the dissolution of soul and body was followed by the still more serious dissolution of the bond which in the person of man had hitherto knit together the visible and invisible creations. The fall of the first man gave sin a foothold in the world. The same result followed in the case of each descendant of Adam who sinned; and since all sinned, death "passed upon all men, for that all sinned." (4) As our mortality was no after-thought with God, so neither was the sentence of death a vindictive punishment. The present life, with its vicissitudes and probationary trials, is a wholesome discipline, affording room for the exercise of free will and the attainment of goodness, which without our efforts would be destitute of moral worth. Although human nature is free, yet in its present condition of mortality and mutability it is insufficient to conquer the forces of evil and attain perfect virtue without supernatural aid. A new creation is needed to abolish sin and death.
(B) We are thus brought to Theodore's
doctrine of the mission and Person of Christ. (1) The mission of Christ is primarily
to restore the shattered unity of the κόσμος
and gather up all things to Himself, by realizing in His Person the position of
man as the visible Image of God and the head of the whole Creation; secondarily,
to restore mankind by union with Himself as the Second Adam and the Head of the
Church to a condition of perfect deliverance from sin and death. (2) To fulfil this
mission it was necessary that God the Word should become perfect man. The perfection
of His manhood required Him to possess a rational human soul, capable of exercising
a real choice between good and evil, although persistently choosing good; and to
attain the perfection of human experience it was necessary for Him to take human
nature in its mutable state, to pass through a period of growth, and to enter into
conflict not only with the Evil One, but with the passions of the human soul. (3)
Though perfect man, the man Christ surpassed all other men. He was absolutely free
from sin, and His life was a continual progress from one stage of virtue to another,
a meritorious course of which the end was victory over death and an entrance into
the immortal and immutable state. This sinlessness and ultimate perfection of the
manhood of Christ was due (a) to His supernatural birth and subsequent baptism
of the Spirit, which He received in a manner peculiar to Himself, i.e. in
the fullness of His grace; but yet more (b) to His union with the Person
of the Divine Word. This union he had indeed received as the reward of His foreseen
sinlessness and virtue, for with Him, as with the rest of mankind, divine gifts
depended upon the action of the human will. The union, however, necessarily reacted
on the Man, with whom the Word was made one; the cooperation of the Indwelling Godhead
rendered it morally impossible for him to fall into sin. (4) But after what manner
did the Word unite
(c) Lastly, what are the elements, conditions, and ultimate results of the restorative
work which the Incarnate Son came to do? (1) Theodore placed the redemptive virtue
of the death of Christ chiefly in this, that it was the transition of the Second
Adam from the mutable state into the immutable, the necessary step to the resurrection-life,
in which death and sin are finally abolished. (2) Baptism, which represents the
death and resurrection of the Lord, unites us to the risen Christ by a participation
of His Spirit, so that in it we pass as by a second birth into the sphere of the
future life. (3) The regenerate occupy middle ground between the two worlds, living
in the present yet belonging to the future, potentially sinless and immortal, actually
liable to sin and death. It is their business, by the aid of the Holy Spirit, to
mould their present lives into conformity with the life of the risen Christ, and
the conditions of the future state. Living thus they are justified by faith,
i.e. their faith enables them in some sort to anticipate their future sinlessness.
(4) But actual and final justification can only be obtained at the resurrection.
The Parousia is therefore the great hope of the church, as bringing with it the
two great results of the Incarnation, the ἀναμαρτησία
and the ἀφθαρσία of the Body of Christ. Nothing
short of the final state of perfection which will be then inaugurated can exhaust
the meaning of such terms as "redemption," "forgiveness of sins," and "salvation."
(5) Although the Second Advent will bring these blessings only to those who have
in some degree responded to their baptismal calling, and co-operated with the Spirit
of Christ, Theodore is far from pronouncing the case of the unprepared to be hopeless.
The punishments of the condemned will indeed be in their nature eternal, being such
as belong to eternity and not to time; but both reason and Scripture shew that they
will be remissible upon repentance. Where (he asks) would be the benefit of a resurrection
to such persons if they were raised only to be punished without remedy or end? What
would, then, be the meaning of such texts as
V. Method of Interpretation.—As a scholar and successor of Diodore (cf.
Socr. vi. 3; Soz. viii. 2), Theodore inherited the Antiochene system of grammatical
and historical interpretation, and denounced the licence of the Alexandrian allegorizers.
The recovery of the commentary on
If Theodore's N.T. exegesis is less characteristic, it is certainly more satisfactory
than his interpretation of the Hebrew prophecies. His mind and education were Greek;
in expounding the O.T. he trusted entirely to the guidance of the LXX ; in commenting
on the Evangelists and St. Paul he found himself face to face with an original which
he was competent to handle upon his own principles. In the remains of his commentaries
of the Gospels we notice the precision with which he adheres to the letter of his
author (e.g. on
The worth of Theodore's contributions to the exegesis of Scripture has been very variously estimated. He is for ourselves the best exponent of Antiochene exegesis. Diodore has left too little to be representative; Chrysostom was a homilist rather than a scientific expositor; Theodoret is little else than a judicious compiler from Chrysostom and Theodore. Theodore is an independent writer, yet influenced more deeply than either Chrysostom or Theodoret by the Antiochene traditions. He had no audience to propitiate, no council to dread, and treads with the firmness of a man conscious that he represents a great principle and is fully convinced of its truth. His expositions, especially of N.T., possess intrinsic value of no common kind. Except when led astray by theological prepossessions, his firm grasp of the grammatical and historical method and a kind of instinctive power of arriving at the drift of his author's thought have enabled him often to anticipate the most recent conclusions of exegesis. Besides, however, being deterred by his unwieldy style, the reader misses the devotional and spiritual tone which recommends most Patristic commentaries. His abundant theological discussions and moral teachings do not compensate for this. Yet after every fair deduction on these and other grounds, we may still assign to Theodore a high rank among commentators proper, and a position in which he stands among ancient expositors of Scripture almost alone—that of an independent inquirer, provided with a true method of eliciting the sense of his author and considerable skill in the use of it.
Life and Writings.—O. F. Fritsche, de Theod. Mops. Vita et Scriptis
Commentatio Hist. Theologica (Halae, 1836); J. L. Jacobi in Deutsche Zeitschrift
für Christl. Wissenschaft (1864); F. J. A. Hort in the Journal of Class.
and Sacred Philology, iv. (Camb. 1859); Bickell, Conspect. Rei Syror. Liter.
(Monast. 1871); H. Kihn, Theodor. v. Mops. u. Junilius Africanus (Freiburg
im Breisgau, 1880); F. Loofs, art. "Theodor. v. Mopsuestia" in Hauck-Herzog,
Realencyklopädie, xix. (1907); O. Bardenhewer, Patr. pp. 301 ff.; F.
Barthgen, "Du Psalmenkommentar d. Theodor. v. Mops in Syrichen Bearbeitung," in
Z. A. T. W. v. (1889), "Sichenzahn Makkabäische Psalmen" in Z. A. T. W.
vi. (1887); J. B. Chabot, Commentarius Theod. Mops. in Evang. D.
Theodorus (50), bp. of Tyana, a fellow countryman and correspondent of Gregory Nazianzen. He was a native of Arianzus. Accompanying Gregory to Constantinople in 379, he shared in the ill-treatment received there from the Arian monks and rabble. He subsequently became bp. of Tyana, but not before 381. After Gregory returned to Arianzus many letters of friendship passed between him and Theodore. On the attempt of the Apollinarians to perpetuate the schism at Nazianzus, by appointing a bishop of their own, Gregory wrote very earnestly (A.D. 382) to Theodore, calling on him, as metropolitan, to appoint a bishop to replace him, as age and ill-health forbad his efficient superintendence of the church there (Ep. 88). After being compelled reluctantly to resume the care of Nazianzus, Gregory felt reason to complain of Theodore apparently siding with his enemies, and expressed his feelings with vehemence (Ep. 83). Their friendship, however, was not weakened, and on the completion, in 382, of the Philocalia—the collection of extracts from Origen made by him and Basil many years before—Gregory sent Theodore a copy as an Easter gift (Ep. 115 al. 87). Theodore was one of the bishops attending the council summoned against Chrysostom by Theophilus at the end of 403. Palladius describes him as a man of much wisdom and authority, who, when he discovered the malicious intention of Theophilus and his partisans, retired to his diocese soon after his arrival (Pallad. p. 23). The Theodorus to whom Chrysostom addressed his Ep. 112 has been identified with Theodore of Tyana by the second council of Constantinople (Labbe, v. 490). Tillemont decides (xi. 608) for Theodore of Mopsuestia.
Theodorus (53), priest and abbat of Tabenna in the Thebaid. Born A.D. 314, of noble parents in the Upper Thebaid, he forsook, at an early age, his worldly prospects, and found asylum with Palaemon the anchorite, and then in the monastery at Tabenna with Pachomius, under whom he became oeconomus. When Pachomius died Theodorus was offered the abbacy, but withdrew in favour of Orsisius, on whose retirement he succeeded, made many reforms, visited the subject monasteries, and founded 5 new ones at or near Ptolemais, Hermothis, Caius, Obi, and Bechre (Boll. AA. SS. Mai, iii. 327–328). During the lifetime of Pachomius Theodorus met St. Athanasius in the Thebaid, and is said to have announced to him the death of the emperor Julian, then occurring in Persia (Athan. Opp. ii. 695). St. Athanasius had a great regard for Theodorus, and bewailed his decease (Epp. ad Orsisium in Patr. Gk. xxvi. 978). St. Nilus (de Orat. c. 8) gives an anecdote of him. He died A.D. 367 (Tillem. H. E. vii. 225) or 368 (Boll. u.s. 291). Gennadius (de Script. Eccl. i. 8) calls him presbyter, and gives the substance of 3 epistles he is said to have addressed to other monasteries. Boll. u.s. 287–362, give the most elaborate account of Pachomius and Theodorus. Fabric. Bibl. Graec. ix. 318; Tillem. H. E. vii. 469 seq. 758 seq.; Cave, Hist. Lit. i. 208; Ceill. Aut. Sacr. iv. 233 seq. 391.
Theodorus (64) Lector, reader of the church of Constantinople. He composed in two books a tripartite history out of Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret, extant in MS. at Venice. It was copied by Leo Allatius, but not published. Valesius used his MS. in his edition of those authors. He also composed a history which extends from the last days of Theodosius the younger to the reign of the elder Justin, A.D. 518; some portions of which remain, and are in Migne's Patr. Gk. lxxxvi. col. 157–2280. They have been collected out of Nicephorus Callistus, John of Damascus, and the fifth action of the seventh general council. His history abounds with wonderful stories in defence of orthodoxy. He tells that Timotheus, bp. of Constantinople, A.D. 571, was the first to ordain the recitation of the Nicene Creed at all celebrations of the Holy Communion. It was previously only recited once a year, at the end of Lent. Evidently the Arian party must have been still strong at Constantinople in cent. vi. A question has been raised whether our Theodore did not live in cent. viii. rather than cent. vi. Combefis in his Originum Rerumque Constant. Manip. and Baudurius in his Imper. Orient. have given some quotations from a Theodorus Lector relating to the statues with which Constantinople was adorned, one containing an incident which proves the writer to have lived in the reign of Philip, 711–713 (Combef. p. 11; Baud. p. 88); but two men of the same name may have occupied the same office. Ceill. xi. 103–105; Fab. Bibl. Graec.
Theodorus (83) of Amasea, a young soldier who suffered in the persecution
under Maximian and Galerius c. 306; surnamed "Tiro," a recruit. Our authorities
are the Encomium of Gregory Nyssen (t. iii. pp. 578–586) and the less trustworthy
Acts. He was of humble origin (Gregory says "a poor recruit") and a conscript. In
winter quarters at Amasea the
Theodosius (2) I., the Great, born A.D. 346 at Cauca, a Spanish town upon a small tributary of the Douro; died Jan. 17, 395. His father, an eminent general serving under Valentinian and Valens, was treacherously executed in 376 For the secular history of Theodosius see D. of G. and R. Biogr. We shall here set forth his ecclesiastical polity and his powerful influence on the fortunes of the church. His accession was the turning-point which secured the triumph of Trinitarian orthodoxy over the Arianism dominant in the East for at least the previous 40 years. Theodosius turned what seemed in many places an obscure and conquered sect into a triumphant church, whose orthodoxy, on this point at least, never afterwards wavered. In 378 the Roman empire was in great danger. Valens, the emperor of the East, had been defeated and put to death by the Goths on Aug. 9 in the fatal battle of Hadrianople, and the whole empire was depending on the young Gratian, then less than 20 years old. Gratian perceived that the crisis demanded the ablest general the empire possessed; he boldly summoned the deeply-injured Theodosius from his retirement, and invested him with the imperial purple, Jan. 19, 379, allotting him the government of the East with Illyricum in Europe. Theodosius fixed his residence at Thessalonica, skilfully selected as the headquarters of his operations against the Goths. Constantinople was just then the centre of the conflict between the Catholics and Arians. About July 379 Gregory of Nazianzus, coming there, assumed the care of its one orthodox church, the Arians having possession of the see and all the other churches. Meanwhile at Thessalonica, during the winter of 379–380, Theodosius had a severe illness which led to his baptism by Ascolius, the local bishop, a devoted adherent of the orthodox party. This was followed by his first edict about religion, issued at Thessalonica, Feb. 28, 380, and addressed to the people of Constantinople. It orders that the religion which St. Peter taught the Romans and which Damasus of Rome and Peter of Alexandria profess, should be believed by all nations; that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost should be equally adored; that the adherent of this doctrine should be called Catholic Christians, while all others were to be designated heretics, their places of assembly refused the name of churches, and their souls threatened with divine punishment.
On Nov. 24, 380, Theodosius made his formal entry into Constantinople, and at
once took action against the unorthodox. He turned the Arian bp. Demophilus out
of the churches, and personally installed Gregory in the great church. But he does
not seem to have satisfied the orthodox zeal of Gregory, who in his Carmen de
Vita Sua, 1279–1395, speaks very slightingly of him, finding fault with his
toleration, and complaining that he made no attempt to heal the wounds and avenge
the wrongs of the Catholics. Theodosius, however, soon improved under Gregory's
tuition, direct or indirect. Gregory's tenure of the bishopric of Constantinople
was only for 7 months. He retired about the end of June 381, yet continued to exercise
a most active influence over the emperor through his successor Nectarius. Gregory
in the East and Ambrose in the West must be largely credited with the intolerant
ecclesiastical legislation of the Theodosian Code, lib. xvi. We may take the ecclesiastical
legislation under two heads: (1) against heretics; (2) against pagans. Theodosius's
first laws against heretics were issued immediately after the council of Constantinople,
and rapidly increased in severity. In June or July, 381, he issued a law which must
have been directly inspired by the council (Cod. Theod. lib. xvi. tit. v.
leg. 6), prohibiting all assemblies of Arians, Photinians, and Eunomians, and ordering
the surrender of all churches to the orthodox. A few weeks later two edicts (ib.
tit. i. leg. 3, and tit. v. leg. 8) prohibited Arians, Eunomians and Aetians from
building churches to replace those taken from them. In law ix.,
Nectarius, Ambrose, and Ascolius of Thessalonica, who baptized Theodosius, also
urged persecution (cf. esp. Ep. x. of St. Ambrose, written in the name of
the council of Aquileia, demanding the suppression by force of heretical assemblies
and ordinations (Opp. Ambros. in Migne's Patr. Lat. xvi. 940) ). In
Theodosius sought to suppress paganism also. The ruins of many temples, statues, and fountains maybe traced to his legislation, which went far beyond that of his predecessor. Cod. Theod. xvi. tit. x. "de Paganis, Sacrificiis et Templis," enables us to trace accurately his progress. The policy of Constantine and his sons may be said to have abolished sacrifices as madness and essentially connected with immorality and crime, specially those celebrated at night, while at the same time protecting the temples. Constantius was the severest legislator in this respect. The temples were closed, but preserved as public monuments and caretakers appointed at the public expense. Had this policy continued, the world would have been now much richer in artistic treasures. It continued, with the short interval of Julian's reigns, till the accession of Theodosius. Even he retained the appearance of it. He issued no decree for the destruction of the temples. But a new force, the monks, had now become a power throughout the East. They began the destruction in the very teeth of imperial edicts, trusting for protection to the influence of Ambrose, Nectarius, and other bishops with the emperor. In 382 Theodosius issued a rescript to Palladius, dux of the province of Osrhoene, which was marked by a wise and tolerant spirit. There was a magnificent temple in Edessa, useful for popular assemblies, festivals, elections, and other public meetings. Theodosius seems to have been specially anxious to use such temples for his provincial councils, a form of local government he largely developed and strengthened (cf. Cod. Theod. xii. tit. xii. legg. 12, 13). The local bp. Eulogius wished, however, to shut up the temple completely. He pleaded that the law was clear. All access to temples was long since forbidden, and this one was specially dangerous, being richly furnished with idols of rare beauty. The advocates of toleration for once gained the upper hand. All sacrifices were strictly forbidden, but the building was to be used for public purposes, and the statues retained as ornaments and public curiosities. Five years, however, elapsed. The emperor was taking sterner measures against Oriental paganism, and had just sent Cynegius as his deputy into Egypt and the East to see that his orders were strictly carried out; whereupon the monks, as Libanius expressly states, rose up and utterly destroyed the temple. The rage for destruction spread. The mob in another part of the same province, headed by the bishop, attacked and burned a Jewish synagogue and a Valentinian meeting-house. Theodosius was contemplating their punishment when Ambrose intervened, addressing a letter (Ep. xl.), which frightened the emperor from his purpose. He issued, however, a decree in 393 to the count of the East, prohibiting all interference with Judaism and specially forbidding attacks on their synagogues; but he significantly omitted all such protective measures as regards pagan temples. Destruction and confiscation raged on every side, and the destroyers found perfect impunity. The most notorious acts of destruction were in Egypt, and specially at Alexandria, as described by Socrates (H. E. v, 16, 17) when the celebrated Serapeum was destroyed. Socrates asserts, indeed, that this destruction took place at the imperial order, a special decree having been issued at the desire of the patriarch Theophilus, but of this there is no trace in the code. At Rome the same policy was pursued, either directly or indirectly, by Theodosius. In 382 Gratian issued an order abolishing the altar of Victory, as hitherto retained in the senate house, and the other traces of paganism which still remained. He confiscated the property of the vestal virgins, and probably seized their college. In 383 an effort to rescind this order was defeated by the vigorous action of pope Damasus. Symmachus renewed the attempt in 384 and appealed to the young emperor Valentinian. Ambrose, replying with extreme intolerance, warned Valentinian to consult Theodosius before complying with the senate's prayer. For this letter of Ambrose and the Relatio of Symmachus, see St. Ambros. Ep. Classis i. Epp. xvii., xviii. The protest of Ambrose was successful. The usurper Eugenius restored the pagan emblems and ritual, but Theodosius, on his victory, again abolished them, and adopted sterner measures against the vestal college.
Theodosius was a positive as well as a negative legislator. His legislation about
the clergy and the internal state of the church was minute and far-reaching. He
issued, in 386, a stringent edict for the observance of the Lord's Day, suspending
all public business and branding as sacrilegious any one violating its sanctity
(Cod. Theod. viii. tit. viii. leg. 3). Another edict,
A.D. 380, prescribed among the annual
holidays the 7 days before and after Easter (ib. ii. tit. viii. leg. 2),
(cf. "Lord's
Theodosius was devout to superstition, passionate to an extreme. Two incidents, the insurrection of Antioch upon the destruction of the imperial statues, and the massacre of Thessalonica, illustrate his character in many respects. [AMBROSIUS; CHRYSOSTOM.]
Theodosius (3) II., emperor, born early in 401, the only son of the emperor
Arcadius by EUDOXIA (2),
had four sisters, Flaccilla, Pulcheria, Arcadia, and Marina. Pulcheria exercised
a predominant influence over Theodosius throughout his life. He was appointed Augustus
Jan. 402, and succeeded to the throne at the age of 7 on his father's death in 408.
For the secular history of his reign see D. of G. and R. Biogr.; we deal
here only with his actions and legislation so far as they bore on the history of
the church. His reign was very long, covering the first half of 5th cent., and embracing
the origin and rise of two great heresies, the Nestorian and Monophysite. His education
was conducted by Pulcheria, who acted as Augusta and his guardian, from July 4,
414, when she was herself little more than 15 years old. Sozomen (ix. 1) tells us
that she "superintended with extraordinary wisdom the transactions of the Roman
government, concerted her measures well, and allowed no delay to take place in their
execution. She was able to write and to converse with perfect accuracy in the Greek
and Latin languages. She caused all affairs to be transacted in the name of her
brother, and devoted great attention to furnishing him with such information as
was suitable to his years. She employed masters to instruct him in horsemanship
and the use of arms, in literature, and in science. He was also taught how to maintain
a deportment befitting an emperor. . . . But she chiefly strove to imbue his mind
with piety and the love of prayer; she taught him to frequent the church regularly,
and to be zealous in contributing to the embellishment of houses of prayer. She
inspired him with reverence for priests and other good men, and for those who in
accordance with the law of Christianity had devoted themselves to philosophical
asceticism." Socrates (vii. 22) tells us about his training that "such was his fortitude
in undergoing hardships that he would courageously endure both heat and cold; fasting
very frequently, especially on Wednesdays and Fridays, from an earnest endeavour
to observe with accuracy all the prescribed forms of the Christian religion. His
palace was so regulated that it differed little from a monastery; for he, together
with his sisters, rose early in the morning and recited responsive hymns in praise
of the Deity. By his training he learnt the Holy Scriptures by heart, and would
often discourse with the bishops on scriptural subjects as if he had been an ecclesiastic
of long standing. He was an indefatigable collector of the sacred books and of expositions
written on them, while in clemency and humanity he far surpassed all others." Pope
Leo I., in one of his letters to Theodosius, which is intended to be very laudatory
(Mansi, v. 1341; cf. Socr. vii. 43), describes him as having "not only the heart
of an emperor but also that of a priest." Theodosius delighted in that magnificent
ceremonial which gathered round the cultus of relics. He brought the remains of
John Chrysostom back to Constantinople, laid his face on the coffin, and entreated
that his parents might be pardoned for having persecuted such a holy bishop. He
assisted at the discovery and removal of the relics of the Forty Martyrs (Soz. ix.
2), and felt his reign honoured through the simultaneous discovery of the relics
of the proto-martyr St. Stephen and Zechariah the prophet (ix. 16, 17). During the
latter portion of his reign, terminated by a fall from his horse July 28, 450, his
sister lost her power, a comparatively healthy influence, and Theodosius fell completely
under the guidance of selfish and tyrannical eunuchs. Pulcheria had vigour and determination.
Theodosius seems to have taken refuge from her sway by yielding himself completely
to a rapid succession of favourites. He had 15 prime ministers in 25 years, the
last of whom, the eunuch Chrysaphius, retained his power longest, a.d. 443–450.
Under Theodosius II. paganism became in itself a disability. Some of the highest
servants of the state towards the end of cent. iv. had been pagan; now by a law
of Dec. 7, 416 (Cod. Theod. xvi. tit. x. 21), pagans were prohibited from
entering the military and civil services or attaining any judicial office. This
law was followed by 4 others within the next ten years, following closely upon the
lines of Western legislation in the same direction as contained in the previous
laws; law 25, for instance, passed at Constantinople Nov. 426, orders the cross,
"signum venerandae crucis," to be placed on such temples as were allowed to remain
intact, while the materials of those pulled down were to be used in repairing bridges,
roads, aqueducts, etc. (ib. t. v. lib. xv. tit. 1, leg. 36). These measures
seem to have produced an apparent uniformity, as Theodosius, in law 22 passed in
423, refers to the "pagans who remain, though we believe there are none such."
The law, however, as yet protected them if they lived peaceably; thus law 24 forbids
Christians making attacks on Jews and pagans living among them. Heretics scarcely
came off so well. The Novatianists still, as throughout cent. iv., were specially
favoured, though occasionally a law was aimed against their rebaptisms and unorthodox
celebrations of Easter (lib. xvi. tit. vi. leg. 6, passed on
Theodosius (20), a celebrated solitary of Syria contemporary with Theodoret, born at Antioch of a rich and noble family. Abandoning his worldly possessions, he dwelt in a hut in a forest on the mountain above the city of Rhosus, where he practised the severest self-discipline, loading his neck, loins, and wrists with heavy irons, and allowing his uncombed hair to grow to his feet. He speedily gathered a colony of ascetics, whom he taught industrial arts, as weaving sackcloth and haircloth, making mats, fans, and baskets, and cultivating, setting an example of laborious diligence, and carefully superintending every department. He was an object of reverence even to the Isaurian banditti, who on several predatory inroads left his monastic settlement uninjured, only requesting bread and his prayers. Fearing, however, that the Isaurians might carry him off for ransom, Theodosius was persuaded to remove to Antioch, settling near the Orontes and gathering about him many who desired to adopt an ascetic life, but not long surviving his removal (Theod. Hist. Relig. c. x.).
Theodosius (21), a fanatical Monophysite monk. Having been expelled from his monastery for some crime, he repaired to Alexandria, where he stirred up strife, was scourged, and paraded round the city on camelback as a seditious person (Evagr. H. E. ii. 5). He attended the council of Chalcedon in 451, apparently as one of the ruffianly followers of Barsumas. On the termination of the synod Theodosius hastened to Jerusalem, complaining that the council had betrayed the faith, and circulating a garbled translation of Leo's Tome (Leo Magn. Ep. 97 [83]). His protestations were credited by a large number of the monks and people, and having gained the ear of the empress dowager Eudocia, the former patroness of Eutyches, who had settled at Jerusalem, he so thoroughly poisoned the minds of the people of Jerusalem against JUVENAL as a traitor to the truth that they refused to receive him as their bishop on his return from Chalcedon, unless he would anathematize the doctrines he had so recently joined in declaring. On his refusal the malcontents attempted his assassination, and he barely escaped with his life to Constantinople. After Juvenal's flight Theodosius was ordained bp. of Jerusalem in the church of the Resurrection, and at once proceeded to ordain bishops for Palestine, chiefly for those cities whose bishops had not yet returned from Chalcedon. A reign of terror now began in Jerusalem. The public prisons were thrown open and the liberated criminals were employed to terrify by their violence those who refused communion with Theodosius. Those who refused to anathematize the council were pillaged and insulted in the most lawless manner. Finally, the emperor Marcian interposed, and issued orders to Dorotheus to apprehend Theodosius, who, however, managed to escape to the mountain fastnesses of Sinai (Labbe, iv. 879). What ultimately became of him is unknown. Evagr. H. E. ii. 5; Coteler. Mon. Graec. i. 415 seq.; Theophan. Chron. p. 92; Leo Magn. Ep. 126 [157]; Labbe, Concil. iv. 879 seq.; Niceph. H. E. xv. 9; Fleury, H. E. livre 38; Tillem. Mém. eccl. xv. 731 seq.; Le Quien, Or. Christ. iii. 164).
Theodotion, otherwise Theodotus (so Suidas s.v.
κνίζων), author of the Greek version of the
O.T. which followed, as those of Aquila and Symmachus preceded, that of the LXX
in Origen's columnar arrangements of the versions. Of his personality even less
is known than of either of the other two translators. The earliest author to mention
him is Irenaeus, in a passage which, by reason of its higher antiquity and authority,
must be our standard to test the accounts of later writers, who probably derived
their accounts partly from it. Irenaeus (III. xxi. 1, p. 215), referring to the
word "virgin" παρθένος) in
In attempting to fix the time when Theodotion flourished, the one certain and
tolerably determinate datum we possess is, that his version must have been made
before the composition of the above treatise of Irenaeus—therefore before 180–189.
A second but less available datum is the fact, admitted by all, that he came after
Aquila. Thus we conclude that his work cannot have been so late as 189 or earlier
than 130. Some consider that the expression of Irenaeus, "those who are now venturing"
implies that Theodotion had then only just completed his translation; but this puts
undue force on the words. The expression merely contrasts comparatively recent translations
with the ancient and primary authority of the LXX. But direct evidence leads us
to place Theodotion c. 180, and Symmachus from 15 to 30 years later—dates
which agree well with the few known facts. Indirect evidence of an earlier date
for
Theodotion's work was not so much an independent translation as a revision of the LXX, with its insertions usually retained, but its omissions supplied from the Hebrew—probably with the help of Aquila's version. Theodotion's was the version Origen usually preferred to the other two for filling omissions of the LXX or lacunae in their text as he found it; and from it accordingly comes a large part of the ordinary Greek text of Jeremiah, and still more of that of Job. Thus in these books we have fuller materials for learning the character of his version than that of either of the others; and still more in his version of Daniel, which has come down to us entire, having since before Jerome's time (how long before we are not told) superseded that of the LXX so completely that the latter was lost for centuries, and is now extant only in a single Greek copy, the Cod. Chisianus, and in the Syro-Hexaplar translation contained in Cod. Ambrosianus (C. 313 Inf.). Any one who compares this version with Theodotion's which is usually printed in all ordinary editions of the Greek O.T. must agree with Jerome (Praef. in Dan.) that the church chose rightly in discarding the former and adopting the latter. Indeed, the greater part of this Chisian Daniel cannot be said to deserve the name of a translation at all. It deviates from the original in every possible way; transposes, expands, abridges, adds or omits, at pleasure. The latter chapters it so entirely rewrites that the predictions are perverted, sometimes even reversed, in scope. We learn from Jerome (in. Dan. iv. 6, p. 646) that Origen himself ("in nono Stromatum volumine") abandoned this supposed LXX Daniel for Theodotion's. Indeed, all the citations of Daniel, some of them long and important passages in Origen's extant works, agree almost verbatim with the text of Theodotion now current, and differ, sometimes materially, from that of the reputed LXX as derived from the Chisian MS. He seems, moreover, to have found the task of bringing its text to conform to the original by the aid of Theodotion's a hopeless one, as we may judge by his asterisks, obeli, and marginalia in the two MSS. referred to. Yet that this is the version which Origen placed as that of the LXX in the penultimate column of the Hexapla and Tetrapla is certain.
Theodotion, though not an independent translator, was by no means an "unlearned" one, as Montfaucon (Praelimm. in Hexapla) calls him. The chief, and apparently the only, ground for this is his practice of frequently transliterating words of his original. Dr. Field, however, has well shewn (Prolegg. in Hexapla IV. iii.) that he guides himself mostly by definable rules—the words so dealt with being names of animals (as θεννὶν for σειρῆνες), plants (as ἀχὶ for βούτομον), vestments (as βαδδὶν for ποδήρης), or articles used in worship (as θεραφὶν for κενοτάφια or [Aq.] μορφώματα). In such cases, his choosing to transliterate, rather than adopt a conjectural Greek rendering from a former version or hazard a new guess of his own, indicates scrupulous caution, not ignorance. He proves at least that he diligently consulted the original, and often shews a wise discretion in forbearing to translate a word whose meaning cannot be determined, or for which the Greek language has no equivalent. As well might the English translators of 1611 be called "unlearned" for retaining such words as "teraphim," "Belial," or the revisers of 1881–1884 because they replace the "scapegoat" of A.V. by "Azazel," and for "hell" give "Sheol " in O.T. and "Hades" in N.T.
Theodotion's version included all the canonical books of O.T. except, probably, Lamentations. Of the apocryphal books, he is only known to have included Baruch and the additions to Daniel.
Theodotus (4) of Byzantium. Eusebius (H. E. v. 27) has preserved extracts from a treatise directed against the heresy of Artemon, who taught that our Lord had been mere man. Theodoret (Haer. Fab. ii. 5) says that this treatise was called the Little Labyrinth; and the author was doubtless Caius of Rome, and its date the end of the first quarter of cent. iii. [HIPPOLYTUS ROMANUS.] These heretics claimed to hold the original doctrine of the church which, they alleged, had continued incorrupt till the episcopate of Victor, the truth being first perverted by his successor Zephyrinus (c. 199). Their antagonist replies that, on the contrary, it was in the episcopate of Victor that this God-denying heresy had been first introduced, that Theodotus the shoemaker (σκυτεύς) was the first to teach that our Lord was mere man, and he had been excommunicated for this by Victor, and had then founded an organized sect, with a bishop (Natalius) to whom they paid a salary. Its leading men in the time of Victor's successor were Asclepiades and another Theodotus, a banker. These two undertook to clear the text of N.T. of corruptions, but our authority describes what they called "corrected" copies as simply ruined, the two not even agreeing as to their corrections.
Our sole other primary authority for this Theodotus is Hippolytus. The section on Theodotus in the lost earlier work on heresies by Hippolytus may be partly recovered by a comparison of the corresponding articles in Pseudo-Tertullian, Epiphanius, and Philaster; and Epiphanius, whose treatment (Haer. 54) is the fullest, almost certainly drew his materials altogether from Hippolytus. There is an article on Theodotus in the later treatise of Hippolytus (Ref. vii. 35). The influence of Theodotus did not extend much beyond his own generation; later church writers appear to have only known him from the two nearly contemporary authorities we have named.
The place in which the article on Theodotus came in the lost work of Hippolytus
exactly corresponds to the date assigned to him in the Little Labyrinth.
He comes immediately after Blastus, whom we otherwise know to have caused schism
in Victor's time by endeavouring to introduce the Quartodeciman usage in Rome. Hippolytus
stated that Theodotus was a native of Byzantium, who denied Christ in time of persecution—a
fact which accounted
Theodotus chiefly relied on texts of Scripture, specimens of which are given
by Epiphanius (Haer. 54). He evidently acknowledged the authority of St.
John's Gospel, for one of these texts was
Theodotus (5) the banker, distinct from THEODOTUS (4) as asserted both in the Little Labyrinth and by Hippolytus. For the speculations which this Theodotus added to the heresy of (4) see MELCHIZEDEK.
Theodotus (9), May 18, martyr at Ancyra in Galatia in Diocletian's persecution.
The narrative of his martyrdom is intermingled with that of the Seven Virgins
of Ancyra. Theodotus was a devout dealer in provisions. THEOTECNUS,
the apostate from Christianity, was sent with ample power to enforce conformity
to the imperial edicts, and began by ordering all provisions sold in the market
to be first presented to the gods. This would render them unfit for use in the Holy
Communion. Theodotus supplied the Christians with bread and wine free from pollution.
The persecution waxing hot, he was compelled to fly from Ancyra to a place, distant
some 40 miles, where a cave, through which the Halys flowed, was a refuge for some
fugitive Christians. The narrative shews us how quietly Christians in country districts
pursued their occupations and enjoyed daily worship, while those in the cities were
suffering tortures and death, and is most valuable as illustrating the general condition
of the Christians in Asia Minor during the earlier years of Diocletian's persecution.
In the cave Theodotus found certain brethren who had overturned the altar of Diana,
and were being carried by their relations for judgment to the prefect when Theodotus
had bribed the accusers to let them off. They were delighted to see their deliverer,
and invited him to a meal, of which we have a graphic picture: the fugitives reclining
on the abundant grass, surrounded with trees, wild fruit, and flowers, while grasshoppers,
nightingales, and birds of every kind made music around. In this passage (§ 11)
we find one of the few instances where an early Christian author seems capable of
appreciating the beauty of nature. We then have a glimpse of the religious life
of the time. Before he would eat, Theodotus sent some of their number to summon
the presbyter from the neighbouring village of Malus to dine with them, pray with
them before they started afresh on their journey, and ask a blessing on their food,
for, says the Acts, "the saint never took food unless a presbyter blessed it." The
presbyter, whose name was Fronto, or, according to the Bollandist Papebrochius,
Phorto, was just leaving the church after the midday hour of prayer. The village
dogs attacked the messengers, and the priest ran to drive them away, asked if they
were Christians, and informed them that he had seen them in a vision the night before,
bringing a precious treasure to him. They told him they had the most precious of
treasures with them, the martyr Theodotus, to whom the presbyter at once departed.
During the meal Theodotus suggested the spot as a fit place for a martyrium or receptacle
for relics, and exhorted the priest to build one. When he said he possessed no relics,
Theodotus gave him a ring off his finger in token that he would provide them. He
then returned to Ancyra, which he found greatly disturbed by a violent persecution.
[ANCYRA, SEVEN
MARTYRS
OF.] A writer in the Rev. archéol.
(t. xxviii. p. 303) notes a passage in the Acts of these sufferers (§ 14) as a valuable
illustration of the paganism of Galatia. Theodotus, having rescued the bodies of
the nuns from the lake into which Theotecnus had cast them, prepared to suffer.
He prayed with the brethren, and told them to give his relics to Fronto if he brought
a ring as a token. Then he went to the tribunal, where the priests of Minerva were
demanding his arrest as the leader of the Christian opposition. The Acts now offer
some of the most striking illustrations used by Le Blant in his Actes des Martyrs
(cf. pp. 25, 62, 78, 80). They illustrate every detail of Roman criminal procedure,
especially the offer made to the martyrs of high promotion and imperial favour if
they recanted. Theodotus was offered the high-priesthood of Apollo, now esteemed
the greatest of all the gods, but in vain, till at last the president ordered him
to be beheaded and his body burned. He was executed and his body placed on a pyre,
when suddenly a bright light shone around it, so that no one dared approach. The
president ordered it to be guarded all night, in the place of common execution,
by soldiers whom he had just flogged for suffering the bodies of the nuns to be
carried off. Fronto, who was a farmer, and kept a vineyard where he made wine, came
to Ancyra to sell his wine, bringing the ring of Theodotus with him, and arriving
at the place of execution just when night was falling and the gates of the city
had been closed, found the guard erecting a hut of willow branches wherein to spend
the night. The soldiers invited him to join them, which he did. Discovering what
they were guarding, he made them drunk with his own wine and carried off the martyr's
body, placing it in the spot Theodotus had marked as the site of a martyrium. The
Acts purport to have been written by one Nilus, an eye-witness. They speak of the
chapel erected to the memory of Theodotus, which could only have been done when
peace was restored to the church. They are in Ruinart, Acta Sinc. p. 354,
and translated
Theodotus (11), bp. of Laodicea in Syria Prima, claimed as a zealous advocate of Arian doctrines by Arius in writing to Eusebius of Nicomedia (Theod. H. E. i. 5; v. 7). Eusebius gives him a high character for skill as a physician of both body and soul, remarkable for kindness, sympathy, sincerity, and zeal to help all who needed aid, reinstating the church in its prosperity which had suffered much by the cowardice of its last bishop, Stephen, who seems to have renounced the faith in the persecution of Diocletian (Eus. H. E. vii. 32). Theodotus was at the council of Nicaea in 325 (Labbe, ii. 51); before which he is coupled by Athanasius with the Eusebian party (Athan. de Synod. c. i. § 17, p. 886). On the visit of Eusebius of Nicomedia to Jerusalem in 330 or 331, ostensibly to see the newly built church, he formed one of the Arian cabal which, proceeding to Antioch, succeeded in deposing Eustathius (Theod. H. E. i. 21) and electing Eusebius of Caesarea in his room (Eus. Vit. Const. iii. 62). He also took part in the council of Tyre in 335 (Labbe, ii. 436) and of the Dedication at Antioch in 341 (ib. 560), and is mentioned by Athanasius as having been at Seleucia in 359 (Athan. de Synod. c. i. § 12, p. 880). The two Apollinarii, father and son, were excommunicated by Theodotus for being present at the recitation of a hymn in honour of Bacchus, composed by a sophist of Laodicea with whom he had interdicted an intercourse. He restored them on their repentance (Soz. H. E. vi. 25; Socr. H. E. ii. 46). Gelasius of Cyzicus (bk. iii. c. 3) gives a letter from the emperor Constantine to Theodotus, warning him to return to the orthodox faith (Labbe, ii. 284). It is quoted as genuine by Benignus of Heraclea at the fifth general council (ib. v. 481). According to Gams, Theodotus was bishop 30 years.
Theodotus (18), patriarch of Antioch, a.d. 420–429 (Clinton, F. R. ii. 552). He succeeded Alexander, under whom the long-standing schism at Antioch had been healed, and followed his lead in replacing the honoured name of Chrysostom on the diptychs of the church. He is described by Theodoret, at one time one of his presbyters, as "the pearl of temperance," "adorned with a splendid life and a knowledge of the divine dogmas" (Theod. H. E. v. 38; Ep. 83 ad Dioscor.). Joannes Moschus relates anecdotes illustrative of his meekness when treated rudely by his clergy, and his kindness on a journey in insisting on one of his presbyters exchanging his horse for the patriarch's litter (Mosch. Prat. Spir. c. 33). By his gentleness he brought back the Apollinarians to the church without rigidly insisting on their formal renouncement of their errors (Theod. H. E. v. 38). On the real character of Pelagius's teaching becoming known in the East and the consequent withdrawal of the testimony previously given by the synods of Jerusalem and Caesarea to his orthodoxy, Theodotus presided at the final synod held at Antioch (mentioned only by Mercator and Photius, in whose text Theophilus of Alexandria has by an evident error taken the place of Theodotus of Antioch) at which Pelagius was condemned and expelled from Jerusalem and the other holy sites, and he joined with Praylius of Jerusalem in the synodical letters to Rome, stating what had been done. The most probable date of this synod is that given by Hefele, a.d. 424 (Marius Mercator, ed. Garnier, Paris, 1673, Commonitor. c. 3, p. 14; Dissert. de Synodis, p. 207; Phot. Cod. 54). When in 424 Alexander, founder of the order of the Acoemetae, visited Antioch, Theodotus refused to receive him as being suspected of heretical views. His feeling was not shared by the Antiochenes, who, ever eager after novelty, deserted their own churches and crowded to listen to Alexander's fervid eloquence (Fleury, H. E. livre xxv. c. 27). Theodotus took part in the ordination of Sisinnius as patriarch of Constantinople, Feb. 426, and united in the synodical letter addressed by the bishops then assembled to the bishops of Pamphylia against the Massalian heresy (Socr. H. E. vii. 26; Phot. Cod. 52). He died in 429 (cf. Theodoret's Ep. to Diosc. and his H. E. v. 40). Tillem. t. xii. note 2, Theod. Mops.; Theophan. Chron. p. 72; Le Quien, Or. Christ. ii. 720; Cave, Hist. Lit. i. 405.
Theognostus (1), a priest of Alexandria and a writer of about the middle of cent. iii., whom we only know from quotations in St. Athanasius and Photius. He composed a work called Hypotyposes in seven books, still extant when Photius wrote (Cod. 106). He used language in bk. ii. of very Arian sound, speaking of the Son as a creature, and in bk. iii. of the Holy Ghost in a style as little orthodox as that of Origen. In bk. v. he attributed bodies to angels and devils. In bks. vi. and vii. he discussed the doctrine of the Incarnation in a more orthodox manner than in bk. ii. Yet St. Athanasius regarded him as a useful witness against Arianism. Philip of Side says that he presided over the school of Alexandria after Pierius a.d. 282 (cf. Dodwell, Dissert. in Irenaeum, p. 488). The fragments of Theognostus are collected in Routh's Reliq. Sac. t. iii. 407–422, and trans. in Ante-Nic. Lib. Cf. Migne, Patr. Gk. t. x. col. 235–242; Ceill. ii. 450; Athan. Ep. 4 ad Serap., de Decretis Nic. Syn.
Theonas (1), 15th bp. of Alexandria (whom Eutychius absurdly calls
Neron), succeeded Maximus in 282. His episcopate, says Neale (Hist. Patr.
Alex. i. 86), was a time of much suffering to the Egyptians, owing to the revolt
of Achilleus. Diocletian besieged Alexandria in 294; and after eight months' siege
the city, "wasted by the sword and fire, implored the mercy of the conqueror, but
experienced the full extent of his severity" in the form of "promiscuous slaughter"
and sentences "of death or of exile" (Gibbon, ii. 76). Yet Theonas has left a very
interesting and attractive picture of the relations which the emperor earlier in
his reign maintained towards his Christian servants. Eusebius's testimony that those
imperial domestics who held the faith (three of whom he afterwards names, Dorotheus,
Gorgonius, and Peter) were allowed perfect freedom therein, and were even peculiarly
valued by their master (viii. 1), is singularly illustrated by the "letter of Theonas
the bp. to Lucian, praepositus cubiculariorum or high chamberlain," published
in cent.
Theophilus (4), bp. of Antioch (Eus. H. E. iv. 20; Hieron. Ep. ad Algas. quaest. 6), succeeded Eros c. 171, and was succeeded by Maximin c. 183, according to Clinton (Fasti Romani), but the dates are only approximations. His death may probably be placed c. 183–185 (Lightfoot, S. Ignatius, vol. ii. p. 166). We gather from his writings that he was born a heathen, not far from the Tigris and Euphrates, and was led to embrace Christianity by studying the Holy Scriptures, especially the prophetical books (ad Autol. i. 14, ii. 24). He makes no reference to his office in his existing writings, nor is any other fact in his life recorded. Eusebius, however, speaks of the zeal which he and the other chief shepherds displayed in driving away the heretics who were attacking Christ's flock, with special mention of his work against Marcion (H. E. iv. 24). He was a fertile writer in different departments of Christian literature, polemics, exegetics, and apologetics. Dr. Sanday describes him as "one of the precursors of that group of writers who, from Irenaeus to Cyprian, not only break the obscurity which rests on the earliest history of the Christian church, but alike in the East and in the West carry it to the front in literary eminence, and distance all their heathen contemporaries" (Studia Biblica, p. 90). Eusebius and Jerome mention numerous works of Theophilus current in their time. They are (1) the existing Apology addressed to Autolycus; (2) a work against the heresy of Hermogenes; (3) against that of Marcion; (4) some catechetical writings; (5) Jerome also mentions having read some commentaries on the gospel and on Proverbs, which bore Theophilus's name, but which he regarded as inconsistent with the elegance and style of his other works.
The one undoubted extant work of Theophilus is his Apologia ad Autolycum,
in three books. Its ostensible object is to convince a heathen friend, Autolycus,
a man of great learning and an earnest seeker after truth, of the divine authority
of the Christian religion, while at the same time he exhibits the falsehood and
absurdity of paganism. His arguments, drawn almost entirely from O.T., with but
very scanty reference to N.T., are largely chronological. He makes the truth of
Christianity depend on his demonstration that the books of O.T. were long anterior
to the writings of the Greeks and were divinely inspired. Whatever of truth the
heathen authors contain he regards as borrowed from Moses and the prophets, who
alone declare God's revelation to man. He contrasts the perfect consistency of the
divine oracles, which he regards as a convincing proof of their inspiration, with
the inconsistencies of heathen philosophers. He contrasts the account of the creation
of the universe and of man, on which, together with the history contained in the
earlier chapters of Genesis, he comments at great length but with singularly little
intelligence, with the statements of Plato, "reputed the wisest of all the Greeks"
(lib. iii. cc. 15, 16), of Aratus, who had the hardihood to assert that the earth
was spherical (ii. 32, iii. 2), and other Greek writers on whom he pours contempt
as mere ignorant retailers of stolen goods. He supplies a series of dates, beginning
with Adam and ending with Marcus Aurelius, who had died shortly before he wrote,
i.e. early in the reign of Commodus. He regards the Sibylline verses as authentic
and inspired productions, quoting them largely as declaring the same truths with
the prophets. The omission by the Greeks of all mention of O.T., from which they
draw all their wisdom, is ascribed to a self-chosen blindness in refusing to recognize
the only God and in persecuting the followers of Him Who is the only fountain of
truth (iii. 30, ad fin.). He can recognize in them no aspirations after the
divine life, no earnest gropings after truth, no gleams of the all-illumining light.
The heathen religion was a mere worship of idols, bearing the names of dead men.
Almost the only point in which he will allow the heathen writers to be in harmony
with revealed truth is in the doctrine of retribution and punishment after death
for sins committed in life (ii. 37, 38). The literary character of the Apology
deserves commendation. The style is characterized by dignity and refinement. It
is clear and forcible. The diction is pure and well chosen. Theophilus also displays
wide and multifarious though superficial reading, and a familiar acquaintance with
the most celebrated Greek writers. His quotations are numerous and varied. But Donaldson
(Hist. Christ. Lit. iii. p. 69) remarks that he has committed many blunders,
misquoting Plato several times (iii. 6, 16), ranking Zopyrus among the Greeks (iii.
26), and speaking of Pausanias as having only run a risk of starvation instead of
being actually starved to death in the temple of Minerva (ib.). His critical
powers were not above his age. He adopts Herodotus's derivation (ii. 52) of
θεός from τίθημι,
since
The silence regarding the Apology of Theophilus in the East is remarkable. We find the work nowhere mentioned or quoted by Greek writers before the time of Eusebius. Several passages in the works of Irenaeus shew an undoubted relationship to passages in one small section of the Apology (Iren. v. 23, 1; Autol. ii. 25 init.: Iren. iv. 38, 1, iii. 23, 6; Autol. ii. 25: Iren. iii. 23, 6; Autol. ii. 25, 26), but Harnack (p. 294) thinks it probable that the quotations, limited to two chapters, are not taken from the Apology, but from Theophilus's work against Marcion (cf. Möhler, Patr. p. 286; Otto, Corp. Apol. II. viii. p. 357; Donaldson, Christ. Lit. iii. 66). In the West there are certain references to the Autolycus, though not copious. It is quoted by Lactantius (Div. Inst. i. 23) under the title Liber de Temporibus ad Autolycum. There is a passage first cited by Maranus in Novatian (de Trin. c. 2) which shews great similarity to the language of Theophilus (ad Autol. i. 3). In the next cent. the book is mentioned by Gennadius (c. 34) as "tres libelli de fide." He found them attributed to Theophilus of Alexandria, but the disparity of style caused him to question the authorship. The notice of Theophilus by Jerome has been already referred to. Dodwell found internal evidence, in the reference to existing persecutions and a supposed reference to Origen and his followers, for assigning the work to a younger Theophilus who perished in the reign of Severus (Dissert. ad Iren. §§ 44, 50, pp. 170 ff. ed. 1689). His arguments have been carefully examined by Tillemont (Mém. eccl. iii. 612 notes), Cave (Hist. Lit. i. 70), Donaldson (u.s. ii. 65), and Harnack (u.s. p. 287), and the received authorship fully established. Cf. W. Sanday in Stud. Bibl. (Oxf. 1885), p. 89.
Editions.—Migne's Patr. Gk. (t. vi. col. 1023–1168), and a small ed. (Camb. 1852) by the Rev. W. G. Humphry. Otto's ed. in the Corpus Apologet. Christ. Saec. Secund. vol. ii. (Jena, 1861, 8vo) is by far the most complete and useful. English trans. by Belty (Oxf. 1722), Flower (Lond.1860), and Marcus Dods (Clark's Ante-Nicene Lib.).
Theophilus (9), bp. of Alexandria, succeeding Timotheus in the last week
of July 385. He had probably been a leading member of the Alexandrian clergy. Socrates
states that Theophilus (probably two years later, Clinton, Fast. Rom. i.
522) obtained from Theodosius a commission to demolish the pagan temples of Alexandria
(Socr. v. 16). Sozomen corrects this by saying that Theodosius granted to Theophilus,
at his own request, the temple of Dionysus, on the site of which he proposed to
build a church (vii. 15). Socrates says that Theophilus "cleared out the temple
of Mithras, and exposed its bloody mysteries." Socrates adds that the foul symbols
used in the worship of Serapis and other gods were, by the archbishop's order, carried
through the agora as objects of contemptuous abhorrence. The votaries of
Alexandrian idolatry arranged a tragically successful onslaught on the Christians
and then took possession of the vast Serapeum, in the N.W. quarter of the city,
which had been the popular sanctuary of Alexandrian paganism, and now became their
stronghold of "furious despair" (Orat. of Athan. against the Arians, p. 5,
ed. Oxf.). They made sallies from its precincts, captured several Christians, dragged
them within, and inflicted torture or death on those who would not sacrifice. The
general in command at Alexandria and the Augustal prefect summoned them to surrender,
but in vain. Olympius, a philosopher, sustained their obstinate resolution until
the arrival of an edict ordering the destruction of all the temples. Terrified by
the shouts which proclaimed this mandate, the desperadoes abandoned the Serapeum;
and Theophilus, with a great body of soldiers, exultant Christians,
In 391 or 392 Theophilus was named by the council of Capua as arbiter of the dispute between Flavian, as representing the Meletian succession to the see of Antioch, and Evagrius, whose claims, like those of his predecessor Paulinus, were upheld by the West. Theophilus undertook to examine the case with the aid of his suffragans. Evagrius soon died, but Flavian was not recognized by the West until Chrysostom primarily, and Theophilus secondarily, effected that result in 398 (Soz. viii. 3; cf. Tillem. x. 538).
In A.D. 394 we find Theophilus for the first time at Constantinople, at a council in the baptistery of the great church, on Sept. 29. He sat next to Nectarius of Constantinople, and there were present also Flavian, Gregory of Nyssa, and Theodore of Mopsuestia. Theophilus was in close relations with the solitaries of Egypt. In the Sayings of the Fathers he appears as inviting some of them to be present. at the destruction of the temples, and again as visiting those of the famous Nitrian settlement, and penetrating to the more distant Scetis. Still more celebrated was his intimacy with four monks of Scetis, known as "the Tall Brothers." These years were the best in Theophilus's episcopate; and if it had lasted only ten years, he might have left the name, if not of a saint, at least of a good as well as an able and energetic prelate.
But in 395 the story of his life changes its character. He begins to justify the description afterwards given of him by an adversary "Naturally impulsive, headlong, intensely contentious, insatiable in grasping at his objects, awaiting in his own case neither trial nor inquiry, impatient of opposition, determined to carry out his own resolves " (Pallad. Dial. p. 76). In 395, at the request of bp. John of Jerusalem, he sent his friend Isidore, said to have been an Origenist, as his envoy into Palestine, to abate the strife between John and Jerome. Isidore visited Jerome three times, but would not give him a letter which Theophilus had written him (ib. 39); and his so-called mediation only produced a soreness on Theophilus's part towards Jerome, whose letters for some time he ignored. At last he wrote, coldly exhorting Jerome to respect the authority of the bp. of Jerusalem, and again in 399 (according to Vallarsi), urging Jerome to come to terms with John.
Theophilus had been throwing his whole weight against the extreme literalism
of the Anthropomorphists, a coarse reaction from the Alexandrian allegorism. A number
of ill-informed and enthusiastic monks recoiled even from the ordinary explanation
of those O.T. economies by which, as Epiphanius himself held, the divine manifestation
had been adapted to the capacities of human nature (Haer. 70. 7; see also
Aug. Haer. 50 and 76; Theodoret, iv. 10). They took the scriptural expressions
"as to eyes, face, and hands of God, as they found them, without examination " (Soz.
viii. 11). Hence, when Theophilus, in his Paschal Letter for 399, insisted
The persecuted "Brothers" found a temporary refuge with many other fugitives
(Dial. p. 160) at Scythopolis, on the slope of mount Gilboa. Some bishops
of Palestine who shewed them countenance were peremptorily warned by Theophilus
(ib. p. 58). Hunted from place to place, the Nitrians determined to seek
redress at Constantinople. Here the current of the Origenistic controversy flows
suddenly, and with momentous consequences, into the stream of Chrysostom's episcopate.
Towards the close of 401 some 50 elderly men of the Nitrian party fell at his feet
as suppliants (ib. p. 58). The bishop, moved to tears, asked who had accused
them. "Sit down, father," they answered, "and provide some remedy for the harm that
pope Theophilus has done us. If out of regard to him you will not act, we shall
be obliged to apply to the emperor. But we beg you to induce Theophilus to let us
live in our own country; for we have not offended against him or against the law
of our Saviour." Chrysostom promised to do his best. "Meanwhile," he said, "until
I have written to my brother Theophilus, keep silence about your affairs." He assigned
them a lodging in the precincts of the church of Anastasia, and pious ladies contributed
to their support. He wrote to Theophilus, "oblige me as your son and brother" (alluding
to his own consecration by Theophilus), by being reconciled to these men." Theophilus
saw his way to a blow, not only at the Origenists, but at Chrysostom, whom, according
to Palladius, he had disliked from the first. He wrote to Epiphanius, urging him
to get Origenism condemned by a synod of his suffragans in Cyprus. Epiphanius obtained
from a synod of his insular church a decree forbidding the faithful of Cyprus to
read Origen's works (A.D. 402). Meantime
the "Brothers" had laid before the emperor Arcadius their charges against Theophilus,
and requested the empress Eudoxia
Theophilus seems to have written a work of great length against Origenism (Gennadius, de Vir. Ill. 33), from which Cyril quotes in his treatise, ad Arcadiam et Marinam (P. Pusey's Cyril, vii. 166), in support of the "Personal Union," and Theodoret in his second dialogue on the distinction between Christ's soul and the Word. Theophilus affirmed that Origen had been condemned (not only by Demetrius, but) by Heraclas. Either in this work (as Tillemont thinks, xi. 497) or in another, he strove to shew that he had only seemed to agree with the Anthropomorphists, for "he shewed," says Gennadius, that, according to the faith, God was incorporeal, "neque ullis omnino membrorum lineamentis compositum." In 410 he consecrated the eccentric philosopher and sportsman SYNESIUS to the metropolitan see of Ptolemais, who thanked him warmly for his Paschal Letter of 411, and wished him a long and happy old age (Synes. Ep. 9). In another letter Synesius, after professing his readiness to "treat as a law whatever the throne of Alexandria might ordain," asks the archbishop what should be done in regard to the people of Palaebisca and Hydrax, who were most reluctant to be placed, as Theophilus intended, under a bishop of their own, and asked leave to remain under Paul, bp. of Erythrum, to which diocese these "villages" had always belonged, save while Siderius was their bishop. Theophilus had also asked him to reconcile the bps. of Erythrum and Dardanis to each other (Ep. 67).
Theophilus died "of lethargy" on Oct. 15, 412 (Socr. vii. 7), after an episcopate of 27 years and nearly 3 months. The moral of his life is the deterioration which too great power can produce in one whose zeal in the cause of religion, although genuine and active, is not combined with singleness of heart.
All his extant remains are collected in Gallandius (Bibl. Patrum, vol. vii. pp. 603 ff.); his "canons" in Beveridge (Pand. Can. ii. 170). The sense of these canons is given in Johnson's Vade Mecum, ii. 255. See also Zahn, Forschungen, ii. 234 ff.
Theophilus (13), a Christian who discussed Christianity with Simon, a
Jew, in a treatise published by a Gallic writer named EVAGRIUS
in 5th cent. The title as given by Gennadius (de Vir. Ill. c. 51 is Altercatio
Simonis Judaei et Theophili Christiani. This work lay hid till Zacagni, the
Vatican Librarian, noticed it in 1698 in his Collect. Mon, pp. 51, 53, 324.
It was printed by Migne (Patr. Lat. t. xx. c. 1165) and by Gebhardt and Harnack
(Texte u. Untersuch. zur Gesch. der Altchrist. Lit. Bd. i. Hft. 3; Leipz.
1883), with exhaustive notes and dissertations. It has an important bearing on the
controversy during patristic times between the church and Judaism. The disputants
discuss various arguments against the deity of Christ drawn from O.T., Theophilus
making a very liberal use of the mystical method of exposition. The Jew begins by
objecting that Christ cannot be God because in Deuteronomy it is said "There is
no other God beside Me," and Isaiah says, "I am the first and the last, and beside
Me there is no God." Theophilus then defends his position from the conduct of Abraham
towards the angel whom he worshipped at the oak of Mamre and from the Psalms. He
quotes
Theophronius. [AGNÖETAE].
Theophylactus (1) Simocatta, an Egyptian by birth, related to Peter who was viceroy of Egypt at the death of the emperor Maurice in 602. His Oecumenical History, or Historiae Mauricii Tiberii Imperatoris, is very important for Byzantine history at a critical period, just before the rise of Mahomet, and during the beginning of the struggles with the Turks and Slavs. For church history his historical writings are interesting, as giving a vivid picture of the rites, superstitions, and ideas of the close of cent. vi. They shew, e.g. that the emperor Maurice was in many points superior to his spiritual teachers. Thus in lib. i. c. 11 we have the story of a sorcerer named Paulinus, whom the patriarch of Constantinople brought before the emperor, pressing for his capital punishment. The emperor suggested that instruction, rather than punishment, was required. Many other points of interest occur, e.g. the frequent use of a miraculous image (ἀχειροποίητος) of our Lord (ii. 3; iii. 1); the conversion of Chosroes (v. 15), and of a woman of noble birth among the Magi of Babylon, named Golinducha, her escape, pilgrimage to Jerusalem, and life at Nisibis (v. 12); the continued existence of the Marcionists (viii. 9); the church in honour of St. Paul at Tarsus (viii. 13); the incredulity of the emperor about the liquefaction of the blood of St. Euphemia (viii. 14); his overthrow and murder by Phocas, and the miraculous announcement of it by his statues at Alexandria the same night (viii. 13). The History of Theophylact is included in the Bonn series of Byzantine historians, but the most complete and convenient ed. is by C. H. Fabrottus in Labbe's Corpus Hist. Byzant. (Paris, 1648).
Theosebas, a deacon of the Thirian (? Tyrian) church, ordained priest by bp. John of Jerusalem. Jerome takes this ordination as a justification of the ordination of his brother Paulinian by Epiphanius, bp. of Salamis. He describes Theosebas as an eloquent man, and believes John to have ordained him in order to employ him to speak against himself and his friends (Hieron. Cont. Joan. Hierosol. 41).
Theotimus (2), bp. and metropolitan of Tomi, the capital of Scythia Minor in Lower Moesia. By birth a Goth, he was educated in Greece, where he took the name by which he is known. Adopting strict asceticism for himself, he kept a liberal table for the savage Goths and Huns who visited Tomi as the great central market of the province, endeavouring by hospitality, gifts, and courteous treatment to prepare them to receive the Gospel. In some instances the seed was sown in good soil, and the Hunnish strangers returned to their distant homes as converts, eager to convert their fellow-barbarians. Theotimus is with much probability identified by Baronius (sub ann. 402) with the successful missionary to the Huns mentioned by St. Jerome. He was regarded by the Huns with superstitious reverence, and was styled by them "the God of the Romans." The long hair of a philosopher flowed over his episcopal attire. He was a frequent and much revered visitor at Constantinople. In 403, during the visit of Epiphanius of Salamis, he refused to affix his signature to the decree of the council of Cyprus condemning the teaching of Origen, denouncing the attempt to cast insult on a justly honoured name and to question the decisions of wise and good men before them. He supported his refusal by publicly reading passages from Origen. He was an author of some note. Jerome ascribes to him some treatises in the form of dialogues. Fragments of his are in John Damascene's Parallel. Sacr. (vol. ii. pp. 640, 675, 694, 785, Le Quien's ed.). The archimandrite Carosus at the council of Chalcedon boasted that he had been baptized by Theotimus and charged by him to keep the Nicene faith inviolate (Labbe, Concil. iv. 530). Socr. H. E. vi. 12; Soz. H. E. vii. 26, viii. 14; Tillem. Mém. eccl. xi. 190; Le Quien, Or. Chist. ii. 1217; Cave, Hist. Lit. i. 288.
Thomas (8) Edessenus appears in the Life of Mar Abas. The latter, originally
Magian by religion, was converted to Christianity, learnt Syriac at Nisibis, and
Greek at Edessa from Thomas a Jacobite, whom he afterwards took with him to Alexandria
and there with his help translated the Scriptures (or, the books) from Greek
into Syriac (Gregory Bar-hebr. Chr. Eccl. ii. 22, t. iii. col. 189). Amrus
(ap. Assem. iii. 75) gives a similar history of their relations; but only
ascribes to them the translation of the works of Theodore of Mopsuestia. He relates
how they went to Constantinople, and finding their lives in peril in consequence
of their refusal to "anathematize the Three Fathers," fled to Nisibis. There Mar
Abas became a teacher, and an eloquent assailant of Zoroastrianism. Gregory says
that he was at one time taught by John Grammaticus, the Tritheite; but the facts
alleged by Amrus lead us to conclude that he lapsed early into Nestorianism. He
was elected catholicus of the Chaldeans in 536, and persecuted by the Magians. Chosroes
called on him to return to his original faith or to conform to Christian orthodoxy.
Refusing to do either, he was exiled, and venturing to return to his see without
the king's permission, was cast into prison, and died there, 552. Among his disciples
Amrus (Assem. ii. 411) reckons "Thomas of Edessa," no doubt his former teacher drawn
by him
Thomas (9) Apameensis, bp. of Apamea, the metropolis of Syria Secunda; one of the bishops sent to invite pope Vigilius to the second council of Constantinople. He himself attended it. Two contemporary historians, Procopius and Evagrius (the latter praises Thomas as a "man most mighty in word and in deed"), record his tact and courage when a great peril threatened his city. In 540 Chosroes, at the head of his Persians, after burning Antioch, was reported to be marching on Apamea. The panic-stricken people entreated their bishop to strengthen them to meet their fate by displaying a piece of the true cross, a cubit in length, which was treasured in their church in a casket richly decorated with gold and gems, and usually shewn to the faithful but once a year. Thomas fixed a day for its exhibition, to which the people of the neighbouring towns also eagerly repaired; among them the parents of Evagrius, bringing with them the future historian, who vividly describes the crowds pressing to see, and seeking to kiss, the sacred wood. The bishop (as both narrators relate) took it out of the casket, and raising it up in both hands proceeded round the church, according to usage. "A flame of fire shining, but not consuming," around and above the relic, moved as he moved, lighting up the roof. This was repeated several times. The people greeted with joy this visible token of divine protection, and drew from it confident hopes of deliverance. As Chosroes approached, the bishop met him, and assured him that no resistance was contemplated by the citizens, on whose behalf he engaged that the king with a limited guard should be admitted within the gates. Chosroes accordingly, leaving his army in camp, entered with 200 men. In violation of a compact he had recently entered into with the emperor (to receive 5,000 pounds of gold paid down and 500 annually, and make no further demands), he exacted from the bishop more than 10,000 pounds of silver, and all the gold and silver ornaments in the church treasury. Thomas produced last of all the casket that enshrined the cross, and, shewing its contents to the king, said, "This alone is left; take the gold and gems—I grudge them not; only leave us the precious wood of salvation." The king granted his petition. Thomas conciliated Chosroes by assiduously courting his favour. It would be unfair to judge him hardly under circumstances of such great responsibility and peril, though he shews politic suppleness and tact rather than the higher virtues of a prelate and patriot.
Tiberius (2) II., emperor of Constantinople, 578–582. For the secular history of his reign see D. of G. and R. Biogr. We shall confine ourselves to the religious history of the period, for which the church history of the Monophysite John of Ephesus (Dr. Payne Smith's trans.) afforded fresh material. Tiberius presented a striking example of toleration in an intolerant age. The patriarchs of Constantinople were ardent opponents of the Monophysites. The patriarch, John Scholasticus, soon after the emperor's accession to the position of Caesar (a.d. 574), called on him to persecute the Monophysites. The emperor, having extorted from the patriarch an acknowledgment of their Christian character, declared he would not become a Diocletian in persecuting such followers of Christ. Eutychius, restored after John in 577, again urged Tiberius in the same direction, and again Tiberius refused, whereupon Eutychius, of his own motion, set the laws against heresy in operation (cf. John of Ephesus, H. E. pp. 72, 201). On p. 207 John relates Tiberius's only act of persecution. He had hired an army of Goths (Arians) to fight against the Persians. They left their families at Constantinople, stipulating for the use of a church for Arian worship. Tiberius consulted the patriarch, whereupon interested parties roused the mob to hoot the emperor and accuse him of Arianism. To clear himself he permitted the mob to attack the houses of all heretics. A book concerning the nature of the resurrection, published by Eutychius, taught that the body would be impalpable like a pure spirit. Gregory, afterwards pope Gregory the Great, then a deacon and Roman apocrisiarius at the imperial court, at once detected heresy in the patriarch's teaching. The emperor, being appealed to, decided in favour of Gregory, while the patriarch was induced to burn the obnoxious book. John of Ephesus, p. 192, says that Tiberius substituted a cross on his coins for a female figure, like Venus, which Justin introduced. See also Evagr. H. E. v. 11–22; Paul Diac. Hist. Miscell. lib. xvii.; Theophan. Chronogr. i. 380–387; Baron. Annal. a.d. 582–585; Clinton's Fasti, p. 840.
Tiburtius. [CAECILIA.]
Tichonius (Tychonius), an African Donatist, whose personal history
is very little known, but who was conspicuous in the Donatist controversy, chiefly
because Augustine mentions him in his letters to Parmenian and elsewhere. He appears
to have flourished between 380 and 420, but according to Tillemont his date may
be as early as 370. He was apparently a layman with a strong turn for church matters,
including theology, was well versed in Scripture, and though a Donatist, revolted
from the exclusive views of the sect, and occupied a position intermediate, as Neander
says, between it and the church (Ch. Hist. iii. 280, ed. Clark; cf. Dr. Sparrow
Simpson, St. Aug. and Afr. Ch. Divisions [1910], p. 51). Early in his career,
perhaps 370–373 he published a work maintaining the universality of the church,
and that no misconduct of a portion can annul the promise of God or contaminate
Christians elsewhere. Consequently Catholic Christians in Africa were not cut off
from the church of Christ, but still in communion with it. He pointed out the arbitrary
character of the Donatist test of holiness, summing it up in the epigrammatic phrase,
"quod volumus sanctum est" (Aug. c. Parm. i. 1; ii. 13, 31; see
Timotheus (7) I., archbp. of Alexandria, unanimously elected, as Theodosius I. affirms (Cod. Theod. t. vi. p. 348; Tillem. vi. 621), on the death of his brother, Peter II., in the latter half of Feb. 381. He was an elderly man of high character, who had sat at the feet of Athanasius; and his distinguishing epithet of ἀκτήμων (Coteler. Eccl. Gr. Mon. i. 366) indicates that he had parted with all his property. The council of Constantinople met in May 381; he and his attendant suffragans arrived late, and did not contribute to the peace of the assembly (Greg. Naz. Carm. de Vita Sua, 1800 ff.). They were annoyed at finding Gregory of Nazianzus established in the see of Constantinople; their jealousy of the "oriental" bishops who had "enthroned him" broke forth in angry debate. They assured Gregory that they had no objection to him personally; but they probably resented the disgrace of Maximus, who had attempted, by the aid of some Egyptian bishops, to possess himself of the see. Gregory was glad to take this opportunity of resigning it, and Timotheus perhaps presided over the council during the few days between this abdication and the appointment of Nectarius (Tillem. ix. 474). The third canon gave to the see of Constantinople the second rank throughout the church; Neale says that Timotheus "refused to allow" its "validity" (Hist. Alex. i. 209). The council of Aquileia alludes to some annoyance given to him and Paulinus of Antioch by those whose orthodoxy had previously been suspected (Ambr. Ep. 12); yet that he did not break off openly from the majority is proved by the law of July 30, 381, in which Theodosius names him as one of the centres of Catholic communion (Soz. vii. 9; cf. Tillem. ix. 720). His episcopate was brief and uneventful. Facundus transcribes a letter of his to Diodore of Tarsus, referring to Athanasius as having spoken highly of Diodore, and professing his own inability to do justice to his virtue and orthodox zeal (Pro Defens. Tri. Capit. iv. 2). Timotheus wrote an account of several eminent monks, which Sozomen used (vi. 29). His 18 "canonical answers" to requests by his clergy for direction are interesting, and became part of the church law of the East (see Beveridge, Pand. Can. ii. 165; Galland. vii 345). He died on Sun., July 20, 385 (see Tillem. vi. 802), and was succeeded by Theophilus.
Timotheus (18), commonly called Aelurus, a Monophysite intruder
into the see of Alexandria. He had been at first a monk, then a presbyter under
Dioscorus, and soon after the deposition of the latter at the council of Chalcedon
had come into collision with his successor PROTERIUS.
Deposed from office and banished into Libya (Mansi, Concil. vii. 617), he
awaited, as his opponents afterwards said, the death of the emperor Marcian (ib.
525, 532). When that occurred in Jan. 457, he returned to Alexandria, and practised
the artifice which apparently procured him the epithet
αἴλουρος, "cat." "Creeping" at night to the
cells of certain ignorant monks, he called to each by name, and on being asked who
he was, replied, "I am an angel, sent to warn you to break off communion with Proterius,
and to choose Timotheus as bishop" (Theod. Lect. i. 1). Collecting a band of turbulent
men, he took possession, in the latter part of Lent, of the great "Caesarean" church,
and was there lawlessly consecrated by only two bishops, whom Proterius and
the Egyptian synod had deposed, and who, like himself, had been sentenced to exile.
Thus, without the countenance of a single legitimate prelate (see Mansi, vii. 585)
"he enthroned himself," as 14 Egyptian bishops express it in their memorials to
the emperor Leo I. and to Anatolius of Constantinople (ib. 526, 533), while
the real
Timotheus (19), commonly called Salofaciolus, patriarch of Alexandria,
elected after the expulsion of Timotheus Aelurus, at the beginning of Aug. 460.
He was attached to the Chalcedonian dogma, and may be identified with the "Timotheus,
presbyter, and a steward of the Alexandrian church," who signed the memorial which
the persecuted Catholic bishops presented to the emperor Leo in 457 (Mansi, Concil.
vii. 530). His name Salofaciolus, or Salafaciolus, appears to be made up of a Coptic
and a Latin word, and to signify "wearer of a white head-gear or cap" (Du Fresne,
Gloss. Med. et Infim. Graecit. ii. 1659). After his consecration he sent
a letter to pope Leo, who replied in terms of warm congratulation, and urged the
newly appointed "Catholic bishop of the Alexandrian
Timotheus (24), patriarch of Constantinople, appointed in 511 by the emperor Anastasius the day after the deposition of MACEDONIUS (3). He had been priest and keeper of the ornaments of the cathedral, and was a man of bad character. He apparently adopted the Monophysite doctrines from ambition, not conviction. Two liturgical innovations are attributed to him, the prayers on Good Friday at the church of the Virgin, and the recital of the Nicene Creed at every service, though the last is also ascribed to Peter the Fuller. He sent circular letters to all the bishops, which he requested them to subscribe, and also to assent to the deposition of Macedonius. Some assented, others refused, while others again subscribed the letters but refused to assent to the deposition of Macedonius. The extreme Monophysites, headed by John Niciota, patriarch of Alexandria, whose name he had inserted in the diptychs, at first stood aloof from him, because, though he accepted the Henoticon, he did not reject the council of Chalcedon, and for the same reason Flavian II. of Antioch and Elias of Jerusalem at first communicated with him. With SEVERUS of Antioch he afterwards assembled a synod which condemned that council, on which Severus communicated with him. Timothy sent the decrees of his synod to Jerusalem, where ELIAS refused to receive them. Timothy then incited Anastasius to depose him (Liberat. 18, 19; Mansi, viii. 375). He also induced the emperor to persecute the clergy, monks, and laity who adhered to Macedonius, many of whom were banished to the Oasis in the Thebaid. His emissaries to Alexandria anathematized from the pulpit the council of Chalcedon. Within a year of his accession Timotheus directed that the Ter Sanctus should be recited with the Monophysite addition of "Who wast crucified for us." On Nov. 4 and 5 this caused disturbances in two churches, in which many were slain, and the next day a terrible riot broke out which nearly caused the deposition of Anastasius. Timothy died Apr. 5, 517. Vict. Tun. Chron.; Marcell. Chron.; Theod. Lect. ii. 28, 29, 30, 32, 33; Evagr. iii. 33; Theophanes; Tillem. Mém. eccl. xvi. 691, 698, 728.
Titus, emperor. [VESPASIANUS.]
Titus (2), bp. of Bostra in Arabia Auranitis, c. 362–371, of very
high repute for learning and eloquence. He is named by Jerome among the many distinguished
Christian writers of great secular erudition and knowledge of Holy Scripture (Hieron.
Ep. 70 [84]). Jerome mentions his works, dwelling especially on three written
against the Manicheans (Hieron. de Vir. Ill. c. 102). He is also enumerated
by Sozomen (H. E. iii. 14, ad fin.) with Eusebius of Emesa, Basil
of Ancyra, Cyril of Jerusalem, and others, as writers of the highest celebrity,
whose learning is proved by the many remarkable writings they left. The appearance
of Titus in such company, and his being distinctly reckoned among the Acacians by
Socrates (H. E. iii. 25), makes his orthodoxy doubtful. He is chiefly known
to us from the attempt made by the emperor Julian to induce the citizens of Bostra
to expel him as a calumniator of their city. The pagan inhabitants made the authoritative
revival of their cult by Julian the signal for organized attacks on their Christian
fellow-citizens. The Christians retaliated. Julian, choosing to assume that the
Christians were responsible for these disturbances, threatened to call Titus and
the city clergy to judicial account if any fresh outbreak occurred (Soz. H. E.
v. 15). Titus replied that though the Christian population exceeded the heathen
in numbers, in obedience to his admonitions they had remained
Trajanus (1), M. Ulpius (Nerva), emperor, belonged to a family of Italian origin settled in the colony of Italica in Baetica. He was born on Sept. 18, probably in a.d. 53, and passed his early life in the army under his father, a distinguished officer who had risen to the consulship. In Oct. 97, being then in command of the army of Lower Germany, he was adopted by Nerva, with whom, till his death on Jan. 27, he reigned jointly, and then became sole emperor. He remained on the Rhine, placing that frontier in a state of defence, till in the latter half of 99 he made his entrance into Rome, being received with the greatest joy. He died at Selinus in Cilicia, probably c. Aug. 7 or 8, 117.
For us the interest of his life centres in the famous rescript, addressed to his friend Pliny in reply to his letter detailing his procedure towards the Christians in Bithynia. Pliny had arrived in his province immediately before Sept. 18, 110, or more probably 111 (Mommsen, Hermes, 1869, 59), and the letter was probably written in the year after his arrival. The rescript is one of a series of replies to inquiries on the most various subjects—police, baths, sewerage, precautions against fires water supply, public buildings, etc.—and neither Pliny nor Trajan seems to have considered the subject one of special importance. Pliny's letter is the earliest heathen account of the services and behaviour of the Christians, and Trajan's reply is the earliest piece of legislation about Christianity that we possess.
After stating that, having never been present at trials of Christians, he was
ignorant of the precise nature of the crime and the usual punishment, and also how
far it was the practice to pursue the inquiry, Pliny asks the emperor whether any
distinction should be made on the ground of age; whether those who abjured Christianity
should be pardoned, or a man who had embraced Christianity gain by renouncing it;
whether the mere name apart from any crime or the crimes associated with the name
should be punished? Provisionally he had taken the following course in the case
of those charged before him with being Christians. "I demanded," he says, "of the
accused themselves if they were Christians, and if they admitted it, I repeated
the question a second and a third time, threatening them with punishment; if they
persisted, I ordered them to be led to execution. For I felt convinced that, whatever
it might be they confessed they were, at any rate their unyielding obstinacy deserved
punishment. Some others, who were Roman citizens, I decided should be sent to Rome
for trial. In the course of the proceedings, as is generally the case, the number
of persons involved increased and several varieties appeared. An anonymous document
was presented to me which contained the names of many. Those who denied that they
were or ever had been Christians I thought should be released when they had, after
my example, invoked the gods and offered incense and wine to your image, which I
had ordered to be brought for the purpose along with those of the gods, and had
also blasphemed Christ, none of which things, it is said, can those who are really
Christians be compelled to do. Others, who were accused by an informer, first said
they were Christians and then denied it, saying that they had been, but had ceased
to be, some three years, some several, and one twenty years ago. All adored your
image and those of the gods, and blasphemed Christ. They declared that all the wrong
they had committed, wittingly or unwittingly, was this, that they had been accustomed
on a fixed day to meet before dawn and sing antiphonally a hymn to Christ as a god,
and bind themselves by a solemn pledge [sacramento] not to commit any enormity,
but to abstain from theft, brigandage, and adultery, to keep their word, and not
to refuse to restore what had been entrusted to their charge if demanded. After
these ceremonies they used to disperse and assemble again to share a common meal
of innocent food, and even this they had given up after I had issued the edict by
which, according to your instructions, I prohibited secret societies [hetaeriae].
I therefore considered it the more necessary, in order to ascertain what truth there
was in this account, to examine two slave-girls, who were called deaconesses [ministrae],
and even to use torture. I found nothing except a perverted and unbounded superstition.
I therefore have adjourned the investigation and hastened to consult you, for I
thought the matter was worth consulting you about, especially on account of the
numbers who are involved. For many of every age and rank, and of both sexes, are
already and will be summoned to stand their trial. For this superstition has infected
not only the towns, but also the villages and country; yet it apparently can be
checked and corrected. At any rate it is certainly the case that the temples which
were almost deserted begin to be frequented, the sacred ceremonies which had long
been interrupted to be resumed, and there is a sale for fodder for the victims ["pastumque
venire victimarum," so Lightfoot], for which previously hardly a buyer was to be
found. From this one can easily conclude what a number of people may be reformed,
Besides the interesting information thus afforded on the belief and practice of the early Christians (hints are apparently given of the existence of some formula of prayer, of the Eucharist and Agape), what light does it throw on the legal position of the Christians? That trials of Christians had to Pliny's knowledge already taken place appears by it, and the allusion cannot be to the Neronian persecution when he was scarcely three years old, and hardly can be to that which was commenced and almost immediately discontinued by Domitian, assuming that the objects of it were Christians and not Jews. Pliny's language points rather to proceedings of a regular kind against Christians. On the other hand, the fact that a man who had attained distinction at the bar, and who had held all the high offices of state, had never witnessed a trial of this kind, proves that they were rare. Again, no statutory enactments as to Christianity existed, or Trajan would have referred to them in his rescript according to his usual custom, when senatus consulta or edicts of preceding emperors bore on the subject on which he is writing (cf. lxvi. and lxxiii.). Pliny's action was therefore based on the fact that Christianity was a religio illicita, its professors members of a collegium illicitum, at what might be termed the Roman common law. While Christians were regarded by the Roman government as a mere variety of Jews, they shared in the toleration enjoyed by Judaism as a religio licita. When the separation between the two religions became apparent to Roman eyes, Christianity lost this shelter and its professors fell under the ban that extended to all unlawful associations. The exact time when the Romans became aware of the distinction has been the subject of much controversy; at any rate, it had become apparent by the end of the 1st cent. Nero does not appear to have issued any edicts against Christians in general, and if Christianity, either apart from or along with Judaism, suffered under Domitian (Dion, lxvii. 14), all the measures on the subject were repealed by Nerva on his accession (ib. lxviii. 1).
What, then, was the effect of Trajan's rescript? Formally it made the position of the Christians worse. It confirmed, by a positive enactment, the view Pliny had taken of their status at common law. Practically, however, the qualifications that they were not to be sought for, and anonymous accusations ignored—qualifications due to Trajan's abhorrence of delation in all its forms (cf. Juv. iv. 87; Tac. Ann. iv. 30; Pliny, Pan. 34, 35), and from which it was his especial pride to be free—must frequently have been a boon to the Christians. This secondary bearing of the rescript was first insisted on by Tertullian (e.g. Apol. c. 5, in Migne, Patr. Lat. i. 276) and the primary thrown into the background. >From Tertullian this view of the rescript passed to Eusebius and from him to other Christian writers, till at last it came to be taken as an edict of toleration terminating a general persecution (Sulp. Sev. ii. 31; Orosius, vii. 12, in Patr. Lat. xx. 146, xxxi. 1091), a theory excluded by the words of the rescript itself, "That no fixed rule could be laid down for the whole empire." It was not from favour to the Christians that these limitations were introduced, and Trajan's chief objection to them was his dread of secret societies, which were especially prevalent in Bithynia (Epp. xxxiv. xciii. cxvii.).
Overbeck (Studien zur Geschichte der Alten Kirche) maintained that the rescript was the law that regulated the position of the Christians till the beginning of the persecution of Severus in 202, and that from Tertullian downwards a thoroughly mistaken view of it had been taken. He asserts that during this period it regulated the practice of the emperors, and that they did not deviate from it either in favour of the Christians or against them. He supports his position by pointing out that Justin Martyr under Antoninus Pius, Athenagoras under M. Aurelius, and Tertullian under Severus (Apol. I. 4, Legatio pro Christ. 1 and 2, in Patr. Gk. vi. 333, 892–893, and Apol. 1–4, in Patr. Lat. i. 259–289), all agree in stating that the mere name of Christian was punishable. The trials of Ptolemy and Lucius before the prefect of the city are conducted precisely in the manner laid down by the rescript (Justin, Apol. II. in Patr. Gk. vi. 445). M. Aurelius, on the occasion of the persecution of Lyons, issues a rescript following the same rule, that those who abjured Christianity should be released, those who refused should be executed (Eus. H. E. v. 1). Overbeck, therefore, rejects not only the protection edicts ascribed to M. Aurelius and Antoninus Pius, which are now generally considered to be forgeries, but also, following Keim, argues (134–148) for the spuriousness of Hadrian's letter to Minucius Fundanus, which has usually been thought to be genuine, and which is not really inconsistent with Trajan's rescript.
The only martyrs known by name as having suffered under Trajan are the bishops Symeon of Jerusalem and IGNATIUS of Antioch.
For Trajan's relations with the Christians consult also Eusebius (H. E. iii. 32, 33, 36), Tillemont, Mém. eccl. (ii. 167–212), and Gibbon (c. 16). The ancient authorities for his reign are singularly meagre, and the dates, and even the order of many important events, have been determined only by the evidence of inscriptions and coins.
Trophimus (1) (Cyp. Ep. 55, 11), an Italian bishop (sacerdotii)
who with all his flock offered incense in the Decian persecution. He was restored
to lay-communion by Cornelius, bp.
Trophimus (3), St., 1st bp. of Arles, a subject of eager controversy. According to the tradition of the see, he was the disciple of St. Paul mentioned in Acts and II. Tim., and was sent forth as a missionary to Arles by St. Peter or St. Paul, or both. As early as 417 pope Zosimus, in a letter to the bishops of Gaul, speaking of the city of Arles, says, "Ad quam primum ex hâc sede Trophimus summus antistes, ex cujus fonte totae Galliae fidei rivulos acceperunt, directus est" (Ep. 1, Patr. Lat. xx. 645); and in the same pope's letter to Hilary, bp. of Narbonne, Trophimus was "quondam ad Arelatensem urbem ab apostolica sede transmissus" (Ep. 6, Patr. Lat. ib, 667) Again, the 19 bishops of the province of Arles, writing to pope Leo about the middle of 5th cent., assert that it is known to all Gaul and to the church of Rome "prima intra Gallias Arelatensis civitas missum a beatissimo Petro apostolo sanctum Trophimum habere meruit sacerdotem, et exinde aliis paulatim regionibus Galliarum bonum fidei et religionis infusum" (Patr. Lat. liv. 1880), though it should be mentioned that the genuineness of this letter has been questioned. So, too, Ado, in his Martyrologium (Dec. 29) and Chronicon. On the other hand, Gregory of Tours, apparently quoting from the Acta of St. Saturninus, says in effect that Trophimus arrived in Gaul with the first bishops of Tours, Paris, and other cities in the consulate of Decius and Gratus, i.e. after the middle of 3rd cent.; and in a very old catalogue of the archbishops published by Mabillon, Vetera Analecta, p. 220 (Paris, 1723), he is preceded by Dionysius, as though he were the second bishop. The question, to which some bitterness has been imparted as being closely connected with the hotly resented claims of the early archbps. of Arles to a sort of primacy in Gaul, is elaborately discussed by Trichaud (Hist. de l’Eglise d’Arles, i. 21–143). The cathedral church at Arles was dedicated to Trophimus, with St. Stephen (Gall. Christ. i. 519).
U
Ulfilas (Urphilas in Philostorgius), the
apostle of the Goths in the 4th cent. His
career is involved in much obscurity. The
5th-cent. church historians were our only
source until Waitz, in 1840, discovered a MS.
of the Louvre, containing an independent
account, written by one of Ulfilas's own
pupils, Auxentius, Arian bp. of Silistria, who
is thus an original witness. This MS. gives
details which shed light on the obscurity.
>From these two sources we learn that he was
born early in 4th cent., probably in 311. He
was consecrated bishop when 30 years of age,
possibly by Eusebius of Nicomedia, at the
council of the Dedication, held at Antioch
341. In 380 he went to Constantinople, and
died there the same year or early in 381.
The circumstances of his life raise the question
of the origin of Gothic Christianity. Philostorgius
tells us that, under Valerian and
Gallienus in the second half of cent. iii., the
Goths from N. of the Danube invaded the
Roman territory, laid waste the province of
Moesia as far as the Black Sea, crossed into
Asia and ravaged Cappadocia and Galatia,
whence they took a vast number of captives,
including many Christian ecclesiastics.
"These pious captives, by their intercourse
with the barbarians, brought over large numbers
to the true faith, and persuaded them to
embrace the Christian religion in place of
heathen superstitions. Of the number of
these captives were the ancestors of Urphilas
himself, who were of Cappadocian descent,
deriving their origin from a village called
Sadagolthina, near the city of Parnassus"
(Philost. H. E. ii. 5). The Goths carried back
these Christian captives into Dacia, where they
were settled, and where considerable numbers
embraced Christianity through their instrumentality.
Ulfilas, the child of one of these
Christian captives, was trained in Christian
principles. Socrates asserts that he was a
disciple of a bishop, Theophilus, who was
present at Nicaea and subscribed its creed.
He was at first a reader in the church. The
king of the Goths then sent him to Constantinople
as ambassador to the emperor, c. 340,
when he was consecrated bishop. He returned
to Dacia, laboured there for 7 years,
and then migrated into Moesia, driven from
his original home by a persecution, probably
between 347 and 350. About that period he
produced his great literary work, inventing
the Gothic character and translating "all the
books of Scripture with the exception of the
Books of Kings, which he omitted because they
are a mere narrative of military exploits, and
the Gothic tribes, being especially fond of
war, were in more need of restraints to check
their military passions than of spurs to urge
them on to deeds of war" (Philost. l.c.). We
next hear of him as present at the synod of
Constantinople a.d. 360, when the Acacian
party triumphed and issued a creed taking a
middle view between those of the orthodox
and Arian parties. This was the creed of the
Homoean sect, headed by Acacius in the East
and Ursacius and Valens in the West. It is
important to note its exact words, as it defines
the position of Ulfilas. The material part
Urbanus (1), bp. of Rome under the emperor Alexander Severus, from 223 (or 222) to 230. The Liberian Catalogue gives 8 years 11 months and 11 days as the length of his episcopate. Nothing certain is known of his life. The Acta S. Urbani cannot be relied on.
The discovery by De Rossi in the papal crypt of the cemetery of St. Callistus of a broken stone (apparently once the mensa of an altar-tomb), bearing the imperfect inscription OVRBANOC E . . . has raised an interest in the question of his burial-place and alleged connexion with St. Caecilia. Lipsius inclines to the view that the Urban of the papal crypt was some other Urban, not necessarily a bishop, since the letter E after his name might have begun some other expression than ἐπίσκοπος, e.g. ἐν εἰρήνῃ. De Rossi, however, thinks that the slab in the papal crypt must have been that of the pope, who was actually buried there; and he attributes the contrary tradition to a confusion between him and the earlier Urban, whom he supposes to have been contemporary with St. Caecilia and buried in the cemetery of Praetextatus.
Urbanus (6), bp. of Sicca Veneria, a town
of proconsular Africa (Kaff) 22 miles from
Musti (Ant. Itin. xli. 4; Shaw, Trav. p. 95;
Aug. Ep. 229). Apparently a member of
Augustine's monastic society at Hippo (Aug.
Ep. 139. 34), he had occasion to remove
from his office for grave misconduct a presbyter
named Apiarius. Apiarius appealed to
Zosimus, bp. of Rome, who ordered his
restoration. In a council which met May 1,
418, the African bishops decreed that no
priest, deacon, or inferior clerk should prosecute
any appeal beyond sea. Zosimus then
sent a commission to Africa, headed by
Faustinus, bp. of Potenza, with instructions
as to four points they were to impress on
the African bishops: (1) That appeals from
bishops of other churches should be made to
Rome. (2) That bishops should not cross
the sea unnecessarily (importune) to visit the
seat of government (comitatum). (3) About
settling through neighbouring bishops matters
relating to priests and deacons excommunicated
by their own bishops. Zosimus quotes
a decree purporting to be one of the council
of Nicaea, enjoining appeal to the bp. of Rome
in case of bishops degraded by the bishops of
their own province. (4) About excommunicating
Urbanus, or at least summoning him
to Rome unless he revoked his decision against
Apiarius. This was in the latter part of 418.
The African bishops were willing to accept
provisionally the first and third propositions,
until the canons of Nicaea, on which they were
said to be founded, should be examined, for
they were not aware of the existence among
them of such rules. But at the end of 418
Zosimus was succeeded by Boniface, and no
further action was taken until May 419, when
217 bishops met in council at Carthage
(Hardouin, Conc. vol. i. p. 934; Bruns,
Conc. i. 156, 157 D). Faustinus and his
colleagues attended, and stated the conditions
proposed by Zosimus. The bishops insisted
on seeing them in writing, and the documents
were accordingly then produced and read.
On this Alypius, bp. of Tagaste, remarked that
the decree referred to as one of Nicaea and
quoted by Zosimus did not appear in the
Greek copies with which the African bishops
Ursacius (1), bp. of Singidunum (Belgrade). He and Valens, bp. of Mursa, appear at every synod and council from 330 till c. 370, as leaders of the Arian party both in the East and West. They seem to have imbibed their Arian views from Arius himself during the period of his exile into Illyricum immediately after the council of Nicaea. They are described by Athanasius (ad Episc. Aegypt. 7, p. 218) as the disciples of Arius. This could scarcely have been at Alexandria, but they may easily have come in contact with him during his exile, which seems to have been very fruitful in spreading his views, as almost all the bishops of the Danubian provinces, together with Ulfilas and the Gothic converts, appear as Arians immediately afterwards (cf. Sulp. Sever. Chron. ii. 38). Ursacius must have been born, at latest, c. 300, as we find him a bishop, actively engaged in conspiracy against Athanasius, when Arius was recalled, c. 332. From Socrates we gather the leading events of his life. In H. E. i. 27 we find him united with Eusebius of Nicomedia, Theognis of Nicaea, Maris of Chalcedon, and Valens, in getting up a case against Athanasius and fabricating the scandalous charges of theft, sacrilege, and murder, investigated at the council of Tyre in 335, Ursacius and Valens being present there. They must have been very active and influential members of the party even at that early period, for they were sent to Egypt, as deputies of the synod, to investigate the charge on the spot, notwithstanding the protests of Athanasius (l.c. i. 31). In 342 they assisted at Constantinople at the consecration of Macedonius as patriarch. Upon the triumph of Athanasius in 346 they made their peace with Julius, bp. of Rome, accepted the Nicene formula, and wrote to Athanasius, professing their readiness to hold communion with him. At the synod of Sirmium in 359 they were again active members of the Homoean party, who drew up the Dated Creed, May 22, 359. They duly presented this creed to the council of Ariminum a few weeks later, which promptly rejected it, deposing Ursacius and Valens from their sees, "as well for their present conspiracy to introduce heresy, as for the confusion they had caused in all the churches by their repeated changes of faith." Ursacius and Valens at once sought the emperor's presence and gained him over to their side. The council also sent a long epistle to the emperor, which Socrates (ii. 37) inserts. The emperor refused to see the deputies of the council, and sent them to wait his leisure at Hadrianople first, and then at Nice in Thrace; where Ursacius and Valens induced these same deputies to sign, on Oct. 10, 359, a revised version of the creed, which the council had rejected. Socrates tells us that Nice in Thrace was chosen in order that it might impress the ignorant, who would confound it with Nicaea in Bithynia, where the orthodox symbol had been framed. Cf. Soz. H. E. iv. 19; Hieron. adv. Lucif. p. 189; Sulp. Sev. Chron. ii. 44; and Gwatkin's Studies of Arianism, pp. 157–178, for the history of this period. Ursacius and Valens seem to have remained influential with the court till the end of life, for the last notice of either of them in history tells how Valens obtained the recall of the Arian Eunomius from exile in 367 (Philostorg. H. E. ix. 8). The writings of Athanasius and Hilary frequently mention them. Gwatkin's Studies is very full of information, and Hefele's Councils (t. ii. Clark's trans. s.nn.) gives abundant references to the synods in which they took part; see also Tillem. Mém. vi.
Ursinus (2) (Ursicinus), antipope, elected after the death of Liberius in Sept. 366, in opposition to Damasus. For the conflicts during the life of Liberius between his adherents and those of Felix, who had been intruded into the see by the emperor Constantius, see Liberius (4) and Felix (2); Damasus being set up by the party of Felix, Ursinus by that of Liberius. Conflicting evidence exists as to the circumstances. St. Jerome (Chron.), Rufinus (ii. 10), and Socrates (iv. 24), agree that Damasus was elected first, and lay the blame on Ursinus, who after this election is said to have got hold with his followers of the church of Sicinus (or Sicininus), and to have been ordained. Sozomen (vi. 22) and Nicephorus (xi. 30) give similar accounts. A council at Rome twelve years afterwards, and an influential one at Aquileia, a.d. 381, in which St. Ambrose took a prominent part, both declared Ursinus to be a usurper, and addressed letters to the emperors Gratian and Valentinian against him (Epist. Concil. Roman. ad Grat. et Valentin., Labbe, t. ii. p. 1187; Ep. I. Conc. Aquil. ad Grat. Imp. ib. p. 1183). St. Ambrose (Ep. 11) speaks of Damasus having been elected by the judgment of God. The emperors also, and the civil authorities at Rome, throughout the contest supported Damasus as the lawful pope.
But a different account is given by Marcellinus
and Faustinus, two Luciferian priests,
who, being expelled from Rome under Damasus,
presented a petition (Libellus Precum)
In 367 the emperor Valentinian permitted those who had been banished to return, but threatened severe punishment in case of renewed disturbance. (Baronius, ad ann. 368, ii., iii. iv., gives extracts from these rescripts.) Ursinus returned, and is said to have been received by his followers on Sept. 15, 367, with great joy (Lib. Precum), but was again banished by order of the emperor (Nov. 16), with seven of his adherents, into Gaul. Yet peace was not at once restored. His followers continued to assemble in cemeteries, and got possession of the church of St. Agnes without the walls. Thence they were dislodged; Marcellinus and Faustinus say by Damasus himself with his satellites, and with great slaughter. We may doubt the pope's personal complicity. After this the prefect Praetextatus banished more of the party, and the two presbyters allege cruel persecution, having been themselves among the sufferers. Rescripts of the emperors Valentinian, Valens, and Gratian (a.d. 371) again release Ursinus and his friends from their confinement in Gaul, allowing them to live at large, but away from Rome and the suburbicarian regions (Baron. ad ann. 371, i. ii. iii.). A Roman council (a.d. 378) addressed a letter to the emperors Gratian and Valentinian II., representing that Ursinus and his followers continued their machinations secretly (Labbe, t. ii. pp. 1187–1192).
After this we find Ursinus at Milan, where he is said to have joined the Arian party, who promised him their support (Ambrose, Ep. 4). But St. Ambrose, bp. of Milan, having informed the emperor Gratian of what was going on, the latter banished Ursinus from Italy, and confined him to Cologne (Ep. I. Conc. Aquil. u.s.). No more is heard of Ursinus till after the death of Damasus (Dec. 384), when he opposed Siricius, who, having been a supporter of Damasus against him, was elected with the general consent of the Roman people. Ursinus appears not to have then had sufficient support in Rome to cause conflict and disturbance.
Ursula, a famous British virgin and martyr, celebrated as having suffered with 11,000 other virgins at Cologne. Her notice in the Roman Martyrology is simple: "At Cologne, the natal day of SS. Ursula and her companions, who, being slain by the Huns for their Christianity and their virginal constancy, terminated their life by martyrdom. Very many of their bodies were discovered at Cologne." On this foundation the new Bollandists have raised a prodigious edifice of 230 folio pages, where they discuss (AA. SS. Boll. Oct. t. ix. pp. 73–303) every conceivable fact, topic, or hypothesis concerning these problematical martyrs. Their story, which is purely medieval, is briefly this. Ursula, the daughter of Dionoc, king of Cornwall, was sent by him with her numerous companions to Conan, a British prince, who had followed the tyrant Maximus into Gaul, c. 383. They were somehow carried up the Rhine to Cologne by mistake, where the Huns murdered them all. The enormous number of her companions has been explained as a mistake of the early copyists, who found some such entry as "Ursula et xi. M. V.", which, taking M. for millia, not for martyrs, they read Ursula and 11,000 virgins instead of 11 martyr virgins. Such mistakes frequently occurred in the ancient martyrologies. [Maximus (2).]
V
Valens (4), Arian bp. of Mursa in Pannonia,
and together with
Ursacius the leading
Western opponent of Athanasius. He must
have been born c. 300, as we find him a most
Valens (5), emperor, a.d. 364–378, the
brother of Valentinian I. and born c. 328.
By his wife, Albia Dominica, he had a son,
Galates, and two daughters, Anastasia and
Carosa. Made emperor of the East in
Valentinianus (1) I., emperor a.d. 364–375,
a native of Cibalis in Pannonia. Having
served in the army with distinction, he was
captain of the guards during the reign of
Julian, when he boldly confessed Christ.
Theodoret tells us (H. E. iii. 16) that when
Julian was one day entering the temple of
Fortune with great pomp, Valentinian was
marching in the procession before him. Two
priests were at the gate to sprinkle all who
entered with lustral water. Some fell upon
Valentinian's robe, whereupon, crying out that
he was defiled, not purified, he struck the
priest and banished him to a desert fortress.
When Jovian died, Valentinian was elected,
Feb. 26, 364, and reigned till his death, Nov.
17, 375. For an account of his civil history
see D. of G. and R. Biogr. He presents the
rare phenomenon of an emperor who, sincerely
attached to orthodoxy, was yet tolerant of the
Arians and other heretical sects. He published
an edict at the very beginning of his
reign, giving complete toleration in religious
opinion. To this fact we have the most
opposite testimonies. The emperor refers to
it in Cod. Theod. ix. 16. 9, in a law directed
against the practices of the haruspices.
Ammianus Marcellinus (xxx. 9) praises him
for it, and St. Ambrose, in his oration de
Obitu Valent. Junioris, implicitly censures him
(cf. Hilar. Pictav. Cont. Auxent. Opp. t. iii.
p. 64). His toleration did not, however,
extend to practices. Thus in Sept. 364 he
issued a law (Cod. Theod. ix. 16. 7) prohibiting
nocturnal sacrifices and magical incantations,
and further enforced it by legg. viii. and ix.
of the same title. These edicts seem to have
been issued more from a moral and social than
religious point of view. They were directed
against immorality, not paganism, as is
evident from the fact, which Ambrose (l.c.)
laments, that he tolerated the public profession
and practices of paganism in the Roman
senate-house. One circumstance demonstrates
his tolerance towards the followers of
the ancient religion. There is not a single
edict in the Theodosian code, lib. xvi. tit. x.—the
celebrated title de Paganis, which is filled
with persecuting laws—dating from any year
between 356 and 381; while the same remark
will also apply with one exception to the titles
de Haeretici and de Judaeis, lib. xvi. tit. v.
and viii. The one exception is the Manichean
heresy, which he strictly prohibited by a law
of 372 (Cod. Theod. xvi. v. 3) ordering the
punishment of their teachers and the confiscation
of the houses where they instructed their
pupils in Rome; for Manicheism seems at
that time to have assumed the character of a
philosophy rather than of a religion. That
this tolerant spirit of the emperor was helpful
to true religion appears from the fact that,
under Valentinian heathenism began first to
be called the peasant's religion ("religio
paganorum"), a name first so applied in a law
of 368 (ib. xvi. ii. 18). Valentinian legislated
also for the clergy (ib. xv. ii. 17–22), restraining
the tendency of rich men to take holy orders
to escape civil duties (legg. 17, 18, 19); and
rendering illegal the bequests to clergy and
monks from widows and virgins by a celebrated
law (leg. 20) addressed in 370 to Damasus, bp.
of Rome, under the description "De Vita,
Other modern authorities are Clinton's Fasti, i. 460, and appendix, pp. 110–119, where is an exhaustive statement of all his legislation, together with notices of medals, coins, etc., bearing on his reign, and De Broglie's L’Egdise et l’Empire Romain, pt. iii. c. i.
Valentinianus (2) II., emperor, a.d. 375–392, son of Valentinian I. and of Justina, his second wife. For his secular life see D. of G. and R. Biogr. His name is celebrated in church history in connexion with two matters: (1) An attempt in 384 by the Roman Senate to restore the altar of Victory and the pagan rites connected with the Senate. We possess the document Relatio Symmachi Urbis Praefecti on the one side and the Epp. xvii. and xviii. of St. Ambrose to Valentinian on the other (cf. St. Ambr. opp. Migne, Patr. Lat. t. xvi. col. 962–982 ). St. Ambrose carried the day, and the senatorial petition was rejected, as again in 391 (see Tillem. Emp. v. 244, 300, 349). (2) The other matter concerned the necessity of baptism. Valentinian died at Vienne in Gaul, being then about 20, and only a catechumen. Being anxious to receive baptism, he sent for St. Ambrose to baptize him. Before the sacrament could be administered, he was found dead. St. Ambrose's treatise, de Obitu Valentiniani Consolatio, §§ 51–56, shews how Ambrose rose superior to any hard mechanical view of the sacraments and recognized the sincere will and desire as equivalent to the deed (cf. Tillem. Emp. v. 356; De Broglie, L’Eglise et l’Empire, pt. iii. cc. v. and viii.). At one time Valentinian was inclined to support the Arian party at Milan, influenced by his mother Justina, who was bitterly hostile to St. Ambrose. Sozomen (H. E. vii. 13), followed by Ceillier (v. 386), represents Valentinian and the empress as persecuting St. Ambrose and the Catholics of Milan in 386, referring to Cod. Theod. lib. xvi. tit. i. leg. 4. [Ambrosius; Justina.]
Valentinianus (3) III., emperor, 425–455,
the son of Constantius III. by Galla Placidia,
daughter of Theodosius the Great and consequently
great-grandson of Valentinian I.
For his civil history see D. of G. and R. Biogr.
His reign was signalized by several laws
bearing on church matters. At its very
beginning (July 17, 425) there was issued at
Aquileia in his name a decree (Cod. Theod. lib.
xvi. tit. v. l. 62 ), expelling all heretics and
schismatics from Rome. A special provision
ordered the adherents of Eulalius, elected
anti-pope in 419, to be removed to the 100th
milestone from the city. This law has been
illustrated at great length by Gothofred, t. vi.
204. Identical laws (tit. v. 11. 63, 64) were
issued for the other cities of Italy and for
Africa in 425, and also edicts (lib. xvi. tit. ii.
ll. 46 and 47) renewing clerical privileges and
reserving clerical offenders to the tribunal of
the bishops alone, a rule which he abrogated
later. In tit. vii. of the same bk. is a law against
apostates dated Ravenna Apr. 7, 426, depriving
them of all testamentary power. On the
next day a law was enacted (tit. viii. l. 28)
preventing Jews from disinheriting their
children who became Christians. The most
interesting portion of his ecclesiastical legislation
is in his Novels embodied in Ritter's
appendix to Gothofred's great work (Lip.
1743, t. vi. pt. ii. pp. 105–133). Thus tit. ii
p. 106, a.d. 445, treats of the Manicheans and
gives particulars as to the action of pope Leo
the Great against them; tit. v. p. 111, a.d.
447, of the violations of sepulchres, with severe
penalties against such crimes, of which the
clergy themselves were frequently guilty.
Valentinus (1) (Οὐαλεντῖνος), founder of one of the Gnostic sects which originated in the first half of 2nd cent.
I. Biography.—According to the tradition of the Valentinian school witnessed to by Clemens Alexandrinus (Strom. vii. 17, 106, p. 898, Potter), Valentinus had been a disciple of Theodas, who himself, it is very improbably said, knew St. Paul. Valentinus cannot have begun to disseminate his Gnostic doctrines till towards the end of the reign of Hadrian (117–138). Before this he is said to have been a Catholic Christian. It must have been, therefore, at most only shortly before his appearance as the head of a Gnostic sect that Valentinus became a hearer of Theodas and received, as he said, his doctrines from him. The Gnostics were fond of claiming for their secret doctrines apostolic tradition and tracing them back to disciples of the apostles. To this otherwise unknown Theodas the Valentinians appealed as an authority in much the same way as Basilides was said to have been a disciple of Glaucias, and he, in turn, an "interpreter of Peter."
Irenaeus (i. 11, 1) speaks of Valentinus as the first who transformed the doctrines of the Gnostic "Heresy" to a peculiar doctrinal system of his own (εἰς ἴδιον χαρακτῃρα διδασκαλείου). By the expression γνωστικὴ we understand a party which called themselves "Gnostics," whom we may recognize in the so-called Ophites, described by Irenaeus (i. 30), when he remarks that the Valentinian school originated from those unnamed heretics as from the many-headed Lernean Hydra (i. 30, 15). Concerning the home and locality of these so-called "Gnostics" Irenaeus tells us nothing. But we know from other sources that those Ophite parties to whom he refers had their homes both in Egypt and Syria.
Concerning the fatherland of Valentinus
himself Epiphanius is the first to give accurate
information, which, however, he derived
simply, it appears, from oral tradition (Epiph.
Haer. xxxi. 2). According to this his native
home was on the coast of Egypt, and he
received instruction in Greek literature and
science at Alexandria. Epiphanius, who
makes him begin to teach in Egypt, relates
We may, then, conclude that Valentinus, towards the end of Hadrian's reign (c. 130), appeared as a teacher in Egypt and in Cyprus, and early in the reign of Antoninus Pius he came to Rome, and during the long reign of Antoninus was a teacher there. He had probably developed and secretly prepared his theological system before he came to Rome, whither he doubtless removed for the same motive as led other leaders of sects, e.g. Cerdon and Marcion, to go to Rome—the hope to find a wider field for his activity as a teacher. From a similar motive he attached himself at first to the communion of the Catholic church.
II. History of the Sect.—Valentinus had numerous adherents. They divided themselves, we are told, into two schools—the anatolic or oriental, and the Italian school (Pseud-Orig. Philosoph. vi. 35, p. 195, Miller, cf. Tertullian, adv. Valentinian. c. 11, and the title prefixed to the excerpts of Clemens Εκ τοῦ Θευδότου καὶ τῆς Ἀνατολικῆς καλουμένης διδασκαλίας). The former of these schools was spread through Egypt and Syria, the latter in Rome, Italy, and S. Gaul. Among his disciples, Secundus appears to have been one of the earliest. Tertullian (adv. Valentinian. 4) and the epitomators of Hippolytus mention him after Ptolemaeus (Pseudo-Tertull. Haer. 13; Philast. Haer. 40); the older work, on the other hand, excerpted by Irenaeus is apparently correct in naming him first as Valentinus's earliest disciple (Haer. i. 11, 2). Then follows, in the same original work as quoted by Irenaeus (Haer. i. 11, 3), another illustrious teacher (ἄλλος ἐπιφανὴς διδάσκαλος), of whom a misunderstanding of later heresiologists has made a Valentinian leader, named Epiphanes; who this illustrious teacher was is matter of dispute. The more probable conjecture is with Neander (Gnostische Systeme, p. 169) and Salmon to suppose it was Marcus (17), whose first Tetrad exactly corresponds to that of this unnamed teacher (cf. Haer. i. 15, 1, καθ᾿ ἃ προείρηται). Marcus himself will, in any case, be among the earliest of Valentinus's disciples (Lipsius, Quellen der ältesten Ketzergesch. p. 33). His labours in Asia were probably contemporaneous with Valentinus's residence and activity at Rome, and there a "godly elder and herald of the truth," whom Irenaeus quotes from as an older authority, made him the subject of metrical objurgation as the "forerunner of anti-Christian malice" (Iren. Haer. i. 15, 6).
PTOLEMAEUS, on the other hand, was a contemporary of Irenaeus himself, and one of the leaders of the Italian school (Iren. Haer. Praef. 2, Pseud-Orig. Philos. vi. 35), whom Hippolytus in the Syntagina, and probably on the basis of an arbitrary combination of Iren. i. 8, 5 with 11, 2, puts at the head of all other disciples of Valentinus. Heracleon was still younger than Ptolemaeus, and the second head of the Italian school. His doctrinal system appears to be that mainly kept in view in the Philosophumena (cf. vi. 29, 35). Irenaeus names him as it were in passing (Haer. ii. 4, 1), while Tertullian designates his relation to his predecessors with the words, Valentinus shewed the way, Ptolemaeus walked along it, Heracleon struck out some side paths (adv. Valentinian. 4). He makes also the like remark concerning Secundus and Marcus. Clemens speaks of Heracleon (c. 193) as the most distinguished among the disciples of Valentinus (Strom. iv. 9, 73, p. 595), meaning, of course, among those of his own time. Origen's statement, therefore, that he had a personal acquaintance with Valentinus (Origen, in Joann. t. ii. 8) is to be received with caution. In part contemporaneously with him appear to have worked the heads of the anatolic (oriental) school Axionikos and Bardesanes (Ἀρδησιάνης, Philos. vi. 35), who both lived into the first decennia of cent. iii.
Axionikos was still working at Antioch when Tertullian composed his book against the Valentinians, therefore c. 218 (Tertull. l.c.). We cannot here discuss how far the celebrated Edessene Gnostic BARDESANES (ob. 223) is rightly accounted a Valentinian. Tertullian indicates Axionikos as the only one who in his day still represented the original teaching of Valentinus. Theotimus, therefore, who is previously mentioned by Tertullian, and seems to have occupied himself much with the "Figures of the Law," was, it appears, an older teacher. The same was also probably the case with Alexander, the Valentinian whose syllogisms Tertullian had in his hands (de Carne Christi cc. 16 sqq.).
Concerning the later history of the Valentinian
sect we have but meagre information.
Tertullian, writing c. 218, speaks of the Valentinians
in his book against them as the
"frequentissimum collegium inter haereticos."
This is confirmed by what is told us of the
III. Writings.—The fragments of the writings of Valentinus have been collected by Grabe (Spicilegium, ii. 45–48), and more completely by Hilgenfeld (Ketzergeschichte, pp. 93–207). They consist of fragments of letters and homilies preserved by Clemens Alexandrinus (Strom. ii. 8, 36, p. 448; ii. 20, 114, pp. 488 seq.; iii. 7, 59, p. 538; iv. 13, 91, p. 603; vi. 6, 52, p. 767), and of two pieces contained in the Philosophumena, the narrative of a vision (ὅραμα) seen by Valentinus (Philos. vi. 42, p. 203), and the fragment of a psalm composed by him (Philos. vi. 37, pp. 197 seq.). Psalms of Valentinus's authorship are mentioned by Tertullian (de Carne Christi, 17, 20).
Remains of the writings of the school of Valentinus are more abundant. Beside the numerous fragments and quotations in Irenaeus and the Philosophumena, and in the excerpts from Theodotus, and the anatolic school, which seem yet to need a closer investigation, we may mention: the letter of Ptolemaeus to Flora (ap. Epiphan. Haer. xxxiii. 3–7), numerous fragments from the commentaries (ὑπομνήματα) of Heracleon on St. Luke (ap. Clem. Alex. Strom. iv. 9, 73 seq., pp. 595 seq.; excerpt. ex prophet. § 25, p. 995), and on St. John (ap. Origen in Joann. passim), collected by Grabe (Spicil. i. 80–117) and Hilgenfeld (Ketzergeschichte, 472–498); lastly, a rather large piece out of an otherwise unknown Valentinian writing preserved by Epiphanius (Haer. xxxi. 5 and 6).
IV. Accounts given by the Fathers.—Statements concerning Valentinus and his school are very numerous, but many are so contradictory that it is difficult to distinguish the original doctrine of Valentinus from later developments. Even in his day Tertullian made the complaint (adv. Valentinian. 4), "Ita nunquam jam Valentinus, et tamen Valentiniani, qui per Valentinum." Among those who before him had controverted the Valentinians, Tertullian enumerates (ib. 5): Justin Martyr, Miltiades, Irenaeus, and the Montanist Proculus. Of the writings of these four on this subject one only has been preserved, the great work of Irenaeus in five books, entitled Ἔλεγχος καὶ ἀνατροπὴ τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως, which has come down to us in great part only in the ancient Latin version. This work was written (see iii. 3, 3) in the time of the Roman bp. Eleutherus, c. 180–185. The greater part of bk. i., which Epiphanius has preserved to us almost completely, deals exclusively with the Valentinians, and the refutations in the following books are principally concerned with them.
The sources which Irenaeus used are of sufficient variety. In the preface to bk. i. (c. 2 ) he refers to the writings of those who call themselves disciples of Valentinus, adding that he had met some of them himself and heard their opinions from their own mouths. Immediately afterwards he indicates that the contemporary Valentinians, whose doctrine he promises to describe, are those of the school of Ptolemaeus. In bk. i. (c. 8, 5) he introduces into a detailed description of the Valentinian method of interpreting Scripture a large fragment which undertakes to prove the truth of the higher Ogdoad of the Valentinian Pleroma from the prologue of the Gospel of St. John. The concluding notice (found only in the Latin text) expressly ascribes the authorship of this fragment to Ptolemaeus. Irenaeus likewise obtained his information as to the doctrine and practices of the Marcosians partly from a written source, partly from oral communications. We can hardly assume that Marcus was still alive when Irenaeus wrote, but it is not unlikely that adherents of Marcus may have appeared then in the Rhone districts. The section which specially treats of Marcus (i. 12–15) is apparently from a written source; but what he brings to light for the first time (cc. 16–18) concerning the mysteries celebrated by the Marcosians is from oral information.
Next in importance to the statements of Irenaeus, as a source of information concerning Valentinus and his school, are the fragments preserved among the works of Clemens Alexandrinus, and entitled Ἐκ τῆν Θεοδότου καὶ τῆς ἀνατολικῆς καλουμένης διδασκαλίας ἐπιτομαί. The text has come down to us in a somewhat forlorn condition. The best ed. is Bunsen's, in Analecta Antinicaena, vol. i. (Lond. 1854), pp. 205–278. The general character of these excerpts is similar to others in other writings of Clemens Alexandrinus, and does not justify the assumption that their present abrupt fragmentary form proceeded from Clemens himself.
Very little is obtainable from the Syntagma of Hippolytus, preserved in the excerpts of Pseudo-Tertullian (Haer. 12) and by Philaster (Haer. 38), as also partly by Epiphanius (Haer. xxxi. 8; cf. Quellen d. alt. Ketzergesch. p. 166). Hippolytus combined Irenaeus (cc. 1–7) with some authority belonging to the older anatolic system.
Pseud-Origines, now almost universally assumed to be
HIPPOLYTUS,
gives us in the Philosophumena (the larger
Ἔλεγχος κατὰ πασῶν αἱρέσεων)
a quite peculiar account of
the Valentinian system, one mere uniform and
Tertullian's tractate adversus Valentinianos is not an independent authority. Apart from a few personal notices concerning him and his disciples which he may have taken from the lost work of Proculus (c. 4, cf. c. 11), his whole account is a paraphrase of Irenaeus, whom he follows almost word for word, and more or less faithfully from c. 7 onwards.
Epiphanius (Haer. xxxi. 9–32) has incorporated the whole long section of Irenaeus (i. 1–10) in his Panarion. Haer. xxxii. and xxxiv. (Secundus, Marcus) are simply taken from Irenaeus. He follows Irenaeus also in his somewhat arbitrary way in what he says about Ptolemaeus, Colarbasus, Heracleon (Haer. xxxiii. xxxv. xxxvi.). On the other hand, Haer. xxxi. 7, 8, is taken from the Syntagma of Hippolytus: Haer. xxxiii. 3–7 contains the important letter of PTOLEMAEUS to Flora. Haer. xxxi. 5 and 6 gives a fragment of an unknown Valentinian writing, from which the statements in c. 2 are partly derived. This writing, with its barbarous names for the Aeons and its mixture of Valentinian and Basilidian doctrines, shows anatolic Valentinianism as already degenerate.
Later heresiologists, e.g. Theodoret, who (Haer. Fab. i. 7–9) follows Irenaeus and Epiphanius, are not independent authorities.
V. The System.—A review of the accounts given by the Fathers confirms the judgment that, with the means at our command, it is very difficult to distinguish between the original doctrine of Valentinus and the later developments made by his disciples. A description of his system must start from the Fragments, the authenticity of which (apart from the so-called ὅρος Οὐαλεντίνου in Dial. de Recta Fide) is unquestioned. But from the nature of these fragments we cannot expect to reconstruct the whole system out of them. >From an abundant literature a few relics only have been preserved. Moreover, the kinds of literature to which these fragments belong—letters, homilies, hymns—shew us only the outer side of the system, while its secret Gnostic doctrine is passed over and concealed, or only indicated in the obscurest manner. The modes of expression in these fragments are brought as near as possible to those in ordinary church use. We see therein the evident desire and effort of Valentinus to remain in the fellowship of the Catholic church. Of specific Gnostic doctrines two only appear in their genuine undisguised shape, that of the celestial origin of the spiritual man (the Pneumaticos), and that of the Demiurge; for the docetic Christology was not then, as is clear from Clemens Alexandrinus, exclusively peculiar to the Gnostics. All the more emphatically is the anthropological and ethical side of the system insisted on in these fragments.
As the world is an image of the living Aeon
(τοῦ ζῶντος αἰῶνος),
so is man an image of the pre-existent man of the
ἄνθρωπος προών.
Valentinus, according to Clemens Alexandrinus
(Valentini Homil. ap. Clem. Strom. iv.
13, 92), spoke of the Sophia as an artist
(ζωγράφος) making this visible lower
world a picture of the glorious Archetype, but the
hearer or reader would as readily understand
the heavenly Wisdom of the Book of Proverbs
to be meant by this Sophia as the 12th and
fallen Aeon. Under her (according to Valentinus)
stand the world-creative angels, whose
head is the Demiurge. Her formation
(πλάσμα)
is Adam created in the name of the
Ἄνθρωπος προών. In him thus made
a higher power puts the seed of the heavenly pneumatic essence
(σπέρμα τῆς ἄνωθεν οὐσίας). Thus
furnished with higher insight, Adam excites
the fears of the angels; for even as
κοσμικοὶ ἄνθρωποι
are seized with fear of the images
made by their own hands to bear the name
of God, i.e. the idols, so these angels cause the
images they have made to disappear (Ep. ad
Amicos ap. Clem. Alex. Strom. ii. 8, 36). The
pneumatic seed
(πνεῦμα διαφέρον or
γένος διαφέρον)
nevertheless remains in the world,
as a race by nature capable of being saved
(φύσει σωζόμενον γένος), and which
has come down from a higher sphere in order to
put an end to the reign of death. Death
originates from the Demiurge, to whom the
word (
We learn from the fragments only (Valent.
Ep. ad Agathopoda ap. Clem. Strom. iv. 7, 59)
that Jesus, by steadfastness and abstinence,
earned for Himself Deity, and by virtue of
His abstinence did not even suffer to be
corrupted the food which He received (i.e. it
did not undergo the natural process of digestion),
because He Himself was not subject
to corruption. It must remain undetermined
how Valentinus defined the relation of Jesus to the
υἱός. If the text of the passage quoted
above be sound, Jesus put Himself in possession
of Godhead by His own abstinence, a
notion we should expect in Ebionite rather
than in Gnostic circles. But the true reading may be
εἰκάζετο
(not εἰργάζετο), and in that
case the meaning will be that by an extraordinary
asceticism Jesus avoided every
kind of material pollution, and so became
Himself the image of the incorruptible and
The fragments do not give us any detailed acquaintance with the doctrine of Valentinus concerning the Aeons. The Πατήρ or Βυθός stands at their head; but what place in the Valentinian Pleroma was assigned to the Ἄνθροπος προών in whose name Adam was created, is difficult to determine.
Of a two-fold Sophia, a higher and a lower, we read nothing. Sophia is the artist (ζωγράφος) who forms the world after the archetype of the living Aeon, in order to be honoured by his name. The world as formed obtains credit and stability through the invisible nature of God (Strom. iv. 13, 92).
To what authority Valentinus made appeal
as the source of his doctrine cannot be made
out from the fragments. From the Homily
to the Friends Clemens Alexandrinus has
preserved a sentence which defines "many of
the things written in the public books"
(δημοσίοις βίβλιος:
he means doubtless the writings of the O.T.) as "found written
in the church of God"—"for," he adds,
"those things which are common" (i.e.
not merely found in books—read, with Heinrici
κοινά instead of
κενά)
"are words from the heart"; and proceeds, "The law written in
the heart is the People of the Beloved One,
both loved and loving" (Grabe was wrong in proposing to emend
λαός into
λόγος).
The meaning is that this "People" is in virtue of
the inward revelation of the Logos a law unto
itself (cf.
Irenaeus completes the information afforded
The last of the 30 Aeons, the Sophia or Μήτηρ, falls out of the Pleroma. In her remembrance of the better world she gives birth to Christus with a shadow (μετὰ σκιᾶς τινος), Christus being of masculine nature, cuts away the shadow from himself and hastens back into the Pleroma. The mother, on the other hand, being left behind and alone with the shadow, and emptied of the pneumatic substance, gives birth to another Son the Demiurge, called also Παντοκράτωρ, and at the same time with him a sinistrous archon (the Κοσμοκράτωρ). So then from these two elements, "the right and the left," the psychical and the hylical, proceeds this lower world. This the original doctrine of Valentinus appears to have had in common with that of the Ophites (Iren. i. 30), that both doctrines knew of only one Sophia, and that for the Ophites also Christus leaves the Sophia behind and escapes himself into the upper realm of light.
The notion of a fall of the last of the Aeons from the Pleroma, and the consequent formation of this lower world as the fruit of that fall, is new and peculiar to Valentinus in his reconstruction of the older Gnosticism. He set his Platonic Monism in the place of the Oriental Dualism. The Platonic thought of the soul's fall and longing after the lost world of light he combined with the other Platonic thought of the things of this lower world being types and images of heavenly Archetypes, and so obtained a new solution of the old problems of the world's creation and the origin of evil.
The statements of Irenaeus concerning his teaching are, alas! too fragmentary and too uncertain to supply a complete view of the system of Valentinus. But the excerpts in Clemens Alex. taken from Theodotos and the anatolic school contain a doctrine in §§ 1–42, which at any rate stands much nearer to the views of Valentinus than the detailed account of Ptolemaic doctrines which Irenaeus gives in i. 1–8. We have in these excerpts a somewhat complete whole, differing in some important respects from the doctrinal system of the Italic school, and agreeing with that of Valentinus in that it knows of only one Sophia, whose offspring Christus, leaving his mother, enters the Pleroma, and sends down Jesus for the redemption of the forsaken One.
The doctrine of the Aeons stands as much
behind the anthropological and ethical problems
in these excerpts as it does in the
fragments. We find something about the
Pleroma in an interpretation of the prologue
of St. John's Gospel (Excerpt. §§ 6, 7). By the
ἀρχή of St.
The preceding survey shews that in the first 42 paragraphs or sections of Clemens's fragments from Theodotus we really have a well-connected and consistent doctrinal system. The scattered notices in §§ 1–28 fit tolerably well into the dogmatic whole, and doubtless we have here an account of the so-called anatolic school, and in substance the oldest form of the Valentinian system.
The historical development of the Valentinian doctrine can be traced with only approximate certainty and imperfectly. The roots of the system are to be found in the old vulgar Gnosis. For even if the original dualistic foundation is repressed and concealed by a Platonizing pantheism, it still gives evident tokens of its continued existence in the background. The ὕλη and "dark waters" into which the Ophitic Sophia sinks down (Iren. i. 30, 3) are here changed into the κένωμα or ὑστέρημα, which in antithesis to the πλήρωμα is simply an equivalent for the Platonic μὴ ὄν.
The notion of a psychical Christus who passes through Mary as water through a conduit (Iren. vii. 2) is to be found everywhere in the Italic school (Philos. vi. 35, pp. 194 seq.).
The centre of gravity of the whole system lies undoubtedly in its speculative interests. The names alone of the 30 Aeons are a proof of this. It deserves notice that the designations Νοῦς and Μονογενής applied to the first masculine principle emanating from the supreme Father do not seem to have been used by Valentinus himself. It was called simply Πατήρ or Ἄνθρωπος (νἱὸς ἀνθρώπου). It is a genuinely speculative feature that the knowledge of the Father through the Son is derived from a union of the Spirit of Love with the Spirit of Knowledge.
Since the doctrine of Valentinus concerning the Aeons originated in the cosmogonic and astral powers of the old Syrian Gnosis, one cannot doubt that the Aeons were originally thought of as mythological personages and not as personified notions, although Tertullian (adv. Valentin. 4) would refer the former view to Ptolemaeus, and not Valentinus, as its first author.
A yet more widely different conception of the Valentinian doctrine of Aeons is found in the fragment given by Epiphanius (xxxi. 5–6). Here, too, the speculative interest is manifest in the endeavour to follow up in detail the process of the emanation of individual Aeons within the Pleroma from the Αὐτοπάτωρ. But the whole description, bathed as it is in sensuous warmth, with its peculiar plays with numbers and its barbarous names for individual Aeons, appears to be merely a degenerate Marcosian form of Gnosis.
Finally, we have a quite peculiar transformation of the Valentinian system in the doctrine of the so-called Docetae, as preserved in the Philosophumena (viii. 8–11). From the πρῶτος θεός, who is small as the seed of a fig-tree but infinite in power, proceed first of all three Aeons, which by the perfect number ten enlarge themselves to thirty Aeons; from these proceed innumerable other bisexual Aeons, and from these an infinite multiplicity of Ideas, of which those of the third Aeon are expressed and shapen in the lower world of darkness as φωτειναὶ χαρακτῆρες.
The Platonic foundation of the Valentinian system is very perceptible in this its last offshoot, though mixed up in a peculiar way with Oriental Dualism. At the same time these Docetae endeavour to reduce the metaphysical distinctions which they maintain to merely gradual ones. No part of Christendom therefore is entirely excluded from the knowledge of the Redeemer, and participation in His Redemption: all, even those of the lower grades of the spirit-world, participate at least ἐκ μέρους in the Truth. The way in which all, and each according to his measure, attain knowledge of the truth, is, as in the doctrine of the church, Faith. Since the Redeemer's advent—so we read expressly—"Faith is announced for the forgiveness of sins."
Beside working out philosophical problems, the disciples of Valentinus were much occupied with seeking traces of their Master's doctrine in Holy Scripture. The excerpts of Clemens and abundant notices in Irenaeus tell of an allegorical method of scriptural exposition pursued with great zeal in the Valentinian schools, not limited to the Gospels or the Pauline Epistles, but extending to the O.T., and attaching special significance to the history of creation in Genesis. Valentinian expositors shew a special preference for St. John's Gospel, and above all for its prologue. Some allegorical expositions have been preserved belonging to the anatolic school (Exc. ex Theod. §§ 6, 7) and others derived from Ptolemaeus (Iren. i. 8, 5). But before all we must make mention of the labours of Heracleon, of which Origen has preserved numerous specimens. From Heracleon proceeded the first known commentary on St. John's Gospel.
VI. Literature.—Valentinus occupies a distinguished place in all works on Gnosticism, e.g. in Neander, Baur, Matter, Lipsius, Möhler (Geschichte der Kosmologie in der Christlichen Kirche), Mansel (The Gnostic Heresies of the First and Second Centuries—a posthumous work, ed. by Bp. Lightfoot), and in the Prolegomena of Harvey's ed. of Irenaeus. The best monograph is by Heinrici (Die Valentinianische Gnosis und die Heilige Schrift, Berlin, 1851), with which cf. the review by Lipsius (Protestantische Kirchenzeitung, 1873, pp. 174–186). [Heracleon; Marcus (17).]
Valerianus (1), C. Publius Licinius, emperor. a.d. 253–260. Before the close of 253 Valerian was proclaimed emperor by the legions of Rhaetia and Noricum, and he associated his son Gallienus with him in that dignity.
Their reigns were the most disastrous period
in the history of Rome until that of Honorius.
The empire seemed on the verge of dissolution.
Every frontier was menaced by barbarian
attacks, and even the interior provinces were
invaded and ravaged. A German host
entered Italy itself, and penetrated to Ravenna.
The Franks, now first appearing under
this name, assailed the Rhine frontier. The
To these calamities was added the most terrible persecution the church had yet experienced. In the early part of his reign Valerian was exceedingly favourable to the Christians, and his palace was filled with them. But in 257 a terrible change took place. Valerian fell more and more under the influence of the pretorian prefect Macrianus, an Egyptian, chief of the "magi" of that country. Under his influence Valerian ordered those who did not belong to the religion of Rome at least to render outward signs of conformity to it under pain of exile. By the same edict, Christians were forbidden, under pain of death, to assemble for worship or enter their cemeteries. The cases of St. Cyprian (Acta Procons. c. 1, in Migne, Patr. Lat. iii. 1499) and St. Dionysius of Alexandria (Eus. H. E. vii. 11) shew how uniform the procedure was under this edict. St. Cyprian was apparently the first to suffer in Africa, and the date of his exile (Aug. 257) shews when the persecution began. His sentence was simple banishment, but a great number of African bishops, priests, deacons, and some of the laity, were sent to the mines and endured great hardships (Cypr. Epp. 77–80 in Patr Lat. iv. 414).
This edict was followed in 258 by a rescript of tremendous severity from Valerian, who, in the interval, had probably set out to the East to take command against the Persians. (Early in the year he had held a council of war at Byzantium [Vopiscus, Vit. Aureliani, 13].) The punishment for the clergy of every grade was death. Apparently even recantation was unavailing. Senators, viri egregii, and knights were punished with degradation and confiscation of property, and with death if they refused to recant. Noble ladies were to forfeit their property and be exiled. Members of the imperial household suffered a similar forfeiture, and were to be sent in chains to work on the imperial possessions. It is remarkable that mention is only made of the clergy and the higher classes of the laity. The emperor's policy was apparently to strike at the leaders. The first victim of this rescript was pope Xystus, put to death on Aug. 6 as he sat in his episcopal chair. Four of his deacons suffered with him. This was the beginning of a violent persecution at Rome (Cypr. Ep. 82) in which four days later the famous St. Lawrence followed his master. Cyprian was beheaded on Sept. 14. Both in Rome and Africa a great number of Christians suffered. The best proof of the violence of the persecution is the long vacancies (about 11 months) of the sees of Rome and Carthage. In Spain Fructuosus, bp. of Tarragona, with two deacons, was burnt alive in the amphitheatre (Jan. 21, 259). In Palestine the names of three martyrs are preserved by Eusebius (H. E. vii. 12). They came before the governor and declared themselves Christians. A woman who was a follower of Marcion shared their fate.
But the reign of Valerian was not destined to be of long duration. Dionysius regards his persecution as lasting the 42 months mentioned in the Apocalypse. His campaign against Sapor, king of Persia, the scene of which was the neighbourhood of Edessa, was disastrous. He was taken prisoner late in 260. How long he lived in captivity is unknown. Gallienus, immediately after his father's captivity, stopped the persecution, but it probably lasted in the East till the fall of Macrianus, who had assumed the purple in 262. Zos. i. 28–36; Zon. xii. 22, 23; Bernhardt, Geschichte Roms von Valerian; Tillem. Emp. iii., Mém. eccl. iv. 1; Victor, de Caes. 32; Epit. 32; the Life of Valerian in the Augustan history; Gibbon, cc. 10, 16).
Valerianus, martyr. [CAECILIA.]
Valerius (6), bp. of Hippo Regius, predecessor of Augustine, whom he had admitted to the priesthood at the earnest desire of the people, against Augustine's wish, expressed in a letter to Valerius, but in answer, as Valerius thought, to his own prayers (Aug. Ep. 21; Possidius, Vit. Aug. 4, 5). Contrary to African, but in accordance with Eastern, usage, Valerius caused Augustine to preach in his presence when he himself became unable to do so. When Valerius felt his own infirmities increase, he obtained the consent of the other bishops, but at first not that of Megalius of Calama, primate of Numidia, to ordain Augustine as coadjutor to himself, contrary to the usual practice of the church and to the express wish of Augustine, who refused on this ground to accept the office, though, as he said afterwards, he was not then aware of the canon of the council of Nicaea, forbidding two bishops in the same place. (Conc. Nic. can. 8, Bruns, Conc. p. 16; Aug. c. Petil. iii. 16, § 19, c. Cresc. iv. 64, § 79; Brevic. Coll. iii. 7; § 9). His objection was overruled by the earnest desire of all concerned, and by similar instances in Africa and elsewhere (Aug. Epp. 31, 4; 213, 4). Valerius, better acquainted with Greek than with Latin, was rejoiced to have one so able as Augustine to teach and preach in the Latin language. He is spoken of in the highest terms by Augustine, Possidius, and Paulinus of Nola (Aug. Epp. 31, 4; 32; Possid. Vit. Aug. 5; Paulinus, Ep. 5). After Augustine's appointment, Valerius gave him a piece of land for his monastery (Aug. Serm. 355, 1, 2). He died a.d. 396 (Aug. Ep. 33, 4). Proculeianus was bp. of the Donatists at Hippo during his lifetime (Aug. Ep. 33).
Verecundus (2), d. 552, bp. of the Civitas
Juncensis in Byzacena. He was summoned
to Constantinople in 549, touching the question
of the "Three Chapters." He died at
Chalcedon the year before the second council
of Constantinople. In the controversy on the
"Three Chapters" he seems to have acted
until his death with Virgilius, defending the
works in question, and joining with Virgilius
in his censure on Theodore of Caesarea and
Menas of Constantinople. He is probably the
presbyter Verecundus who composed a commentary
on the ecclesiastical canticles, comprehending
the songs of Miriam, Moses (from
Deut.), Azariah, Hezekiah, Habakkuk, and
Deborah, the prayer of Manasseh, and the
thanksgiving of Jonah. The commentary is
The spirit of the first two poems is alike: both express a strong sense of the need of repentance and an earnest anticipation of the Judgment. The poems are hortatory rather than penitential. The third poem, concerning the signs of the Judgment, is probably not by the same hand. It has much more artificiality and much less earnestness.
A Breviarium Concilii Chalcedonensis, drawn up so as to favour the supporters of the "Three Chapters," is attributed to Verecundus. It is very possibly his, but may have been composed by a more extreme partisan and issued under his name by one who regarded him as a confessor and wished to obtain the influence of his reputation. Pitra prints this also in the Spicilegium.
Veronica (Haemorrhoissa,
ἡ αἱμοῤῥοοῦσα),
the woman cured of a bloody issue
(
Vespasianus, Titus Flavius, emperor July 1, 69, to June 24, 79, and his son Titus, emperor June 24, 79, to Sept. 13, 81. As a great part of the imperial power was exercised by Titus during his father's reign, of which his own short reign may be regarded as the continuation, it seems convenient to treat them together. The influences of these princes on Christianity was wholly indirect. The destruction of Jerusalem and the temple tended to hasten the complete separation of Judaism and Christianity. This distinction, however, had not as yet become apparent to the Roman authorities, and as far as they had any knowledge of the existence of Christians, they regarded them as merely a Jewish sect. A long and almost unbroken chain of Christian authorities bear witness to the favourable condition of Christianity under these emperors. Melito of Sardis, writing in the reign of M. Aurelius (Eus. H. E. iv. 26), knows of no imperial persecutors except Nero and Domitian. Tertullian (Apol. 5) expressly denies that Vespasian was a persecutor. Lactantius (Mortes 2, 3) knows of no persecution between Nero and Domitian. Eusebius (H. E. iii. 17) expressly asserts that Vespasian did no harm to the Christians. Hilary of Poictiers, writing after 360, is the first to make any charge of persecution against Vespasian. In a rhetorical passage (contra Arianos, 3, in Migne, Patr. Lat. x. 611), contrary to all previous Christian testimony, he couples Vespasian with Nero and Decius. Sulpicius Severus (H. E. ii. 30 in Patr. Lat. xx. 146), in a passage whose style suggests it was borrowed from one of the lost books of Tacitus, states that the motive of Titus in destroying the temple was to abolish not only Judaism but Christianity, but he does not mention any hostile act on the part of Vespasian or his son against the Christians.
We may consider that the reigns of these first two Flavian emperors were a period of tranquillity for the church. For their relation to the church see Tillemont, Mém. eccl. ii. 102, 152, 555; Aubé, Hist. des persec. c. 4; Görres, Zeitsch. für wissent. Theol. xxi. 492. M. Double (L’Empereur Titus) ingeniously that maintains, contrary to the usual opinion, he was a monster of wickedness.
Vettius Epagathus. In the early persecutions,
the Christians felt it to be a gross injustice
that a man should be put to death merely
because he acknowledged himself to be a
Christian, and without any investigation
whether there was anything contrary to
morality or piety in the Christian doctrines
or practices. It not unfrequently happened
[LUCIUS]
that a bystander at a trial would
press on the judge the necessity of such an
investigation, whereupon the magistrate
Victor (1), bp. of Rome after Eleutherus, in the reigns of Commodus and Severus. The Eusebian Chronicle assigns him 12 years, ending 198 or 199; Eusebius (H. E. v. 28) 10 years, and says that Zephyrinus succeeded him about the 9th year of Severus, i.e. a.d. 202. Lipsius (Chron. der röm. Bischöf.) supposes his episcopate to have been from 189 to 198 or 199. Soon probably after his accession he excommunicated Theodotus of Byzantium (ὁ σκυτεύς), who had come to Rome, and taught that Christ was as mere man (Eus. H. E. v. 28; cf. Epiphan. Haeres. liv. 1). Eusebius is quoting from an opponent of the sect of Artemon, who afterwards under pope Zephyrinus maintained a similar heresy. It appears from the quotation that the Artemonites alleged all the bps. of Rome before Zephyrinus to have held the same views with themselves, and the allegation is refuted by the fact of Victor, the predecessor of Zephyrinus, having excommunicated Theodotus, "the founder and father of the God-denying apostasy." Montanism also was rife in Asia Minor during the reign of Victor, who is supposed by some to have been the bp. of Rome alluded to by Tertullian (adv. Prax. c. 1) as having issued letters of peace in favour of its upholders, though afterwards persuaded by Praxeas to revoke his approval. But others think it more probable that Eleutherus was referred to. See, however, MONTANUS.
Victor's most memorable action was with
regard to the Asians on the Easter question.
They still persisted in the Quartodeciman usage,
pleading the authority of St John for keeping
their Pasch on the 14th of Nisan, on whatever
day of the week it fell. So far intercommunion
between them and the church of Rome
had not been broken on this account. In the
time of Victor the usage of the Asians (in which,
according to Eusebius, they stood alone among
all the churches of Christendom) attracted
general attention. Synods were held on the
subject in various parts—in Palestine under
Theophilus of Caesarea and Narcissus of
Jerusalem, in Pontus under Palmas, in Gaul
under Irenaeus, in Corinth under its bishop,
Bachillus, at Osrhoene in Mesopotamia, and
elsewhere, by all of which synodical letters
were issued, unanimous in disapproval of the
Asian custom, and in declaring that "on the
Lord's Day only the mystery of the resurrection
of the Lord from the dead was accomplished,
and that on that day only we keep the
close of the paschal fast" (Eus. H. E. v. 23).
But the general feeling was that the retention
of their own tradition by the Asians was no
sufficient ground for breaking off communion
with them. Victor alone was intolerant of
difference. He had issued a letter in behalf
of the Roman church to the like effect with
those of the synods held elsewhere. From a
reply to it we may conclude it to have been
peremptory in its requirement of compliance.
This reply was from Polycrates, bp. of Ephesus,
as head of the Asian churches, who, at
Victor's desire, had convened an assembly of
bishops which concurred with Polycrates in
his rejoinder. He resolutely upholds the
Asian tradition, supporting it by the authority
of Philip the apostle, who, with his two aged
virgin daughters, was buried at Hierapolis;
of another saintly daughter of his who lay at
Ephesus; of St. John, also at rest at Ephesus;
of Polycarp of Smyrna, bishop and martyr;
of Thraseas of Eumenia, also bishop and
martyr, who slept at Smyrna. After naming
others who had kept the 14th day according
to the Gospel, he speaks of seven of his own
kinsmen, all bishops, who had maintained the
same usage. He adds, "I therefore, having
been for 65 years in the Lord, and having
conferred with the brethren from the whole
world, and having perused all the Holy Scripture,
am not scared with those who are panic-stricken.
For those who are greater than I
have said, 'It is right to obey God rather than
men.'" After receiving this reply Victor
endeavoured to induce the church at large
to excommunicate the Asians, but failed.
Whether he himself, notwithstanding, renounced
communion with them on the part
of the Roman church is not clear from the
language of Eusebius. Socrates (H. E. v. 22)
says he did; and this is probable. Jerome
(de Vir. Ill. c. 35) speaks only of his desire to
have them generally condemned. Evidently
the judgment of the bp. of Rome did not in
that age carry any irresistible weight with
other churches, for Eusebius expressly tells
us that "these things did not please all the
bishops," and that they wrote "sharply
assailing Victor." He cites a letter sent on
the occasion to Victor by Irenaeus, who, though
holding with him on the question at issue,
exhorted him in the name of a synod of the
church of Gaul "that he should not cut
off whole churches of God for preserving the
tradition of an ancient custom." Lastly, he
cites "the elders before Soter," chiefs of the
Roman church, who had been at peace with
those from other dioceses differing from them
in the matter at issue; and especially Anicetus,
who, though unable to persuade the
blessed Polycarp to give up the custom which,
"with John the disciple of our Lord, and the
Victor (39) (Victorius, Victorinus), Claudius Marius, the author of three books in hexameter verse, containing the narrative of Genesis down to the destruction of the cities of the Plain; author also of a letter to "Salmon," or Solomon, an abbat, in hexameter verse, on the corrupt manners of his time. He is probably the Victorius, or Victorinus, mentioned by Gennadius (de Vir. Ill. 60) as a rhetorician of Marseilles, who died "Theodosio et Valentiano regnantibus" (i.e. 425–450), and who addressed to his son Aetherius a commentary on Genesis. Gennadius says "a principio libri usque ad obitum patriarchae Abrahae tres diversos edidit libros." This does not accurately describe the work we have under the name of Cl. M. Victor. But there is a diversity of reading in the passage of Gennadius. In Erasmus's ed. of St. Jerome the passage stands "quatuor versuum edidit libros." If this be the right reading, it seems almost certain that the three books we have of Cl. M. Victor, ending as they now do at a point which seems to call for some explanation, are the first three books of those mentioned by Gennadius, and that a fourth book, now lost, carried on the narrative to Abraham's death, where a natural halting-place for the work is presented. The three books correspond very well with what Gennadius says of the work of Victorius; they are written in a pious and Christian spirit, but without depth or great force of treatment. They are, mainly, a paraphrase in verse of part of Genesis with but few reflections; the narrative, with one or two exceptions, keeping closely to that of Scripture. The most notable variation is the introduction of a prayer by Adam on his expulsion from Paradise, which is followed by a strange episode. The serpent is discerned by Eve, who urges Adam to take vengeance on him. In assailing him with stones, a spark is struck from a flint, which sets fire to the wood in which Adam and Eve had taken shelter, and they are threatened with destruction. This mishap is the means of revealing to them metals, forced from the ground by the heat, and of preparing the earth, by the action of the fire, for the production of corn. The style of the poem and its language are in no way remarkable; its versification is generally tolerable, but there are instances of wrong quantities of syllables. The Ep. to Salomon is a poem of about 100 hexameters, and more original, though not of special interest. Both are in De la Bigne's Bibl. Patr. viii. 278, and Appendix; and in Maittaires' Corpus Poetarum Lat. ii. 1567.
Victor (44) Vitensis, a N. African bishop and
writer. The known facts of his life are very
few. He was called Vitensis either after his
see or after his birthplace. He seems to have
been numbered amongst the clergy of Carthage
c. 455. His Hist. Persecutionis Provinciae
Africanae is very interesting, as he
appears to have been with safety an eyewitness
of the Vandal persecution for more
than 30 years. He was actively employed by
Eugenius, metropolitan of Carthage, in 483.
Early in that year Hunneric banished 4,966
bishops and clergy of every rank. Victor was
used by Eugenius to look after the more aged
and infirm of the bishops. The History gives
us a view of the religion of the Vandals. It
also relates many particulars about Carthage,
its churches, their names and dedications, as
those of Perpetua and Felicitas, of Celerina and
the Scillitans (i. 3). It shews the persistence
of paganism at Carthage, and mentions the temples
of Memory and of Coelestis as existing till
the Vandals levelled them after their capture
of Carthage. This temple of Coelestis existed
in the time of Augustine, who describes in his
de Civ. Dei, lib. ii. cc. 4, 26 (cf. Tertull. Apol.
c. 24) the impure rites there performed. Its
site was elaborately discussed by M. A. Castan
in a Mém. in the Comptes rendus de L’Acad.
des Inscript. t. xiii. (1885), pp. 118–132, where
all the references to its cult were collected out
of classical and patristic sources. Victor's
History contains glimpses of N. African ritual.
In lib. ii. 17 we have an account of the healing
of the blind man Felix by Eugenius, bp. of
Carthage. The ritual of the feast of Epiphany
is described, while there are frequent references
to the singing of hymns or psalms at
funerals. In Hist. lib. v. 6, we read that the
inhabitants of Tipasa refused to hold communion
with the Arian bishop. Hunneric
sent a military count, who collected them all
into the forum and cut out their tongues by
the roots, notwithstanding which they all
retained the power of speech. This remarkable
fact has been discussed by Gibbon, c.
xxxvii., by Middleton in his Free Inquiry,
pp. 313–316, and by many others. The
History of Victor is usually divided into five
books. Bk. i. narrates the persecution of
Genseric, from the conquest of Africa by the
Vandals in 429 till Genseric's death in 477.
Bks. ii. iv. and v. deal with the persecution
of Hunneric, a.d. 477–484; while bk. iii.
contains the confession of faith drawn up by
Eugenius of Carthage and presented to Hunneric
at the conference of 484 (cf. Gennadius,
de Vir. Ill. No. 97). In the Confession (lib. iii. 11)
the celebrated text
Victor (47), bp. of Capua, apart from his writings is known only by his epitaph, which states that he died in Apr. 554, after an episcopate of about 13 years from Feb. 541 (Ughelli, vi. 306).
Writings.—I. He is best known from his
connexion with the Codex Fuldensis (F), after
the C. Amiatinus the most ancient and
valuable MS. of the Vulgate, transcribed by
his direction and afterwards corrected by
him. The MS. is remarkable for containing
the Gospels in the form of a Harmony. In his
preface he relates that a MS. without a title
had come into his hands containing a single
Gospel composed of the four. Inquiring into
its authorship, he concludes, though with
some doubt, that it was identical with the works of
TATIANUS
(T),
which by a blunder he calls Diapente instead of
Diatessaron. So little was known till 1876 of the
Diatessaron that it was generally supposed that Victor was
mistaken. It was known that the Diatessaron
began with
F also contains the rest of the N.T. with
the Ep. to the Laodiceans in the order:
Pauline Epistles (Phil. being followed by I. and
II. Thess., Col., Laodiceans, I. and II. Tim.,
Tit., Philemon, and Heb.), the Acts, the seven
Catholic Epistles and the Apocalypse, the
whole concluding with the verses of pope
Damasus on St. Paul. To each book, except
the Laodiceans, is prefixed a brevis or table of
headings, and to each Pauline Epistle except
Hebrews, and to the Acts and the Apocalypse,
a short preface. To the Pauline Epistles are
also prefixed a table of lessons from them, a
general preface or argument of them, a long
special argument of the Romans, and a concordance
of the Epistles giving references to
the various passages treating of each particular
doctrine. To the Acts is prefixed an account
of the burial-places of the Apostles. There
is a short general preface to the seven Catholic
Epistles, and also the remarkable preface
purporting to be St. Jerome's, which contains
the accusation, referred to by Westcott and
Hort (G. T. ii. Notes on Select Readings, 105),
against the Latin translators of omitting the
"Patris Filii et Spiritus testimonium" in
The whole MS. was carefully revised and corrected by Victor, in whose hand are three notes, one at the end of the Acts and two at the end of the Apocalypse, respectively recording that he had finished reading the MS. on May 2, 546, Apr. 19, 546, and a second time on Apr. 12, 547. In the same hand are occasional glosses, the most remarkable being the explanation of the number of the beast in the Revelation as Teitan. The MS. was ed. in 1868 by E. Ranke, whose preface fully describes it and its history; the Harmony only is in Migne (Patr. Lat. lxviii. 255).
II. Victor was the author of several commentaries
on the O. and N. T., partly consisting
of extracts from various fathers, partly
original. Pitra (Spicil. Sol. i.) has edited
fragments of some on O.T., contained in
an Expositio in Heptateuchum by Joannes
Diaconus. Another work is the Reticulus, or
On Noah's Ark (p. 287), containing an extraordinary
III. Victor's most celebrated work was that on the Paschal Cycle mentioned by several chroniclers and praised by Bede (de Rat. Tempa. 51), whose two extracts are in Patr. Lat. lxviii. 1097, xc. 502. The rest was supposed to be lost till considerable extracts from it contained in the Catena of Joannes Diaconus were pub. in Spicil. Sol. (i. 296). It was written c. 550, to controvert the Paschal Cycle of VICTORIUS (2), according to which Easter Day would have fallen that year on Apr. 17, while Victor considered Apr. 24 the correct day in accordance with the Alexandrine computation which he defends.
Victor (48) Tununensis, an African bishop and chronicler. He was a zealous supporter of the "Three Chapters," enduring much persecution after 556 and till his death c. 567, both in his own province and in Egypt. Of his Chronicle, from the creation to a.d.. 566, only the portion 444–566 remains, dealing almost exclusively with the history of the Eutychian heresy and the controversy about the "Three Chapters." It also gives details about the Vandal persecution, the memory of which must have been still fresh in his youth, and various stories telling against Arianism. The Chronicle is very useful for illustrations of the social and religious life of cent. vi. It is printed in Migne's Patr. Lat. t. lxviii. with Galland's preface. Cf. Isid. de Vir. Ill. c. 38; Cave's Hist. Lit. i. 415. A treatise On Penitence, included among the works of St. Ambrose, is attributed to Victor; Ceill. v. 512; x. 469, xi. 302.
Victorinus (4), St., of Pettau, bishop and martyr. He was apparently a Greek by birth, and (according to the repeated statement of Cassiodorus) a rhetorician before he became bp. of Pettau (Petavio) in Upper Pannonia. He is believed to have suffered martyrdom in Diocletian's persecution. St. Jerome (our chief authority concerning him) mentions him several times, and with respect even where his criticisms are adverse. He enumerates, among his works (Catal. Script. Eccl. 74) commentaries on Gen., Ex., Lev., Is., Ezek., Hab., Eccles., Cant., Matt., and Rev., besides a treatise "adversus omnes haereses." Jerome occasionally cites the opinion of Victorinus (in Eccles. iv. 13; in Ezech. xxvi. and elsewhere), but considered him to have been affected by the opinions of the Chiliasts or Millenarians (see Catal. Script. 18, and in Ezech. l.c.). He also states that he borrowed extensively from Origen. In consequence, perhaps, of his Millennarian tendencies, or of his relations to Origen, his works were classed as "apocrypha" in the Decretum de Libris Recipiendis, which Baronius (ad ann. 303) erroneously refers to a synod held under Gelasius. Little or nothing is left—nothing; indeed, which can be said to be his with any certainty. Poems are attributed to him with no authority better than that of Bede; while the two lines Bede quotes as his were clearly written by some one with a tolerable knowledge of Latin.
Victorinus (6), called Caius Marius (Hieron. Comm. on Gal. Proleg.) and also Marius Fabius (see Suringar, Hist. Scholiast. Lat. p. 153, note); known also as Afer, from the country of his birth. He is to be distinguished from two Christian writers called Victorinus mentioned by Gennadius (de Scriptor. Eccl. cc. 60 and 88), and from Victorinus of Pettau, the commentator on the Apocalypse. He was a celebrated man of letters and rhetorician in Rome in the middle of 4th cent.
His conversion is the subject of the well-known narrative in St. Augustine's Confessions (bk. viii. cc. 2–5). In extreme old age zealous study of Scripture and Christian literature convinced him of the truth of Christianity. He told Simplician, afterwards bp. of Milan, that he was a Christian, and when Simplician refused to regard him as such till he saw him "in the church," asked him in banter "whether walls, then, make Christians?"—a characteristic question from one disposed to regard Christianity rather as another school of philosophy than as a social organization. The fear of his friends, however, which kept him from making profession of his faith, was removed by further meditation, and after being enrolled as a catechumen for a short time, he was baptized, and by his own deliberate choice made his preliminary profession of faith with the utmost publicity. St. Augustine gives us a vivid account of the excitement and joy his conversion caused in Christian circles at Rome. This was at least before the end of the reign of Constantius, a.d. 361; but he continued to teach rhetoric in Rome till 362, when Julian's edict forbad Christians to be public teachers (Aug. Conf. l.c.). Then, "choosing rather to give over the wordy school than God's Word," he withdrew, and as St. Jerome emphasizes his great age before conversion, it is not surprising that we hear no more of him. He lived, however, long enough to write a number of Christian treatises and commentaries, and it is possible that Jerome alludes to him as alive on the outbreak of the disputes connected with the name of Jovinian in 382. (See Proleg. to Victorinus in Migne's Patr. Lat. vol. viii. p. 994 for question of reading.)
The following is a list of his Christian
writings: (1) The anti-Arian treatise, de
Generatione Verbi Divini, in reply to the de
Generatione Divina by Candidus the Arian.
(2) The long work adversus Arium, elicited by
Candidus's brief rejoinder to the former
treatise. Bk. ii. must have been written not
later than 361 (see c. 9), bk. i. c. 365 (see c. 28). (3) The
de ὁμοουσίῳ
Recipiendo, a summary of (2). (4) Three Hymns,
mainly consisting of formulas and prayers intended to elucidate
Besides these we may notice the de Physicis, ascribed to him by Cardinal Mai (see his remarks in Migne prefixed to the treatise, p. 1295). It is an ably written treatise on the Creation, Fall, and Recovery of Man. But the style does not suggest the authorship of Victorinus, and the character of the quotations from N.T. seems to argue a different author.
We have some allusions in his extant works
to others which have perished, e.g. on
All these writings of Victorinus (except the
commentaries, which approach more nearly to
lucidity) are very astonishingly obscure for
one of Victorinus's reputation as a rhetorician.
This, together with the recondite nature of the
theological subjects he treats, the extremely
corrupt condition of the text as hitherto edited,
the barbarous mixture of Greek and bad Latin
in which he often writes, and his prolixity and
repetitions, have caused him to be ignored
more than his substantial merits deserve.
There is one notable exception to the usual
severe judgments on his style and matter.
Thomassin, whose theological judgment is
weighty, speaks of him as "inferior to none
in the profundity of his insight into the
inmost mysteries" of the Divine Being, and
the relation of the Persons of the Trinity to
one another (de Incarn. Verbi, bk. ii. c. i. § 6).
This judgment will put us on the right lines
for estimating his position and powers. He
has no special merits as a commentator, nor
the capacities of a dogmatic theologian in the
ordinary sense. He does not manipulate
skilfully the stock anti-Arian arguments. He
combats, generally as badly as possible, the objection to the
ὁμοούσιος
as an unscriptural term (adv. Ar. i. 30, p. 1063
B, C
The special character of his theology may
be further explained by two epithets. (1)
Though post-Nicene in date, it is ante-Nicene
in character. The doctrine of the subordination
of the Son is emphasized by him, and this
very subordination doctrine is used against
Arianism without the least suspicion of its
being itself open to the charge of any Arianizing
tendency. He sees, as boldly as the
earlier theologians, anticipations of the Incarnation
in the Theophanies of O.T. (adv. Ar. iv. 32, 1136
C). He retains the ante-Nicene
interpretations of crucial texts—"My
Father is greater than I" (
(2) His theology is neo-Platonist in tone. Here is the special interest attaching to Victorinus's works. He had grown old in the neo-Platonist schools before his conversion. When converted, he applied many principles of the Plotinian philosophy to the elucidation of the Christian mysteries. His importance in this respect has been entirely overlooked in the history of theology. He preceded the Pseudo-Dionysius. He anticipated a great deal in Scotus Erigena. If sometimes more neo-Platonist than Christian, this is no doubt due in part to the great age he had attained before studying Christian theology.
We deal with, I. his theological system; II. its relation to neo-Platonism; III. further points in his theology which demand notice; IV. his importance in relation to ante-Hieronymian versions of the Latin Bible.
I. The following is a summary of his mode of conceiving the relations of the Trinity and the processes of creation and redemption.
Candidus had objected to the orthodox
doctrine that in asserting generation in God,
it asserted change ("omnis generatio per
mutationem est"), and thus contradicted the
essential idea of God; and further that the
idea of a "genitus Deus ex prae-existente
substantia" is in contradiction to the "simplicity"
of the Divine substance. Dwelling
on ideas such as these of the Divine immutability
and simplicity, he believed himself, in
fighting against the Catholic doctrine, to be
contending for the dignity of God, "the
infinite, the incomprehensible, the unknowable,
the invisible, the unchangeable"
(Candidi Arian. Lib. de Gen. Div. 1–3; Migne,
Patr. Lat. viii. 1015). Victorinus's reply is
central and final. Your transcendent and
immutable God is so conceived that He can
come into no possible relation to anything
As the Son is thus conceived of as the eternal object of the Divine will, so He is the eternal and adequate object of Divine self-knowledge. As the Father eternally wills, so He eternally knows Himself in the Son. The Divine knowledge, like the Divine will, must have its adequate object. God knows Himself in the Son; for the Son is the expression of His own being. The Son is thus the "forma" of God and His limitation. This thought constantly recurs. It is not that God is limited from outside, but that the infinite and the indeterminate in expressing Himself limits or conditions Himself. He knows Himself in the Logos or determinate, definite Utterance; and thus the unconditioned, the absolute, the Father, limits or conditions Himself in that eternal utterance by which He knows Himself. Knowledge is thus conceived of as limitation or form; it is an eternal abiding relation of subject and object. Once for all the Father knows Himself as what He is in the Son.
It is only stating this same principle in broader terms to say that the Son is to the Father as effect to cause (adv. Arium, iv. 3, 1115 A), that is to say, He is the revelation of all the Father is. What the Father is, the Son expresses, exhibits, manifests. As outward intelligence and life express our inner being, so the Father, the inner Being, is expressed in the Son. The Father is the esse, the vivens, the Son the vita, the actualized life (i. 32, 42). Substance can only be known by its manifestations in life (iii. 11, 1107 B). The Father is the "motio," the Son the "motus." What the Father is inwardly ("in abscondito") the Son is outwardly ("foris").
The passages in which the distinction between the ἐνδιάθετος and the προφορικὸς Λόγος are implied are not many nor emphatic in Victorinus, as, e.g., in Tertullian. The Son is eternally Son and self-subsistent. That "effulgentia" "Filietas" is out of all time, absolute (i. 27, 1060 D). "Catholica disciplina dicit et semper fuisse Patrem et semper Filium" (in Phil. 1210 A). Yet Victorinus admits a sense in which he may be called "maxime filius" in Humanity (1061 A), and speaks of Him as getting the name of Son, the "Name above every Name," only in His Incarnate exaltation (1210 C, D, "ita ut tantum nomen, aecesserit, res eadem fuerit"). His thought expresses itself thus naturally in the doctrine of the generation of the Son and His co-essential equality with the Father. But it does not so easily adapt itself to formulae which express the Being, Procession, and Substantiality of the Holy Ghost. He intends to be perfectly orthodox. He accepts the faith, even though he finds it difficult to formulate. He teaches emphatically that the Holy Ghost proceeds "from the Father and the Son." He is subsequent in order to the Son. But as "Spirit of the Father" there is a sense in which He precedes the Son; that is, as that which God is—Spirit—He is that in which the Father begets the Son. He conveys the Father's Life to the Son.
The distinction of Son and Spirit is carefully
maintained, but yet the essential duality
which is in God—the distinction of that which
is from that which proceeds forth—the distinction
expressed in all the antitheses
referred to above, is clearer to Victorinus than
the Trinity of relations. The Son and the
Spirit seem to him more utterly one than the
Father and the Son. They are "existentiae
duae," but they proceed forth "in uno motu"
and that "motus" is the Son; so that the
Spirit is, as it were, contained in the Son
(adv. Ar. iii. 8, 1105 A). Thus Victorinus
sometimes speaks as if the Spirit were the Son
in another aspect (he even says "idem ipse
et Christus et Spiritus Sanctus," see ib. iii. 18, 1113
D and i. 59, 1085 B). He has also
a subtle mode of speaking of the Spirit as the
"Λόγος in occulto," and Christ Incarnate
as the "Λόγος in manifesto"; Logos and
Spiritus being used interchangeably
We pass on to his conception of the relation of God to Creation. All things are conceived as pre-existing in God—potentially in the Father, actually in essence in the Son. In Him dwells all the fullness bodily, that is (according to V.) in the Eternal Word dwells all existence substantially—οὐσιακῶς. Whatever came into being subsequently in time, in Him was eternally Life. Thus the Λόγος is the "Λόγος of all things"—the universal Logos—the seed of all things, even in His Eternal Being, containing all things in Himself in archetypal reality. (Adv. Ar. i. 25, 1059 A; ii. 3, 1091 B; iii. 3, 1100 C, and iv. 4, 1116 C, where the Word is almost identified with the Platonic "ideas"; at least, He contains the ideas in Himself, as "species" or "potentiae principales.") It follows that the Son is very mainly considered as existing with a view to Creation. He exists as the "Λόγος of all that is" with a view to the being of whatever is ("ad id quod est esse iis quae sunt"). It is His essence to move, as it is the Father's to repose. The "motus" in virtue of which He is, is still pressing outward, so to speak, from the "fontana vita" of the Father.
All this is somewhat neo-Platonic in tone. What follows is almost pure and undiluted neo-Platonism, e.g. his description of the process of Creation, as a drawing out of the plenitude of God into a chain or gradation of existences. He; adopts the neo-Platonic conception of "anima" as something capable of spiritualization, but not yet "spirit"—intermediate between spirit and matter. He follows neo-Platonism in his conception of the "return of all things" into God (adv. Ar. iii. 1, 1098 B; iv. 11, 1121 A, B; de Gen. 10, 1026 A, B; adv. Ar. iii. 3, 1100 C; Hymn 1, 1141 A; in Eph. i. 4, 1239 B, C). He is simply neo-Platonic in his conception of matter and the material world. "Matter" has no existence independent of God; in itself it is "non-existent"—an abstraction. Man is regarded as a mixed being, a spiritual "anima" (see in Eph. i, 4, 1239 C) merged in the corruption of matter. He calls the human race "animae seminatae saeclis" corrupted by the material darkness in which they are merged (Hymn 1, 1142 A; adv. Ar. i. 26, 1060 A; i. 62, 1087 B). Misled by this ineradicable misconception of material life, he thinks in a Platonic and non-Christian spirit of men as existing in an unfallen condition, in a pre-mundane state of being, and being born into the corruption of material life at their natural birth. Moral evil, from this point of view, must be physical and necessary.
The other main effect of Platonism upon Victorinus's anthropology is to produce a profound and unmitigated Predestinarianism. His ideology leads him (in his Comm. in Eph. at least) to assert not only the pre-existence of the absolute "anima" in the Eternal Word, but the pre-existence of all particular souls. All the history of the soul in its descent into matter, and its recovery therefrom through the Incarnate Christ, is only the development of the idea of the soul which pre-existed eternally, individually, and substantially in the Mind and Will of God. (1245 C, 1243 C, 1238 C, 1239 B, 1242 B. What exists in God's thought must exist substantially.)
But these Platonizing elements in his teaching do not occupy all the ground. They lie side by side with the stock conceptions of Christian truth, no less emphasized sometimes than the Platonic views. Thus the common view of sin and responsibility and the origin of evil in the corrupt choice of the free will is emphasized several times (e.g. ad Justin. Man. 16, 1008 B), and it would seem that, much as the mode of conceiving Redemption which Victorinus adopts would lead to Universalism, he is not a Universalist. (In Eph. 1281 A, B; cf. 1282 C, D; 1286 B, C. On Universalism, see in Phil. 1221 B, "universos, sed qui sequerentur"; in Eph. 1245 B, "non omnia restaurantur sed quae in Christo sunt"; cf. 1274 C, "quae salvari possent." This interprets such passages as 1252 C.)
Again though on one occasion the view given of the Incarnation is vitiated by the notion of the essential corruption of matter (adv. Ar. i. 58, 1084 C), in general his Incarnation teaching is strikingly sound and repudiates by anticipation a good deal of 5th-cent. heresy. God the Son enters into conditions of real humanity. He takes human nature whole and complete into the unity of a single Person (it is an "acceptio carnis," not a proper "generation" of a person), and He lives, God in Manhood ("Deus in homine" [homo = manhood] adv. Ar. i. 14, 1048 D; i. 45, 1075 B; in Phil. 1208 C, 1224 C.; he, however, uses an Adoptionist phrase, adv. Ar. i. 10, 1045 C.) The humanity which He takes is emphasized as universal ("universalis caro, universalis anima; in isto omnia universalia erant," iii. 3, 1101 A). Thus the passion in which He suffers for man's redemption is universal, because He suffers as representative of the race He is to re-create (in Phil. 1196 D, 1221 B, and adv. Ar. l.c.). The effect of Christ taking humanity is to make the whole of that which He assumed—soul and flesh—vital with new capacities of life. The "Word made flesh" makes the flesh He took to be life in Him Who is the Life ("omne quod Christus est vita aeterna est," etc., iv. 7, 1118 A; cf. language about Eucharist below); and in this humanity—spirit, soul, and body—which Christ took, He is glorified and exalted (iv. 7, 1118 B; cf. in Eph. 1259 B, "aeterna caro," "corporalis majestas"). Through it He lives in His people, so that they become what He is, through Him. They become part of the Christ. The church is Christ (in Gal. 1173 C, D; cf. 1184 B), and we are to be glorified, body and soul, in Christ (in. Phil. 1226 A, B, 1227 A; cf. in Eph. 1255 B, "resurrectio Christi, resurrectio nostra").
Victorinus uses suggestive language about
the sacraments and ministry of the church in
relation to the communication to us of the life
of Christ, e.g. (on baptism) in Gal. iii. 27;
1173 B and 1184 B;
in Eph. v. 25, 1287 C;
(on the Eucharist) adv. Ar. ii. 8, 1094 C
("quod accipimus Corpus Christi est, ipse autem
Christus, vita est . . . divitiae in Christo
corporaliter habitant"; cf. adv. Ar. i. 30, 1063
B, "Corpus ipsius Vita est, Corpus autem
Panis." "Panis ἐπιούσιος," in the Lord's
Prayer, is interpreted as "panis ex ipsa aut
in ipsa Substantia, hoc est vitae panis,"
and referred to the Eucharist, and, in the
II. It is necessary further to explain in what general relation Victorinus's teaching stands to the neo-Platonic system, since his chief claim upon our attention is that he was the first systematically to convert the results of that system to the uses of Christian theology and that he developed in one or two cases as against Arianism the really higher philosophical truth latent in Catholic doctrines.
The idea of a being or beings mediating between the supreme God and the lower world was common to almost all the later schools of ancient philosophy (see Zeller, pp. 219, 220). Eusebius of Caesarea had already seen in this a common ground for philosophers and Christians. (See Gwatkin's Studies of Arianism, p. 22. Cf. Athan. de Incarn. c. xli.) It appeared in Plotinus's theory of the νοῦς and anima, which with the One, the God, make up what is called "the neo-Platonic Trinity." Now, a good deal of Victorinus's language, in which he seeks to express the relation of the Λόγος to the Father, is based on Plotinus's language about the relation of the νοῦς to the One. But as a Christian, Victorinus is able to fill the neo-Platonic formulas with the powers of a new life. Again, Victorinus's formula for the Trinity, the "status, progressio, regressus," is the reflex of a neo-Platonic idea—an idea first definitely formulated by Proclus but implied by Plotinus—the idea of all progress and development of life involving (1) the immanence of the caused in that which causes it, (2) the issuing of the caused out of that which causes it, (3) the return of the caused into that which causes it. This threefold relation of immanence, progress, return, the neo-Platonist regarded as essential to the development and unity of life both in general and in detail (Zeller, pp. 787–789). This conception in its earlier stage Victorinus, whether consciously or not, adopts, and what new force it gains when it is seen to find its highest expression in the very life of God Himself! This threefold relation is seen to be the very being of God. The Son is eternally abiding in the Father, eternally proceeding from the Father in His eternal Generation, and eternally pouring back into the bosom of the Father that which He receives, in that Holy Ghost Who is Himself the life of Father and Son, the love and bond of the Holy Trinity.
It is in describing the relation of the Λόγος to the world, in His function as Creator, that, as we have seen, Victorinus allows himself to be too entirely moulded by neo-Platonic ideas. His "development of the plenitude" (Gwatkin, p. 20 ), his pre-existing "anima" and "animae," his corporeal demons, his matter the seat of corruption—all these have their source in the Plotinian system, and are only very imperfectly adapted to Christianity (see Zeller, pp. 545–557, 570–575). We may wonder that he did not use even more emphatically an element of right-minded inconsistency in neo-Platonism and with that system emphasize the freedom of the will (Zeller, pp. 585–587).
This brief account will help us to recognize the "divine preparation" for Christianity involved in the independent growth of the neo-Platonic system—so many philosophic ideas needed for the intellectual presentation of Christianity being made ready to hand—and shows Victorinus as a pioneer in claiming for Christianity the products of philosophy, a pioneer whose name has well-nigh passed into undeserved oblivion.
III. A few other characteristic points in Victorinus's teaching still deserve notice. He is an intensely ardent follower of St. Paul, devoted to St. Paul's strenuous assertion of justification by faith. Indeed, he uses very strongly solifidian language and (by anticipation) very strongly anti-Pelagian language. This element in his teaching is most remarkably emphatic in his commentaries, e.g. in Gal. iii. 22, 1172; in Phil. iii. 9, 1219 C, D. This solifidian tendency led him, like Luther, to a disparagement of St. James and a somewhat minimizing tone as regards the efficacy of good works. (See some very remarkable passages in Comm. in Gal. i. 19, 1155 B, C, 1156 A, B, cf. 1161 B, 1162 D.)
It is worth while calling attention to the
evidence, suggested by a good deal of Victorinus's
theology, of a closer connexion than
has been yet noticed between him and St.
Augustine. His strong insistence in his
Trinitarian theology on the double Procession
of the Holy Spirit—his conception of the Holy
Spirit as the "Bond" of the Blessed Trinity—his
emphasis on the unity of Christ and His
church—his strong predestinarianism—his
vehement assertion of the doctrines of grace—his
assertion of the priority of faith to
intelligence (p. 16, note n),—all reappear in
St. Augustine, and it may be that the (hitherto
unsuspected) influence of the writings of
the old philosopher whose conversion stirred
him so deeply was a determining force upon
the theology of St. Augustine.
IV. A word must be said on the Latin text of the Bible used by Victorinus. No adequate use seems yet to have been made of the very large bulk of quotation in his writings.
Sabatier (Bibl. Sacr. Lat. Versiones Antiq. t. iii. Remis 1749) occasionally refers to him, but omits some of his most remarkable quotations, and wrote before Mai's publication of the commentaries, etc. Some quotations, not noticed by Sabatier, may be given:
St.
Victorius (2) of Aquitaine. During the pontificate of Leo the Great in 444 and 453 differences arose between the Western churches headed by Rome, and the Eastern headed by Alexandria as to the correct day for celebrating Easter. Pope LEO yielded on both occasions, but to avoid such disputes in future, directed his archdeacon HILARIUS, who succeeded him, to investigate the question. Hilary referred it to his friend Victorius, who in 457 drew up a cycle to determine the date of Easter in past and future years.
The cycle of 532 years, consisting of 28
Metonic (28 x 19) or rather 7 Calippic (7 x 76)
cycles, was adopted or independently discovered
by Victorius. He began it with the
year of the crucifixion, which he placed on
The cycle of Victorius was widely, though not universally, accepted in the West, and especially in Gaul. In 527, however, DIONYSIUS published a new period of the Cyrillian 95-year cycle, which would terminate in 531; and VICTOR of Capua, c. 550, wrote against Victorius's cycle and in favour of the Alexandrian method of computation. Victorius's cycle seems thereafter to have become disused in Italy, but lingered much later in parts of Gaul. It has been edited with elaborate dissertations by Bucherius, de Doctrina Temporum, where all notices of Victorius are collected. The only additional information they give is Gennadius's statement (de Vir. Ill. 88) that he was a native of Aquitaine. As Hilary calls him "Dilectissimus et honorabilis sanctus frater," he was probably in orders. A full account of his cycle is given by Ideler (Handbuch d. Chronol. ii. 275–285), who points out that what Dionysius did was to continue the 95-year cycle, and that there is no evidence that he did anything to the Victorian cycle. The fact that his continuation of the Cyrillian cycle began in 532, which would be the first year of a new period of the Victorian cycle if the latter commenced with the year of Christ's birth, probably suggested the notion that he had thus altered the beginning of the Victorian cycle, and started a new period of it from 532. Victorius is by later writers sometimes called Victorinus and Victor, the last mistake leading to confusion with Victor of Capua.
Victricius, St., 8th archbp. of Rouen, friend of St. Martin of Tours (Sulpic. Sev. Dial. iii. 2; Boll. Acta SS. Aug. ii. 194) and St. Paulinus of Nola, to whose letters we owe some details of his life. He became bp. of Rouen before 390, and occupied himself with the conversion of the heathen Morini and Nervii in Flanders and Brabant. He was summoned in 394 or 395 to Britain to assist the bishops there in re-establishing peace, probably in their contest with Pelagianism (Victricius, Lib. de Laude SS., Migne, Patr. Lat. xx. 443). An accusation of heresy, as it seems (cf. Ceillier, viii. 76), brought him to Rome at the close of 403 to defend himself before the pope (Paulinus, Ep. xxxvii. [36], Migne, Patr. Lat. lxi. 353). While there he received, in answer to a request for information, the famous letter of Innocent I. called the Liber Regularum, treating of various heads of ecclesiastical practice and discipline (Patr. Lat. lvi. 519). [INNOCENTIUS.] The church at Rouen flourished under his care. The relics he obtained, the musical services he instituted, and the devotion—under his guidance—of the virgins and widows, caused the city, hitherto unknown, to be spoken of with reverence in distant lands, and counted among cities famed for their sacred spots (Paulinus, Ep. xviii. § 5, Patr. Lat. col. 239). In 409 he was apparently dead (Ep. xlviii. col. 398). (Migne, Patr. Lat. xx. 437, 438; Hist. Litt. ii. 752–754; Le Brun in Boll. Acta SS. u.s.; Gall. Christ. xi. 7.)
An extant treatise or sermon called the Liber de Laude Sanctorum, composed on the occasion of the receipt of some relics from St. Ambrose of Milan, was formerly ascribed to St. Germanus of Auxerre (Hist. Litt. ii. 261, 750), but the discovery of a MS. at St. Gall, in the 18th cent., made it clear that it belonged to Victricius (see Praefatio of the abbé Lebeuf in Migne, Patr. Lat. xx. 437–442) It gives a few details of the condition of the church at Rouen. Paulinus had perhaps read this document (Ep. xviii.).
Victurinus (1) (Victor), St., bp. of Grenoble,
a correspondent of St. Avitus, of Vienne.
Whether churches and church furniture which
heretics had made use of could again, by virtue
of a fresh consecration, be made serviceable
for the orthodox, to which Avitus replies in
the negative (Avitus, Ep. vi.), and as to the
penalties to be inflicted in the case of marriage
with a deceased wife's sister, which were very
severe (Epp. xiv. xv. xvi.), are points on which
he consulted the archbishop. He is among
Vigilantius (1), a presbyter of Comminges
and Barcelona, known by his protests against
superstitious practices in the church. He
was born c. 370 at Calagurris, near Comminges
(Convenae), a station on the great Roman
road from Aquitaine to Spain (Itiner. Antonin.
quoted in Gilly's Vigilant. p. 128). His father
probably kept the statio or place of refreshment
there; and Vigilantius was apparently
brought up as an inn-keeper and wine-seller
"Iste Caupo Calagurritanus," Hieron. cont.
Vig. 1), but had from the first an inclination
to learning. Sulpicius Severus, who had
estates in these parts, took him into his
service, and probably baptized him. It is
certain that in 395 he was sent with letters
from Sulpicius to Paulinus, then recently
settled at Nola (Paul. Ep. i. 11), by whom he
was treated as a friend. Paulinus speaks of
His work against superstitious practices was written c. 403. We may presume that his intercourse with Severus, Paulinus, and Jerome furnished the principal motives and materials for it. Similar practices no doubt arising in a grosser form in his own neighbourhood among a population emerging from heathenism provoked his protest against the introduction of heathen ceremonial into Christian worship. The work is only known to us through the writings of Jerome, of whose unscrupulousness and violence in controversy we have many proofs. Nothing of the kind appears in the quotations from the book of Vigilantius, which, considering the extreme difficulty of his position in the rising flood of superstition, we must presume to have been a serious and faithful protest. It was not written hastily, under provocation, such as he may have felt in leaving Bethlehem, but after the lapse of six or seven years. His own bishop (Hieron. Ep. cix. 1) and others in his neighbourhood (cont. Vig. ii.) approved his action, and he was apparently appointed after the controversy to a church in the diocese of Barcelona (Gennad. ut infra).
The points against which he argues are four: (1) The superstitious reverence paid to the remains of holy men, which were carried round in the church assemblies in gold vessels or silken wrappings to be kissed, and the prayers in which their intercession was asked; (2) the late and frequent watchings at the basilicas of the martyrs, from which scandals constantly arose, the burning of numerous tapers, which was a heathen practice, the stress laid on the miracles performed at the shrines, which, Vigilantius maintained, were of use only to unbelievers; (3) the sending of alms to Jerusalem, which might better have been given to the poor in each diocese, and generally the monkish habit of divesting oneself of possessions which should be administered as a trust by the possessor; and (4) the special virtue attributed to the unmarried state. Vigilantius held that for the clergy to be married was an advantage to the church; and he looked upon the solitary life as a cowardly forsaking of responsibility.
The bishop of the diocese (possibly Exuperius
of Toulouse, known to have had communications
with pope Innocent about this
time on points of discipline) strongly favoured
the views of Vigilantius, and they began to
spread widely in S. Gaul. The clergy who
were fostering the practices impugned by him
found their people imbibing his opinions, and
two of them, Desiderius and Riparius, wrote
to Jerome, representing the opinions of
Vigilantius and asking for his advice. Jerome
answered Riparius at once (Ep. 109, ed. Vall.),
expressing chagrin and indignation but without
What effect was produced by this philippic is unknown. Possibly Exuperius, if Vigilantius was in his diocese, by degrees changed towards him, and that it was on this account that Vigilantius passed into the diocese of Barcelona, where Gennadius places him. Jerome in his Apology (iii. 19) expressly repels the imputation of having asserted that the character of Vigilantius had been stained by communion with heretics. But the official leaders of the church came to reckon as enemies those whom Jerome had so treated, and Vigilantius was by degrees ranked among heretics. The judgment of Gennadius (de Sc. Eccl. 35) is: "Vigilantius the presbyter, a Gaul by birth, held a church in the Spanish diocese of Barcelona. He wrote with a certain zeal for religion; but was led astray by the praise of men, and presumed beyond his strength; and being a man of elegant speech but not trained in discerning the sense of the Scriptures, interpreted in a perverse manner the second vision of Daniel, and put forth other works of no value, which must be placed in the catalogue of heretical writings. He was answered by the blessed presbyter Jerome." This judgment lasted long. In 1844 Dr. Gilly, canon of Durham, published a work on Vigilantius and his Times (Seeley), bringing together all the known facts, and shewing the true significance of his protest by describing the life of Severus, Paulinus, and Jerome from their own writings.
Vigilius (4) Thapsensis, an African bishop mentioned in the Notitia published at the end of the Historia of Victor Vitensis, was present at the conference convened by the Vandal Hunneric in 484. He belonged to the Byzacene province, and was banished by the Vandal king. He seems to have fled to Constantinople, where he wrote against Eutychianism and Arianism. He published one work alone under his own name, viz. his five books against Eutyches, stating very clearly the usual arguments against the Eutychian system. An extremely good and copious analysis of it is in Ceillier (x. 472–485). It is an interesting specimen of 5th and 6th cent. controversy, and shews the evolution of thought among the Eutychians who in his day had not completed or thought out their system. They had not fixed, e.g., on a date for the disappearance of Christ's human nature. A cent. or so later they determined upon the resurrection as the time when the human nature was swallowed up in the divine. Vigilius refers to this in bk. i. as a view taught by some, not by all. In bk. iv. he discusses the Tome of St. Leo and the orthodoxy of the decrees of Chalcedon, and has some remarks, important for liturgiology, on the form of the creed used at Rome ("Creed," D. C. B. 4-vol. ed.). He defends St. Leo on the ground that he quoted the creed used in the Romish church from apostolic times. Vigilius wrote several works under various distinguished names. Thus Chifflet, whose is the best edition (Dijon, 1664) of his writings, attributes to him a dialogue in 12 books on the Trinity, printed among the works of St. Athanasius, a treatise against an Arian called Varimadus published under the name of Idacius Clarus, a book against Felicianus the Arian under that of St. Augustine; and two conferences, in which he represents Athanasius as disputing against Arius before a judge named Probus, who of course gives sentence against Arius. These conferences he published in two editions, one in two books, where Athanasius and Arius alone appear; another in three books, in which Sabellius and Photinus are introduced. His authorship of these conferences is absolutely certain, because in his contra Eutych. (bk. v. p. 58) he speaks of his argument "in eis libris quos adversus Sabellium, Photinum et Arianum sub nomine Athanasii, conscripsimus." Chifflet also ascribes to him a treatise against Palladius, an Arian bishop, printed among the works of St. Ambrose and of Gregory Nazianzen, and also the Acts of the council of Aquileia found among the Epp. of St. Ambrose. The Athanasian Creed has also been attributed to him, chiefly because both in the creed and in his treatise against Eutyches the union of two natures in man is brought forward as an explanation of the union of two natures in the one person of Jesus Christ. Chifflet's edition and elaborate commentary, which includes the works of Victor Vitensis, is reprinted by Migne, Patr. Lat. t. lxii.
Vigilius (5), bp. of Rome, intruded into the see in the room of Silverius, a.d. 537, by Belisarius, by order of the empress Theodora. By birth a Roman of good position, he had accompanied AGAPETUS as one of his deacons when that pope went to Constantinople a.d. 536 and procured from Justinian the deposition of the Monophysite patriarch Anthimus, and the appointment of Mennas in his room. The Monophysite party (then called commonly the ACEPHALI), who continued to reject the council of Chalcedon, had a resolute supporter in the empress Theodora. Agapetus dying April, 536, when about to depart for Rome, she sent for Vigilius and promised him an order to Belisarius to get him ordained pope if he would secretly undertake to disallow the council of Chalcedon. Vigilius (says Liberatus) willingly complied, and proceeded to Rome, but found SILVERIUS already ordained.
Vigilius having been thus ordained in 537
(on Nov. 22, according to the conclusion of
Pagi; on
Through Antonina, the wife of Belisarius and the real agent of the empress throughout, Vigilius sent without delay letters to Anthimus, Theodosius, and Severus, in fulfilment of his secret promise, expressing his entire agreement with them in matters of faith, but charging them to keep his avowal in the dark, that he might more easily accomplish what he had undertaken. He added a confession of his own faith, condemning the Tome of pope Leo (in which the orthodox doctrine of two Natures in Christ was enunciated), and anathematizing Paul of Samosata, Diodorus of Tarsus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret, and all who agreed with them. Binius and Baronius, jealous for the credit of the Roman see, argue that this letter was forged by the Monophysite party. But no valid ground has been adduced for suspecting it. It is given by Liberatus and Victor Tununensis; and Facundus (c. Mocianum), like them a contemporary, seemingly alludes to it. Pagi (Baron. ad ann. 538) refutes all the arguments of Baronius, while alleging that the Roman see was not compromised, since Vigilius was not the true pope when he wrote.
Justinian was evidently kept in the dark about these secret proceedings, since, after the death of Silverius, he wrote to Vigilius, sending a confession of his own faith and recognizing him as pope without any suspicion of his orthodoxy. In his reply, dated 540, Vigilius declares himself altogether orthodox, accepts the Tome of Leo and the council of Chalcedon, and condemns by name all abettors of the Eutychian heresy.
In 541 began at Constantinople the new theological disputes which led to the 2nd council of Constantinople (called the 5th oecumenical), in the course of which Vigilius came in conflict with the emperor. Peter, the patriarch of Jerusalem, who was opposed to the Origenists, sent two abbats to Constantinople, with a letter to the emperor, and extracts from Origen's writings, complaining of the commotions excited by the Origenistic party and praying for their condemnation (Vit. S. Sabae). The emperor, readily acceding, issued a long edict, addressed to the patriarch Mennas, setting forth and confuting the heresies attributed to Origen; commanding the patriarch to assemble the bishops and abbats then at Constantinople for the purpose of anathematizing him, his doctrine, and his followers, and to suffer no bishop or abbat to be thenceforth appointed except on condition of doing the same. There seems to have been no resistance to this imperial command.
Justinian was engaged, we are told, after his condemnation of Origen, in composing a treatise on the Incarnation in defence of the council of Chalcedon and in refutation of the Eutychians. But there were two Origenistic abbats from Palestine, resident at his court, in great credit with him, Theodore of Ascidas and Domitian, who suggested that he might better serve the cause of orthodoxy by procuring a condemnation of certain writers accused of Nestorianism but acquitted by the council of Chalcedon, viz. Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyrus, and Ibas, the alleged author of a letter to Maris. It was represented to the emperor that, if these were now authoritatively condemned and the council of Chalcedon freed from the imputation of having approved their errors, the Acephali would no longer refuse to accept that council. The emperor, who warmly desired this reconciliation, readily fell into the snare. The writings thus prepared for condemnation are known as the "Three Chapters" ("Tria Capitula"). The imperial edict against them (περὶ τριῶν κεφαλίαων), issued probably c. 544, anathematized their deceased authors and all defenders of them, with a saving clause to guard against any inculpation of the council of Chalcedon. But the edict was regarded as disparaging its authority. Mennas, at first refusing, at length gave his acquiescence in writing. The three other patriarchs of the East also yielded to threats of deposition, as did the rest of the Eastern bishops, except a few who were deposed and banished. In the West, less accustomed to imperial despotism, there was more difficulty. Vigilius, from his antecedents, might have been expected to obey, but shewed considerable independence of spirit, being probably influenced by the prevailing feeling at Rome and in the West generally. He refused his assent to the emperor's edict, and being thereupon summoned peremptorily to Constantinople, unwillingly obeyed.
He sailed first to Sicily, where he was joined
by Datius, bp. of Milan, a resolute opponent
of the condemnation of the Three Chapters.
Arrived at Constantinople (a.d. 547), he persevered
for a time in the same attitude, but
before long gave a secret promise to condemn
the Chapters (Facund. c. Moc.), and presided
over a synod with the hope of inducing it to
do what the emperor required. Meeting
opposition there, especially from bp. Facundus
of Ermiana, who requested leave to argue the
question (Facundus himself tells the story),
he suspended the proceedings, requiring the
bishops separately to send him their opinions
in writing. Seventy bishops were thus
induced to declare for the condemnation of the
Chapters, including many who had previously
refused. Vigilius, supported by these 70 signatories,
issued the document known as his
Judicatum, addressed to Mennas, on Easter
Eve, 548 (Ep. Vigilii, ad Rustianum et
Sebastianum), condemning the Chapters, though
disavowing any disparagement of Chalcedon. The
Judicatum provoked serious opposition. At
Constantinople Facundus continued resolute,
protesting against bishops who betrayed their
trust to win favour with princes. Vigilius's
own deacons, Rusticus and Sebastianus,
declared against him, but were deposed and
excommunicated. The bishops of Illyricum
condemned the Judicatum in synod; those of
N. Africa did the same, and even formally
excommunicated Vigilius (Vict. Tunun. ad
ann. 549, 550). Alarmed by these consequences,
Vigilius now recalled his Judicatum,
In the year in which the Judicatum was issued Theodora died; but the emperor continued resolute in carrying out his project for the condemnation of the Three Chapters by full ecclesiastical authority. Vigilius, hampered by the repudiation of his Judicatum in the West and by his own secret understanding with the emperor, would gladly have left the scene of action. But his presence was still required at Constantinople by the emperor. The plan he now adopted was to persuade the emperor to summon the bishops, both of the East and West (including especially those of Africa and Illyricum who had shewn themselves so strongly opposed to the Judicatum), to a council at Constantinople, and meanwhile to take no further steps. Justinian acted on his advice; but though the obsequious Easterns obeyed the summons, very few of the Westerns came—a small number from Italy, two from Illyricum, but none from Africa. Justinian would have had Vigilius proceed at once with such bishops as were in Constantinople. Vigilius, with considerable spirit, refused. Thereupon the emperor issued a new edict against the Chapters, which he caused to be posted in the churches. Vigilius protested against this as a violation of their agreement, called an assembly of bishops in the palace of Placidia where he lodged, conjured them to use their efforts to procure a revocation of the edict till the episcopate of the West should have an opportunity of pronouncing its opinion, and in virtue of the authority of the apostolic see declared all excommunicated who should meanwhile sign or receive it. Justinian sent the praetor whose office it was to apprehend common malefactors, with an armed band, to seize the pope in his place of refuge. Vigilius escaped to Chalcedon, and there sought sanctuary in the church of St. Euphemia two days before Christmas, 551. No attempt was made to violate this sanctuary. The pope was able from it to dictate terms on which he would take part in the forthcoming council. The emperor, anxious to secure his concurrence at the council, at length acceded to his conditions, and revoked the edict.
Vigilius returned to Constantinople towards the end of 552, after nearly a year in St. Euphemia. Justinian summoned the council to meet on May 5, 553. The Easterns met, in number 165, under the presidency of Eutychius, who had succeeded on the death of Mennas. Vigilius and the Westerns kept aloof, assembling by themselves in the Placidian palace, and prepared a very lengthy document, known as his Constitutum ad Imperatoren, addressed to the emperor. It refutes extracts that had been made from the works of Theodorus of Mopsuestia, and condemns the views expressed as heretical, but proceeds to protest against the condemnation of Theodorus himself as a heretic after his death, since he had not been so condemned when alive and had died in communion with the church; and also against any such condemnation of Theodoret or of the letter of Ibas, both having been acquitted of heresy by the council of Chalcedon. This Constitutum, dated May 14, 553, was signed also by 16 Western bishops. It does not appear that the emperor transmitted it to the council; but he handed in, on May 26, a statement of how Vigilius had once himself condemned the Chapters, had pledged himself to do so by word, writing, and solemn oath, and had been invited to the council and refused to come. Anathemas were pronounced against Theodorus of Mopsuestia and his writings, against the inculpated writings, but not the persons, of Theodoret and Ibas; and all who should continue to defend the condemned writings were, if ecclesiastics, to be deprived, if monks or laymen, excommunicated.
Vigilius soon changed sides once more, assenting to the decrees of the council, and thus giving them at length the sanction of the Roman see. That he did this is indisputable, and according to Evagrius (lib. iv. c. 34) in writing, ἐγγράφως; nor does there seem valid reason to doubt the genuineness of the two written documents in which his recantation is declared. The first of these is a letter to the patriarch Eutychius, dated Dec. 8, 553, i.e. six months after the conclusion of the council. The other document (dated Feb. 23, 554) is entitled "Constitutum Vigilii pro damnatione Trium Capitulorum" (given in Labbe, vol. vi. p. 239). It expresses entire agreement with the decisions of the council, and ends with the same declaration, word for word, as the letter to Eutychius.
Justinian, having thus attained his end, Vigilius was allowed to leave Constantinople for Rome, after a compelled absence of 7 years, the emperor giving him certain grants, privileges, and exemptions for the people of Rome and Italy (Baron. ad ann. 554, ix. x. xi. xii.). But he died on his way at Syracuse towards the end of 554 or early in 555. His body was conveyed to Rome and buried in the church of St. Marcellus on the Salarian Way.
He was evidently a man with no firmness
of character or principle. The attempts of
Baronius to vindicate his conduct after he
had become lawful pope, though allowing him
to have been a poor creature before, are
pitiably unavailing. To his final submission
Vincentius (8), presbyter of Constantinople, intimately attached to Jerome, through whose writings we hear of him throughout the last 20 years of 4th cent. Jerome became acquainted with him when he came to Constantinople in 380, from which time Vincentius shared his interests and pursuits. To him, with Gallienus, Jerome dedicated his translation of Eusebius's Chronicle in 382 (Hieron. cont. Joan. Hieros. c. 41). We may therefore suppose he was ordained early in 382. But he never fulfilled the office of presbyter. That he knew Greek and Latin and was interested in general history is shewn by Jerome's preface to the Chronicle of Eusebius. He shared Jerome's admiration of Origen, then at its height, and asked Jerome to translate all his works into Latin. In 382 he accompanied Jerome to Rome, but without intending to stay there. We do not hear of him during Jerome's stay, but they left Rome together in 385 and settled at Bethlehem (cont. Ruf. iii. 22). He shared Jerome's studies and his asceticism and controversial antipathies. He was severe in his judgment upon Vigilantius (Hieron. Ep. lxi. 3, a.d. 396), and co-operated eagerly in the subsequent condemnation of Origenism. In 396 or 397 he went to Rome, for what cause is unknown (cont. Ruf. iii. 24). No doubt he took part in the proceedings against Origenism, in which Eusebius of Cremona and Jerome's Roman friends were actively engaged. On his return to Bethlehem in 400 he was full of the subject. All Rome and Italy, he reported, had been delivered; and his praise of Theophilus of Alexandria as having by his letter to the pope Anastasius procured this deliverance is communicated to that prelate in Jerome's letter (Ep. 88, ed. Vall.) to him, the last mention of Vincentius which we have.
Vincentius (11) Lirinensis (Vincent of Lerins), St., a distinguished presbyter of Gaul in 5th cent. Date of birth uncertain; must have died in or before a.d. 450.
Authorities.—Gennadius, Vivorum Illustrium Catalogus (c. 64). References to himself and to his times in his chief (most probably his sole) work, the Commonitorium.
Life.—Concerning the events of Vincent's life we are almost entirely ignorant. He was a native of Gaul, possibly brother of St. Loup, bp. of Troyes (LUPUS (2)], involved in the turmoils of worldly life before his retirement into a monastery near a small town, remote from the stir of cities. This was that of Lerins (Lerinum), situated in the island of that name near Antibes, now known as L’Ile de St. Honorat, from the founder of this celebrated institution. Here he wrote adversus Profanas Omnium Novitates Haereticorum Commonitorium, almost 3 years (as he tells us in c. 42) after the council of Ephesus, i.e. in 434.
Writings.—The only one universally admitted
to be the genuine and authentic production
of Vincent is briefly known as Commonitorium.
In the form in which we have it
it extends, even in a 12mo ed., to only 150
pages, and consists of 42 short chapters.
Peregrinus (as Vincent called himself) begins
by stating that he thought it might be useful
and in accordance with scriptural precepts
(
The danger of ignoring the principles here
laid down, more especially the test of antiquity,
is painfully exhibited in the case of
Origen, whose acute, profound, and brilliant
genius (fully recognized by imperial disciples
and the church at large) has not saved his
writings from becoming a source of temptation;
though it is just possible, as some think,
that they may have been tampered with (c.
xxii.). A very similar judgment must be
passed upon Tertullian, of whom Hilary (of
Poictiers) too truly said that "by his errors
he had diminished the authority due to his
approved writings" (c. xxiv.). The true and
genuine Catholic is he who loves Christ's body,
the Church; who puts God's truth before all
things, before any individual authority,
affection, genius, eloquence, or philosophy.
Many who fall short of this standard, when
not slain, are yet sadly stunted in their spiritual
growth (c. xxv.). Additions to the faith
or detractions from it are alike condemned by
Holy Scripture, especially by St. Paul (
Bk. ii., as Gennadius informs us, was mostly lost, having been stolen from its author, who gives a recapitulation of its substance, which occupies 3 additional chapters. The first of these (c. xli.) simply re-states the main proposition of the earlier book. The author then, to shew that his view is no offspring of private presumption, adduces the example of the council of Ephesus, held nearly 3 years before the time of writing, in the consulship of Bassus and Antiochus. Great pains were taken to avoid an unfortunate issue, such as that of the council of Rimini (Concil. Ariminense); and the testimonies of martyrs, confessors, and orthodox doctors were considered by an assemblage of nearly 200 bishops to prove Nestorius an irreligious impugner of Catholic truth, and Cyril to be in accordance with it. Amongst the saintly doctors present in person, or whose works were cited as authoritative, were Peter of Alexandria, Athanasius, Theophilus, Cyril, Gregory Nazianzen, Basil and his excellent brother Gregory of Nyssa. The West was represented by letters of Felix and of Julius, bps. of Rome; the South by the evidence of Cyprian of Carthage; the North by that of Ambrose of Milan. The whole of the bishops, for the most part metropolitans, acted upon the principles maintained in this treatise and censured Nestorius for his unhallowed presumption—that he was the first and only man who rightly understood the Scriptures (xli.).
One element must be added, lest to all this
weight anything seem lacking, namely, the
authority of the apostolic see, which was
illustrated by the twofold testimony of the
reigning pope,
SIXTUS III., and of his predecessor
Coelestine. It was on the principles
herein set forth that pope Sixtus condemned
Nestorius; and Coelestine wrote in the same
spirit to certain priests in Gaul who were
fostering novelties. It is, in fact, an acceptance
of the warning of St. Paul to Timothy
to keep the deposit (
It may safely be asserted that few theological
books of such modest bulk, published
within our period, have attracted so large a
share of attention. It has been included in
all the best known collections of the Fathers
(e.g. in the Maxima Bibliotheca Patrum, Lugduni,
a.d. 1677; and in that of Migne), repeatedly
published separately in many lands,
and not unfrequently translated. A Scottish
trans., dedicated to Mary Queen of Scots, was
issued by Knox's opponent, Ninian Winzeit,
at Antwerp, in 1563;
The Commonitorium has gathered around itself a literature. How far its leading principles have been accepted, either explicitly or implicitly, in the past; how far they made a line of demarcation between those who accepted or rejected the Reformation; to what extent they are available in the controversies between the various Christian communions, or in the contest between Christianity and unbelief—these questions have all been keenly discussed. To review these controversies would far exceed our limits, but it seems right to call attention to one or two features of the debate which have not received elsewhere the notice which they deserve.
That the Commonitorium lays down a broad line of demarcation between the Protestant and the Roman churches is an obvious overstatement. The Magdeburg Centuriators distinctly pronounced in its favour as a work of learning and acuteness; as a book which revealed and forcibly assailed the frauds of heretics, supplied a remedy and antidote against their poisons, set forth a weighty doctrine and displayed a knowledge of antiquity with skill and clearness in its treatment of Holy Scripture. The praise given by Casaubon to the principles of the English Reformation, the challenge of Jewel, and a large consensus of 17th-cent. divines, all rest, more or less explicitly, upon the famous dictum of Vincent—which, indeed, derives considerable support from certain portions of the Prayer-Book, Articles, and Canons.
It is, of course, equally true that Roman Catholic divines, especially at the epoch of the Reformation and long after, also professed to take their stand upon the principles asserted in the Commonitorium. There is no reason to doubt their sincerity in so acting. They were not in a position to judge the evidence on behalf of this and that portion of medieval doctrine and practice, and they appealed with confidence to such stores of learning as lay open to them. A day came when this confidence was rudely shaken. The Benedictine editions of the works of the Fathers appeared, with honest and discriminating criticism applied to their writings. Not only was it seen that a considerable portion of their works, long accepted as genuine and authentic, was in reality spurious, but also that while distinctively Roman tenets and practices received much support from the sermons and treatises relegated into the appendix of each volume, the case was widely different when reference was made to genuine Patristic remains. A new school of Roman Catholic divines arose, of whom Father Petau (Petavius) may perhaps be considered the earliest, as he is certainly among the greatest. The process of development in the church of Rome has widened the breach between her teaching and the principles of Vincent of Lerins. The church which set forth the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mother, not merely as a lawful opinion but as a dogma, has broken with the maxim, "Quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus." A new ed. for academical use was ed. by Jülicher, Sammlung . . . Quellenschrifter (Freiburg i. Br. 1895).
Vitalius (Vitalis), bp. of the Apollinarian
congregation at Antioch. Vitalius was a man
of high character, brought up in the orthodox
faith at Antioch, and ordained presbyter by
Meletius (Theod. H. E. v. 4; Soz. H. E. vi.
25). Jealousy of his fellow-presbyter Flavian
caused a breach between him and his bishop,
deprived of whose guidance Vitalius fell
under the influence of Apollinaris and embraced
his theological system. Tidings of his
unsoundness having reached Rome, Vitalius
made a journey thither in 375 to clear himself
before pope Damasus, and to be received
by him into communion. By the use of
equivocal terms he convinced Damasus of his
orthodoxy. Damasus did not, however, receive
him into communion, but sent Vitalius
back to Antioch with a letter to Paulinus,
whom, during the Meletian schism, Rome
and the West recognized as the orthodox
and canonical bishop of that see, remitting
the whole matter to his decision. Shortly
after Vitalius had left Rome Damasus despatched
a second letter to Paulinus, containing a
profession of faith, which, without
naming Apollinaris, condemned his doctrines,
desiring Paulinus to require signature to it as
the terms of admission to communion (Labbe,
ii. 900 sqq.; Theod. H. E. v. ii). Vitalius
refused, and the breach between him and
Paulinus became complete. Apollinaris ordained
Vitalius bishop of his schismatical
church, his holiness of life and pastoral zeal
gathering a large number of followers, the
successors of whom were still at Antioch under
the name of Vitalians when Sozomen wrote
(Soz. H. E. vi. 25). The unsoundness of
Vitalius on the point on which Apollinaris
diverged from the orthodox faith did not
prevent his receiving much esteem and
affection from leaders on the orthodox side,
Vitus (1) (Guy), St., a youthful martyr in Diocletian's persecution; the son of a pagan gentleman in Sicily, but secretly trained in Christianity by his nurse Crescentia and her husband Modestus. After the boy had encountered much cruel suffering, they succeeded in carrying him over to Italy, where all three fell victims, either in Lucania or at Rome (Boll. Acta SS. 15 Jun. iii. 491, ed. 1867). He is invoked against sudden death and hydrophobia (ib. App. p. 21 *), and against prolonged sleep and the complaint known as the chorea or dance of St. Vitus (Guérin, Les Pet. Boll. vii. 30). He is also, says Guérin, the patron of comedians and dancers. Two German medical writers, Gregory Horst and John Juncker, of the 17th and 18th cents. respectively, relate how the malady came to take his name (see Rees's Encyclopedia, s.v. "Chorea"). There sprang up, they say, in Germany in the 17th cent., a superstitious belief that by presenting gifts to the image of St. Vitus, and dancing before it day and night on his festival, people ensured themselves good health through the year. The saint's two chapels at Ulm and Ravensberg became more especially noted for the annual resort of these dancing fanatics.
Volusianus (1), C. Vibius Afinius Gallus Veldumnianus, joint emperor with his father Gallus, a.d. 251–254. At the end of 251 Gallus was proclaimed emperor after the defeat and death of Decius, which he is said to have caused by his treachery. He associated Volusian with himself in the empire, and, after making peace with the Goths on the shameful terms of allowing them to keep their prisoners and paying them tribute, the emperors proceeded to Rome. Their short reign was marked by the dreadful pestilence which began in Ethiopia and spread over the whole Roman world, and in which Hostilianus, the son of Decius, who had been associated with the Galli in the empire, died. Their numerous medals, bearing representations of Apollo and Juno, the deities of the sun and the air (Eckhel, vii. 357), support the statement of St. Cyprian (Ep. 55 in Migne, Patr. Lat. iii. 805), that they issued an edict, ordering sacrifices to be offered everywhere to appease the wrath of the gods. By refusing to obey the Christians aroused the hatred of the populace. In Africa the cry of "Cyprianum ad leonem" was again raised, and the outbreak of a persecution worse than that of Decius was daily feared (Ep. 54 in ib. 855, 861). Fortunately these fears were not realized. The only overt acts of persecution we certainly know of were confined to Rome. The outbreak was sudden (Ep. 58 in ib. 274), and Cornelius, bp. of Rome, was specially singled out for attack. His flock rallied bravely round him, and some who had fallen away in the Decian persecution distinguished themselves by their firmness (Ep. 37 in ib. 832). He with some of them was banished to Centum Cellae, where he died, probably a natural death, June 253 (see Lipsius, Chron. der röm. Bisch. 207). His successor Lucius was apparently elected in exile but soon allowed to return, the persecution ceasing, probably owing to the outbreak of civil war. There is no clear proof of any severer punishment than exile in this persecution. This is the worst mentioned by the contemporary St. Cyprian and St. Dionysius of Alexandria (in Eus. H. E. vii. 1). In the summer of 253 Aemilianus was proclaimed emperor by his soldiers, and c. Feb. 254 Gallus and Volusianus were murdered by their troops at Torni (Zos. i. 23–28; Zon. xii. 21).
W
Xystus. [SIXTUS II.]
Y
Zeno (16), emperor of the East a.d. 474–491, is famous in church history for the publication of the HENOTICON and for his active part in the prolonged disputes about Timotheus Aelurus, Timotheus Salofaciolus, Peter Mongus, and Peter the Fuller. Pope SIMPLICIUS and ACACIUS used him very effectually against their opponents. For a full analysis of the letters of popes Simplicius and Felix III. to him see Ceillier, t. x. pp. 410–420.
Zephyrinus, bp. of Rome after Victor, under the emperors Septimius Severus and Caracalla. Lipsius concludes his episcopate to have been either 18 or 19 years, from 198 or 199 to 217. His reign was marked by serious disturbance at Rome owing to doctrinal controversies and consequent schism. Zephyrinus seems to have been of no sufficient mark to take a personal lead, but to have been under the guidance of Callistus, a man of more practical ability who succeeded him as pope. This Callistus and his learned opponent Hippolytus appear to have been the leading spirits of the time at Rome.
The two notable heresies of the time were Montanism and Monarchianism. The see of Rome, when occupied by Zephyrinus, declared against Montanism (Eus. H. E. ii. 25; iii. 28, 31; vi. 20). [CAIUS.] Thus Zephrinus, though no action of his in the matter is recorded, may certainly be concluded to have been no favourer of the Montanists. But neither he nor Callistus, who succeeded him, is free from the imputation of having countenanced one school of the Monarchians, that which Praxeas had introduced into Rome. Montanism and Monarchianism represented two opposite tendencies. The former was the product of emotional enthusiasm, the latter of intellectual speculation grounded on the difficulty of comprehending the mystery of the Godhead in Christ. Those called by the general name of Monarchians, though differing widely in their views, agreed in denying a divine personality in Christ distinct from that of the Father, being jealous for the Unity, and what was called the Monarchy of God. One school was also called Patripassian, because its position was held to imply that in the sufferings of Christ the Father suffered. "They taught that the one Godhead, not one Person thereof only, had become incarnate, the terms Father and Son with them denoting only the distinction between God in His Eternal Being, and God as manifested in Christ. Such views were obviously inconsistent with orthodox Trinitarian doctrine, and their outcome was the Sabellian heresy. Praxeas appears to have been the first to introduce this form of heresy at Rome, and, if Tertullian is to be believed, the popes of the time supported Praxeas and his doctrine rather than otherwise. In addition to this testimony of Tertullian (whose treatise against Praxeas, written in the time of Zephyrinus, has been supposed, not without reason, to have been directed against the reigning pope as much as against the original heresiarch) we have that of the Refutation of all Heresies, attributed to HIPPOLYTUS, a learned writer of great note in his day, whose real ecclesiastical position is still open to discussion. He probably was bishop over a community at Rome which claimed to be the true church, out of communion with the pope, after the accession of Callistus, and possibly also under Zephyrinus.
Callistus, in the time of pope Victor, had been residing under suspicion at Antium. Zephyrinus, the successor of Victor, seems to have had no misgivings about him, recalled him to Rome, gave him some position of authority over the clergy, and "set him over the cemetery." Zephyrinus is described as an unlearned and ignorant man, entirely managed by Callistus, who induced him, for his own purposes, to declare generally for, but sometimes against, the Patripassians. The picture of the Roman church during the episcopate of Zephyrinus, as given in the Refutation of Hippolytus, discloses a state of discord and disruption not recorded by the historians. The picture, indeed, may be somewhat overcoloured under the influence of odium theologicum, and Callistus may not be the unprincipled adventurer, or Zephyrinus altogether the greedy and ignorant tool, that the writer describes. Dr. Döllinger (Hippolyt. und Callist.), who attributes the whole work to Hippolytus, takes this view. He defends Callistus against the libel on his character, which, however, he allows may have had some ground, but acquits Hippolytus of wilful misrepresentation, supposing him to have been partly misled by false reports and partly by prejudice, being himself a strict maintainer of ancient discipline, while Callistus was a liberal. It is difficult, however, to acquit the writer of deliberate and malignant slander unless the picture given of the popes was mainly a true one. There remains the idea of Dr. Newman, that "the libellous matter" in the Elenchus of Hippolytus was not his; but for this there is no foundation beyond the supposed difficulty of believing it so. If Hippolytus wrote it, it is to be remembered that he was undoubtedly a divine of greater learning and repute than his rivals, and that he seems to have left a name without reproach behind him. All three (like some others who were bitterly at variance during life) are now together in the Calendar of Saints.
Zephyrinus is further accused of undue laxity in matters of discipline. Our informant, Tertullian, writing in his time, speaks indignantly of a papal edict allowing admission of adulterers, after penance, to communion.
There was yet another school of Monarchians at Rome in the time of Zephyrinus, adding to the discord. Its teacher, Theodotus the banker, who held that Christ, though conceived by the Holy Ghost, was a mere man, and even inferior to Melchizedek, had his sect apart and out of communion with the church (Eus. H. E. v. 28; Tertull. de Praescript.). Eusebius (l.c.), quoting from an unnamed writer of the time, tells a story of Natalius, a confessor for the faith, having been persuaded by Theodotus and his colleague Asclepiodotus to be made bishop of their sect, of his having subsequently thrown himself in sackcloth and ashes with many tears at the feet of Zephyrinus, and been thereupon received into communion. Another of the same school, Artemon or Artemas, taught at Rome under Zephyrinus, and apart from his communion. He alleged that his own doctrine was that which the apostles had handed down, and which had been accepted by the Roman see till pope Victor's time, Zephyrinus having been the first to falsify the ancient creed. To this bold assertion his opponents replied that the fact of Victor having excommunicated Theodotus the carrier, who was "the leader and father of this God-denying apostasy," was proof that Artemon's doctrine had not been formerly that of the Roman church (Eus. H. E. v. 28; cf. Epiphan. Haer. lxv. 1, 4; Theodoret, Haer. Fab. ii. 4; Phot. Biblioth. 48). During this episcopate the emperor Severus, a.d. 202, issued an edict which forbade any person to become a Jew or a Christian (Aelii Spartiani Severus, c. 17), which was probably interpreted so as to include existing converts; for in some parts it was followed by severe persecution, though there is no evidence that Zephyrinus or the Christians at Rome were then molested.
Some time during this episcopate Origen
paid a short visit to Rome (Eus. H. E. vi. 14).
Zephyrinus is said (Catal. Felic.) to have
Zephyrinus is said in Catal. Felic. to have ordered that no cleric of any order should be ordained except in the presence of the clergy and faithful laity, and to have made a constitution, the purport of which, as it stands now in the texts of Cat. Fel., it is not easy to understand, but which is given in the Lib. Pontif. (Vit. S. Zephyr.) as meaning that "the ministers should carry patens of glass in the church before the priests when the bishop celebrated masses, and that the priests should stand in attendance while masses were thus celebrated." There is other conclusive evidence that anciently, and to a date considerably later than that of Zephyrinus, glass patens as well as chalices were in use (see Labbe, p. 619—nota Binii (c.) in Vit. Zephyr.).
Together with most of the early popes, St. Zephyrinus is commemorated as a martyr; "Aug. 26. Romae S. Zephyrinus Papae et martyris" (Martyr. Rom.). There is no ground for supposing him to have been one. Two spurious epistles have been assigned to him (see Labbe).
Zoaras (2), a turbulent Monophysite Syrian monk, a zealous adherent of Severus, associated with him and Peter of Apamea in the petitions of the orthodox clergy of Syria to the council of Constantinople under Mennas, a.d. 536, as leaders of the Monophysite heresy, and condemned with them by the synod. He became a Stylite. On being driven after several years from his pillar by the orthodox party (the "Synodites"), he started for Constantinople with ten of his monks to complain to Justinian, who hastily summoned a synod to give him audience. Zoaras uncompromisingly denounced "the accursed council of Chalcedon." This greatly irritated Justinian, who rebuked him for his presumption. Zoaras in no measured terms denounced the emperor for his support of heresy. A monastery in the suburb of Sykas was assigned as a residence to him and his followers by the emperor, where he lived quietly, exercising great liberality. The embassage of Agapetus, patriarch of Rome, with whom Zoaras held a very stormy encounter which resulted in the deposition of the patriarch Anthimus as a concealed Monophysite and the appointment of Mennas, a.d. 536, caused an outbreak of orthodox fury against Zoaras and his followers. In the various "libelli" presented to the synod under Mennas he and his heresy are denounced in no measured terms. He is described as a leader of the Acephali (Labbe, v. 108). He had been already condemned and excommunicated by Anthimus's predecessor Epiphanius (ib. 251). Mennas and his synod repeated the condemnation, and Justinian banished Zoaras from Constantinople and its vicinity, and from all the chief cities of the empire, charging him to live in solitude. According to the biography in Land, however, Justinian assigned him a monastery in Thrace, named Dokos, 30 miles away. Here Theodorus, the Monophysite patriarch of Alexandria, was living and propagating his doctrines. The length of Zoaras's residence here is uncertain. After a time he left Thrace, and after some years died, leaving as his successor his disciple the presbyter Ananias. Assem. Bibl. Or. ii. 58, 235; Land, Anecdot. Syr. ii. 12–22; Bar-heb. Chron. Eccl. ed. Abbeloos, i. pp 206-208; Labbe, v. 108, 254, 267.
Zosimus (4), bp. of Rome after Innocent I.,
from
Coelestius,
having been expelled from
Constantinople by the patriarch Atticus, went
to Rome, a.d. 417, hoping for the support of
Zosimus, who had newly succeeded to the
Roman see. Atticus had written letters about
Coelestius to Asia, Carthage, and Thessalonica,
but not to Rome; the churches of Rome and
Constantinople not being then in full communion,
owing to the name of John Chrysostom
not having been restored to the
diptychs of the latter church. On the other
hand, Zosimus had before him, when Coelestius
appealed to him, letters addressed by
Pelagius to pope Innocent, but not received
by him before his death. These letters had
by no means satisfied St. Augustine (de Pecc.
Orig. c. 17, 21; De Grat. x. 30, 31); but
being expressed so as to evade the main points
at issue, they may have seemed a sufficient
exculpation to the pope, less sharpsighted than
Augustine in detecting heresy, and apparently
less ready to find fault with it in this case.
Thus Zosimus was disposed to receive Coelestius
with favour, while the independent
action of the African bishops in the time of
Innocent may have further inclined him to
give the condemned persons a chance of
clearing themselves. Coelestius appeared
before him in the church of St. Clement,
presented his defence, and was questioned as
to whether he spoke sincerely and assented
to what pope Innocent had written to the
African bishops against the heresies imputed
to him and Pelagius. This, Augustine tells
us, he did, but refused to condemn the alleged
errors imputed to him in the libellus of
Paulinus (his original accuser at Carthage,
a.d. 412), which had been sent to Rome. He
further, according to Augustine, desired the
pope's correction of any error of which he
might through ignorance have been guilty
(Aug. de Pecc. Orig. c. 607). Zosimus thereupon
took up his cause, as that of one unfairly
and improperly condemned. He wrote to this
effect to Aurelius and the African bishops,
desiring them either to send persons to Rome
to convict the accused of heresy or to hold him
innocent, and inveighing against the two
Gallican bishops, Heros and Lazarus, who had
been the accusers of Coelestius. Zosimus
wrote a second time to Aurelius and the
Africans, having meanwhile received a letter
in favour of Pelagius from Praylius, bp. of
Jerusalem, and others from Pelagius himself.
These last had entirely satisfied him of the
writer's orthodoxy; they had been publicly
read at Rome, and received (says Zosimus)
with universal joy; and Zosimus wrote again
By the same messenger Zosimus summoned
Paulinus, the original accuser of Coelestius,
to Rome. Coelestius had retorted on Paulinus
the charge of heresy, and neither the latter
nor any other accusers had come to Rome to
prove their charges, and now Paulinus respectfully
refused to go, saying there was no need.
He assumes in his extant reply that the pope's
verdict had already been on his side, in that
Coelestius had been called upon at Rome,
however in vain, to condemn the heresies
which he, Paulinus, had charged him with.
Aurelius also, and the other African bishops,
remained resolute. Several letters, no longer
extant, appear to have passed between them
and Zosimus, alluded to by Augustine (contra
Duas Ep. Pelag. lib. ii. c. 3), and by Zosimus
himself. Early in 418 they held a council of
214 bishops at Carthage, which confirmed their
condemnation of Pelagius and Coelestius, and
declared, with regard to Rome, that they must
hold the verdict of Innocent against the heresiarchs
to be still in force, unless the latter
should recant. The decrees of this council
were sent to Zosimus; and he, in his extant
reply, dated
Zosimus is further memorable for his adjudication on the question of the jurisdiction of the see of Arles in Gaul, when some of the Gallic bishops were as little ready as the Africans to submit to his authority. Patroclus had been elected and ordained metropolitan of Arles, a.d. 412, on the expulsion by the people of the former metropolitan, Heros—the Gallican bishop, above named, who subsequently, with Lazarus, accused Pelagius of heresy in Palestine and Africa. There had been a long rivalry and struggle for jurisdiction between the two ancient sees of Arles and Vienne. A recent synod at Turin had decided against the claim of Arles to general jurisdiction over other provinces. Consequently other metropolitans—Simplicius of Vienne, Hilarius of Narbonne, and Proculus of Marseilles—had claimed the right of ordaining bishops in their respective provinces; and, notably, Proculus, acting on powers assigned him by the Turin synod as metropolitan of Narbonensis Secunda, had ordained Lazarus (the friend and associate of Heros) to the see of Aquae Sextiae (Aix). Patroclus appealed to Zosimus (a.d. 417), who at once wrote to the bishops of Gaul, to the Spanish bishops, and to Aurelius of Carthage and the rest of the African bishops, asserting the authority of the bishop of Arles over the provinces of Vienne and Narbonensis Prima and Secunda, and declaring all who should ordain bishops, or be ordained, within those provinces without his concurrence, to be degraded from the priesthood. He required that ecclesiastics of all orders from any part of Gaul whatever, proceeding to Rome, or to any other part of the world, should not be received without letters commendatory (firmatae) from the metropolitan of Arles. This last privilege he rests, not on ancient right, but on the personal merits of Patroclus. The jurisdiction of Arles over the above-named provinces he rests on ancient right, derived from Trophimus having been sent from Rome as first bishop of the see, and all Gaul having received the stream of faith from that fountain. Gregory of Tours (Hist. Franc. i. 28), referring to Passio S. Saturnini Episc. Tolos., speaks of seven missionary bishops, including Trophimus, who founded the see of Arles, having been sent from Rome to Gaul, "Decio et Grato consulibus," i.e. a.d. 250. But the see of Arles must have existed before then, since it appears from Cyprian (Ep. vi. 7) that in 254 Marcion had long been bishop of it. Possibly some Trophimus of an earlier date had been sent from Rome to Arles; but if so, nothing is known about him.
Zosimus wrote also to the bishops of the provinces Viennensis and Narbonensis Secunda, disallowing the independent authority conceded to the metropolitans of those provinces by the Turin synod; to Hilarius of Narbonne, the metropolitan of Narbonensis Prima, forbidding him to ordain bishops independently of Arles, declaring all whom he should so ordain excommunicate, and threatening him with the same sentence; and also to Patroclus, confirming to him the alleged ancient rights of his see, together with the privilege, above mentioned, of alone giving firmatae to ecclesiastics from all parts of Gaul. Simplicius of Vienne so far deferred to the pope's authority as to send a legate to him; and Zosimus, writing to him on Oct. 1, 417, allowed him, for the sake of peace, to go on for the present ordaining bishops in the neighbouring cities of the province in accordance with the order of the Turin synod. No such deference to Rome was shewn by Proculus of Marseilles, who continued to ordain, though the pope had pronounced his deposition. Tumults ensued at Marseilles, where there seem to have been two parties. Consequently in 418 Zosimus wrote to the clergy and people there, warning them to oppose the attempts of Proculus, and to submit to Patroclus; and to Patroclus himself, enjoining him to assert his authority. Notwithstanding this, Proculus maintained his position as bp. of Marseilles and metropolitan of Narbonensis Secunda. The jurisdiction of Arles was long a bone of contention in Gaul. Zosimus died soon after writing the letters last mentioned, and was buried, according to the Lib. Pontif., on Dec. 26, "via Tiburtina juxta corpus beati Laurentii martyris."
The main authorities for his life are his own letters and other documents to be found in Baronius and Labbe, the works of Augustine, and Prosper (Chron.).
Zosimus (5), a Byzantine historian worthy
of particular attention, not only for his general
merits as an historian, but because, as a
heathen bitterly opposed to Christianity, he
The inference must not, however, be hastily drawn that Zosimus is an historian unworthy of our regard. On the contrary, he may be justly described as one of the best historians of these early centuries. Even his views on church matters are highly interesting, as shewing how they were regarded by the more intelligent heathen; nor are they always wanting in truth. In estimating, too, his value as an historian, it must be remembered that he treats more largely of civil affairs than others had done, and we owe to him many facts connected with the condition of the military, their degeneracy, exactions, and dissoluteness, which contributed in no slight degree to the fall of the empire.
There seems indeed no sufficient ground to ascribe intentional bad faith to his history. That he was mistaken in many of his conclusions, and especially in those relating to the influence of Christianity, is unquestionable. That he occasionally gave too easy credence to unfounded statements is not less so; but it has never been proved that he wilfully perverted facts to establish any theory.
He was not in all respects an original historian. His History closes with a.d. 410. Either he had been hindered by death from prosecuting it further or some portions have been lost. He is thus occupied throughout with events before his own day, and in relating these he seems rather to epitomize works of predecessors than to write original narrative. Reitemeier finds that in the first part of his History he followed the Synopsis of Denippus, in the middle and larger part the Chronicon of Eunapius, and in the last part the Silva of Olympiodorus (Disquis. p. 35). Photius charges him with extensive copying of Eunapius (cf. Fabric. vi. p. 232, note). It seems to have been his admiration of Polybius that led him to write. That historian had described the rise of the Roman empire, and Zosimus, beholding everywhere around him its majestic ruins, would describe its fall. Nor will he merely describe the phenomena: he proposes also to investigate their causes. He begins, accordingly, with the reign of Augustus, and, passing hastily over the time till the accession of Constantine, he occupies himself mainly with the reigns of that emperor and his successors. He sets forth as the causes of the fall of the Roman empire: the change of government to its imperial form (i. 5); the removal of the soldiery into cities where they were debased by luxury and vice (ii. 34); the iniquitous exactions of successive emperors (ii. 38; iv. 28, 29, 41; v. 12); above all, the casting aside of the old religion, and the neglect of the responses of the oracles (i. 57). There can be little doubt that he regarded this last as the most important, so frequently does he allude to it (ii. 7; iv. 37, 59; v. 38, etc.). He expresses what was often thought and said at the time, and to the view thus taken we owe, in no small degree, St. Augustine's immortal work, de Civitate Dei.
The style of the History of Zosimus has been praised by Photius as concise, perspicuous, pure, and, though not adorned by many figures, yet not devoid of sweetness (Cod. 98). (Cf. Heyne, Corp. Ser. H. B., Zosimus, p. 16.) These commendations are deserved. Zosimus is generally free from the ambitious periods of most historians of his age. His narrative is circumstantial, but clear; his language well chosen, and often very nervous and antithetical. He was not free from superstition; and the fact that an historian, generally so calm and so far removed from the credulity of his day, should have put his faith in oracles and recorded without hesitation appearances of Minerva and Achilles to Alaric, and various other miracles (see them in Fabric. vi. p. 610), shews how deep-seated such ideas were in the minds of his contemporaries, and may help to prove that the Christian belief in visions and miracles then prevailing was not inconsistent with sobriety of judgment and sound principles of criticism in other matters.
The History of Zosimus may be consulted
for the lives and actions of the emperors
between Augustus and a.d. 410, more especially
for those of Constantine, Constantius,
Theodosius the elder, Honorius, and Arcadius;
The best ed. is by Reitemeier, in Gk. and Lat., with Heyne's notes (Leipz. 1784); Bekker's ed. (Bonn, 1837) has Reitemeier's notes.
Indexes
Subject Index
athenagoras, /ccel/wace/biodict.html?term=Athenagoras
augustine, /ccel/wace/biodict.html?term=Augustinus,%20Aurelius
bede, /ccel/wace/biodict.html?term=Beda,%20Historian
benedict, /ccel/wace/biodict.html?term=Benedictus%20of%20Nursia,%20abbott%20of%20Monte%20Cassino
boethius, /ccel/wace/biodict.html?term=Bo%C3%ABthius,%20Anicius%20Manlius%20Severinus
cassian, /ccel/wace/biodict.html?term=Cassianus%20(11)%20Johannes,%20founder%20of%20Western%20Monachism
chrysippus, /ccel/wace/biodict.html?term=Chrysippus,%20guardian%20of%20the%20Holy%20Cross
chrysostom, /ccel/wace/biodict.html?term=Chrysostom,%20John,%20bishop%20of%20Constantinople
cyril, /ccel/wace/biodict.html?term=Cyril,%20Saint,%20archbishop%20of%20Alexandria
dionysius, /ccel/wace/biodict.html?term=Dionysius,%20Pseudo-Areopagita
ephriam, /ccel/wace/biodict.html?term=Ephraim%20(4)%20the%20Syrian
eucherius, /ccel/wace/biodict.html?term=Eucherius,%20St.,%20bp.%20of%20Lyons
eusebius, /ccel/wace/biodict.html?term=Eusebius,%20bishop%20of%20Rome
evagrius, /ccel/wace/biodict.html?term=Evagrius
irenaeus, /ccel/wace/biodict.html?term=Irenaeus,%20bp.%20of%20Lyons
origen, /ccel/wace/biodict.html?term=Origenes,%20known%20as%20Origen
patrick, /ccel/wace/biodict.html?term=Patricius,%20or%20St.%20Patrick
socrates, /ccel/wace/biodict.html?term=Socrates,%20a%20historian
sozomen, /ccel/wace/biodict.html?term=Sozomen,%20author%20of%20a%20history
Index of Scripture References
Genesis
1 1 1 1:2 1:2 1:3 1:14 1:16 1:16 1:21 1:25 1:26 1:26 1:26 1:28 2:7 2:7 2:17 4 4:10-12 4:15 6 6 6:2 6:2 14 18:8 35:4 49 49 49 49:8 49:10 49:12
Exodus
4:21 5:4 7:13 10:27 10:27 14:2 15 16:29 25:10 28:3 33:20 34:34 35:5
Leviticus
6:4 7:12 7:28 8:7 8:26 10:9 16:12
Numbers
Deuteronomy
4:2 10:9 13:1-11 18:15 18:15-18 21:23 27:27 29:5 30:19 32:7 32:8 32:22 32:30 33:22
Joshua
Judges
1 Samuel
2 Samuel
1 Kings
2 Kings
Ezra
Nehemiah
Job
Psalms
1 2:7 2:7 2:8 3 7 8:4 9:19 14 15:3 16:10 16:15-16 18 19 19 21:13 22 22 22 22 22 22:6 33 36 36:35 37 37 40:1 41 45:7-8 49:21 50 50:10 53:8 58:11 64 64:4 67 67:23 67:25 68:3 70:1 72:8 72:28 75:2 78 78:2 87 90 90:11 96:7 96:11 97:7 100 108 110 113:3 118 118:10 119 119:25 120 131:5 131:17 140:5 147 148:5 149:6
Proverbs
3 3:1 5:15 8:22 8:22 8:22 8:22 8:22-26 22:17 25:1
Ecclesiastes
Song of Solomon
Isaiah
1:2 2:3 2:3-5 6 6:7 7:14 7:14 7:14 7:14 7:14 9:6 10:12 14:7 22:1 22:9 25:7 33:13 42:1-4 45:1 45:5 45:6-7 45:7 53:3 56:3 57:20 65:2 65:4 65:17 66:24
Jeremiah
2:13 10:23 15:18 17:5 17:9 18:7-10 20:9 21:8 21:14 51:25
Lamentations
Ezekiel
Daniel
2 2:34 3:29 4 5 6:11 9:26-27 13 13
Hosea
Joel
Jonah
Micah
Haggai
Malachi
Matthew
1:6 2:2 2:11 3:6 3:12 3:13-14 3:15-17 5 5:13 5:17 5:22 5:22 5:25 5:26 5:28 5:31-32 5:41 5:44 5:45 6 6:22-23 6:26 6:33 6:33 7:6 7:7 8:2 9:20 9:37 10:9 10:10 10:22 10:23 10:23 10:23 10:24-25 10:33 11:27 11:28 12:28 12:31 12:40 13 13:36-14:15 13:39 13:47-49 14:1-2 14:25 15:9 16:16 16:16 16:18 16:20 18:11 18:11-13 18:15 18:20 18:20 19:1-12 19:3-4 19:11 19:12 19:12 19:12 19:12 19:21 20:1 20:16 20:22 20:22 20:23 20:23 22:14 22:21 23:1 23:15 23:34 24:21 24:23 24:24 24:31 24:36 24:36 25:46 26:9 26:26 26:38-39 26:41 26:46 26:55 27:46 27:63 28:19 50
Mark
4:26 6:22 10:17-31 12:32 12:32 13:32 13:32 13:32 14:32 16:9-16
Luke
1 1:1 1:35 2:14 2:24 2:34-35 2:40 2:52 2:52 3:1 3:16-17 6:13 6:31 11:5 11:20 12:8 12:35 12:47-48 12:50 12:50 14:23 15:8 16:23-24 17:27 17:36 18:2-3 18:12 18:19 18:27 18:42 20:2 20:4 20:35-36 22:17-19 23:46 24:16
John
1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1-14 1:3 1:3 1:5 1:14 1:14 1:14 1:16-18 1:18 1:19-29 1:19-29 1:43-4 2:12-25 3:3-5 3:5 3:13 4:13-44 4:13-54 4:22 4:24 4:37 5:19 5:19-47 6 6 6:52 7:14 7:53-8:11 8:19-24 8:19-25 8:20 8:37-52 8:37-53 8:40 8:44 8:57 8:59-10:31 9:20 10:1 10:18 10:30 10:30 11 11:21 11:34 11:39-57 11:39-57 11:41 13 13:2-33 13:2-33 13:33 14:28 14:28 14:28 15:4 15:26 16:29 16:32 17:3 17:3 19:14 19:25 20:17 20:17 20:17 21:25 50
Acts
1:1 1:10 1:17 1:25 2:8 2:10 2:16 2:16 2:27 2:38 2:42 3:2 3:4 3:9 3:13 3:19 3:21 3:25 3:27 3:28 3:30 3:31 4:2 4:32 4:32 4:32 4:34-37 6:5 6:5 6:9 7:3 7:38 7:53 8 8 8 8 8:9-24 10:639 13:15 13:26 13:40 13:46 14:14 15 15:29 17:9 17:34 18:2 19:29-30 20 20:28 21:38 21:39
Romans
1:1 1:16 1:25 2:12 2:14 3 3:2 3:25 4 4:3 4:18 5:12 5:12 5:14 7:3 7:9 8 8:19 8:19 8:22 9:11-26 9:16 10:43 11:28 11:36 12:1 12:13-14 15:1 15:17 16 16:7 16:8 16:14 16:14 16:14 16:25-27 1653 1698 1854
1 Corinthians
1:2 1:10 1:14 1:18 1:18 2:7-8 2:8 2:9 2:9 2:13 2:13 2:16 3:19 3:21 4:7 4:7 5:7 5:11 6:11 6:18 7 7:1 7:3 7:5 7:5 7:8 7:9 7:9 7:25 7:26 7:35 7:39 7:39 9:27 10:1 11 11:8 11:12 12:27-28 12:28-29 14:33 14:34 14:36 15:8 15:27-28 15:28 15:29 15:36 15:42 15:47 15:52 15:54
2 Corinthians
2:17 3:1 3:1 3:16 3:17 5:18-19 6:8 7:2 8:9 10:2 11:3 11:13-15 12 12 12:4 12:9 13:4
Galatians
1:1 1:7-10 1:8 1:10 2 2 2:4 2:11 2:13 4:21 4:24 5:13 5:17 6:6 6:8
Ephesians
1:21 1:21 2:9 2:20 3:3 3:5 3:8 3:10 3:17 4:10 4:11 4:11 4:11 4:14 4:25 6:9 20
Philippians
1:18 2:6 2:6 2:9-10 2:30 3:20 4:3
Colossians
1:16 2:15 2:18 2:18 2:21 3:11 4:1 4:10 252 281
1 Thessalonians
2 Thessalonians
1 Timothy
1:20 2:1 2:1-2 2:11 3:1 3:15 4:2 4:3-6 6 6:3-4 6:20 6:20
2 Timothy
1:14 1:15 2:13 2:18 2:20 3:7 3:11 3:11 4:14 4:21 4:21
Titus
2:13 2:14 3:5 3:10 3:10-11 10:17 12
Hebrews
1 1:2-3 1:3 1:3 1:4 1:6 2 2:9 2:9 2:14 3:2 5:12 6:4 6:4-7 6:4-8 9 10:26 10:26 10:28-30 11:1 13:8
James
1 Peter
1:4 3:15 3:17 3:19 4:1 4:11 4:15-16 4:19 5:13
2 Peter
1 John
2:14 3:1-2 3:8 4:2 4:3 5:5 5:7 5:7-8 5:15 5:16
2 John
Jude
Revelation
1 1:10 1:548 1:550 2:9 2:13-14 2:20-22 2:24 3:270 6:9 11:3 12:1 12:3 12:7 12:9 12:10 13:3 13:11 13:11 16:12 17:10 17:13 21:14 100 100 100 100 100 253
Tobit
Wisdom of Solomon
Baruch
1 Maccabees
Sirach
Index of Names
Index of Greek Words and Phrases
- ἀνὴρ λόγιος καὶ σφόδρα περὶ τῆς ἀληθείας ἀγωνισάμενος: 1
- ἀπόφασις: 1
- Ἀνακεφαλαίωσις: 1
- ἐκπέτασις: 1
- ἐνέργεια πρὸς τὸ θεοειδὲς ἀφοιουμένη: 1
- ἐνανθρώπησις: 1
- ὁμοιούσιον: 1
- ὑπόστασις: 1 2
- Λόγος: 1
- Μονάς: 1
- δευτερεύων: 1
- δυνάμεις: 1
- θεοτόκος: 1
- θεωρητική: 1
- κόσμος: 1
- κόσμος αἰσθητός: 1
- κόσμος νοητός: 1
- οὐσία: 1
- πάθος: 1
- παρωής: 1
- περὶ σχίσματος: 1
- πρεσβύτεροι ὁι προστάντες τῆς ἐκκλησίας: 1
- προσηρτημένα: 1
- στίχοι: 1
- τέλειος: 1
- ἀ: 1 2
- ἀΐδιος: 1
- ἀγένητος: 1
- ἀγέννητος: 1
- ἀγών: 1
- ἀγαθὸν, δίκαιον, ὕλην: 1
- ἀγαπᾶν: 1
- ἀγγαρεύσει: 1
- ἀγενητόν: 1
- ἀγεννητογενής ἐστίν: 1
- ἀγνοέω: 1
- ἀγνωσία: 1
- ἀδιαιρέτως: 1
- ἀειγεννής ἐστίν: 1
- ἀκοῆς καυστήρια: 1
- ἀκροατής: 1
- ἀκτήμων: 1
- ἀλήθως: 1
- ἀληθὴς λόγος: 1 2
- ἀληθῶς: 1
- ἀλλὰ καὶ ἡ ἐν Ἐφέσῳ ἐκκλησία ὑπὸ Παύλου μὲν τεθεμελιωμένη, Ἰωάννου δὲ παραμείναντος αὐτοῖς μέχρι τῶν Τραϊανοῦ χρόνων, μάρτυς ἀληθής ἐστι τῆς ἀποστολικῆς παραδόσεως: 1
- ἀλλότριοι παντάπασιν τοῦ κηρύγματος τῆς ἀληθείας: 1
- ἀλληγορία: 1
- ἀμαρτιγενεία: 1
- ἀμνός: 1
- ἀνάργυροι: 1
- ἀνὴρ ἐλλογιμώτατος: 1
- ἀνὴρ καὶ ἄνθρωπος: 1
- ἀνόμοιον: 1 2
- ἀνόμοιος: 1 2 3
- ἀνόμοιος,: 1
- ἀναγκαιότατα: 1
- ἀναγνώσεις, ἀναγνωρισμοί: 1
- ἀναγωγὴ: 1
- ἀναζωγραφεῖ: 1
- ἀναισχυντεῖν: 1
- ἀνακεφαλαίωσις: 1
- ἀναμαρτησία: 1
- ἀναπτύξαι τὴν . . . Ἀποκάλυψιν, καὶ τοῖς μετὰ τὴν αὐτῆς ὀπτασίαν χρόνοις ἐφαρμόσαι τὰ προφητευθέντα: 1
- ἀνεπίδεκτον τῶν χειρόνων τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ ἀνθρώπου: 1
- ἀνεψιός: 1
- ἀνθύπατε: 1
- ἀνθρωποτόκος: 1 2
- ἀντέχε: 1
- ἀντέχου μαχίμης γυναικος,: 1
- ἀντιβολὴ πρὸς σχολαστικόν: 1
- ἀπάθεια: 1
- ἀπάνθισμα τῆς Οὐαλεντίνου σχολῆς: 1
- ἀπέωσε: 1
- ἀπόκρισις πρὸς τοὺς ἀποροῦντας περὶ τοῦ θείου βαπτίσματος: 1
- ἀπόστολος . . . Ἰησοῦς Χριστός: 1
- ἀπαύγασμα: 1
- ἀπαύστως κολάζεσθαι: 1
- ἀπαθής: 1
- ἀπαραφυλάκτως: 1
- ἀπαρχή: 1
- ἀποβολήν: 1
- ἀποδεδρακέναι: 1
- ἀποθέωσις: 1
- ἀποκάθαρσις: 1
- ἀποκαθάρσεως δεόμενον: 1
- ἀποκαταστάσεως: 1
- ἀπομνημονεύματα: 1 2
- ἀπομνημονεύματα τῶν Ἀποστόλων: 1 2
- ἀποστολικός: 1
- ἀποσχίσασιν: 1
- ἀποταξία,: 1
- ἀραχνώδης: 1
- ἀριθμῷ λέγω ἀλλ᾿ οὐ γνώμῃ: 1
- ἀρνίον: 1
- ἀρχή: 1 2 3
- ἀρχαί: 1 2
- ἀρχαῖα: 1
- ἀρχηγὸς πάντων: 1
- ἀρχιστράτηγος: 1
- ἀσεβής: 1 2 3
- ἀσκητήριον: 1
- ἀσκητικαὶ διατάξεις: 1
- ἀσυγχύτος: 1
- ἀσυγχύτως: 1
- ἀσυγχύτως, ἀτρέπτως, ἀδιαιρέτως, ἀχωρίστως: 1
- ἀτεχνῶς ἡνώμενος: 1
- ἀφ᾿ οὗ: 1
- ἀφθαρσία: 1
- ἀφιλονείκως: 1
- ἀφιστάμενος τῆς τῶν ἀδελφῶν συνοδίας: 1
- ἀχὶ: 1
- ἀχώριστον πρὸς τὴν θείαν φύσω ἔχων τὴν συνάφειαν: 1
- ἀχειροποίητος: 1
- ἁγνευτήριά τε καὶ παρθενεύματα καί φροντιστήρια: 1
- ἄγγελος: 1 2
- ἄγειν: 1
- ἄθεος: 1
- ἄλλος ἐπιφανὴς διδάσκαλος: 1
- ἄλλος δέ τις ἐπιφανὴς διδάσκαλος αὐτῶν: 1
- ἄλογοι, : 1
- ἄλογον: 1
- ἄλογος συγκατάθεσις: 1
- ἄνθρωποι τοῖς γενεάρχαις θεοῖς ἀποκληρωθέντες, οἳ καὶ προήγαγον αὐτούς, ἀπὸ τοῦ δημιουργοῦ τὰς ψυχὰς παραλαμβάνοντες ἐξ αἰῶνος;: 1
- ἄνθρωπος: 1 2
- ἄνθρωπος θεοφόρος: 1
- ἄνθρωπος προών: 1
- ἄνωθεν ἐκ τοῦ ἄνω Θεοῦ· ἀπὸ τῆς ὑπὲρ τὰ ὅλα αὐθεντείας: 1
- ἄρτι: 1
- ἄρχαι, ἐξουσίαι, κυριότητες: 1
- ἄτρεπτον καὶ ἀεὶ ὄντα Θεὸν γεννήτορα τῶν ἁπάντων: 1
- ἄτρεπτος: 1 2
- ἄφθαρτος: 1
- ἅγιον κοσμικόν: 1
- ἅς ἐν τῆ νεότητι συνέταξεν: 1
- Ἀέριος: 1
- Ἀέτιος: 1 2
- Ἀβέρκιος, Ἀουίρκιος, Ἀουέρκιος, : 1
- Ἀγάπη: 1 2 3
- Ἀγάπη, Σύνεσις, Σοφία: 1
- Ἀγήρατος: 1
- Ἀείνους: 1 2
- Ἀκάκιος: 1
- Ἀκύλας: 1
- Ἀκούας: 1
- Ἀκουανῖται: 1
- Ἀλέξανδρος ἢ Ψσευδόμαντις: 1
- Ἀλήθεια: 1 2 3 4
- Ἀμβρόσιος: 1
- Ἀμφιγοχίῳ Βασίλειος: 1
- Ἀναβαθμοὶ Ἰακώβου: 1
- Ἀνακεφαλαίωσις: 1 2
- Ἀναστάσιος Σιναίτης: 1
- Ἀνθρωπόλατραι: 1
- Ἀντιδικομαριανίται: 1
- Ἀντιλογία: 1
- Ἀντινόου τοῦ νῦν γεγενημένου: 1
- Ἀντιρρητικὰ καὶ Εὐτικά: 1
- Ἀπόδειξις χρόνων τοῦ πάσχα καὶ τὰ ἐν τῷ πίνακι: 1
- Ἀπόφασις μεγάλη: 1
- Ἀπαθής: 1
- Ἀπολινάριος: 1
- Ἀρδησιάνης: 1
- Ἀρμενιακοῖς: 1
- Ἀσύγχυτος: 1
- Ἀτρεπτος,: 1
- Ἀφρικανός: 1
- Ἀφρκανός: 1
- Ἁλιεύς: 1
- Ἄῤῥητος: 1
- Ἄνθροπος προών: 1
- Ἄνθρωπος: 1 2
- Ἄνθρωπος προών: 1
- ἐὰν ὁμολογήσῃ ἐν ἐμοί: 1
- ἐὰν προσίεταί τις: 1
- ἐβδελύξατο: 1
- ἐγγράφως: 1
- ἐγκρατεῖς: 1
- ἐγράψατέ μοι καί ὑμεῖς καί Ἰγνάτιος: 1
- ἐθνῶν ἐπίσκοπος: 1
- ἐθνῶν καὶ πόλεων ἀρχὰς διευθύναντος: 1
- ἐκ Μαρίας: 1
- ἐκ γενετῆς: 1 2
- ἐκ κατηχήσεως: 1
- ἐκ μέρους: 1
- ἐκ παρθένου: 1
- ἐκ προκοτῆς τεθεοποιῆσθαι: 1
- ἐκ τῆς ἑρμηνείας εἰς τὸ κατὰ πρόγνωσιν θεοῦ: 1
- ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ πατρός: 1
- ἐκ τῶν Θεοδότου καὶ τῆς ἀνατολικῆς καλουμένης διδασκαλίας κατὰ τοὺς Οὐαλεντίνου χρόνους ἐπιτομαί: 1
- ἐκ τῶν προφητικῶν ἐκλογαί: 1
- ἐκ τοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς θελήσει γεγενῆσθαι: 1
- ἐκ τοῦ ᾄσματος τῶν ᾀσμάτων Τ. Αʹ.: 1
- ἐκεῖθεν: 1
- ἐκκλησία καθολική: 1
- ἐκπετάσεως: 1
- ἐλάττων παρὰ τ. π.: 1
- ἐμπεσόντος κατὰ καιρόν: 1
- ἐν ἀρχῇ: 1
- ἐν ἐκστάσει: 1
- ἐν ἐκστάσει προεφήτευον ὡς ἂν Ἀποστάτου διάκονοι: 1
- ἐν ἐννοίαις: 1
- ἐν αὐτῇ: 1
- ἐν δόλῳ: 1
- ἐν δύο φύσεσιν ἀσυγχύτως, ἀτρέπτως, ἀδιαιρέτως, ἀχωρίστως γνωριζόμενον: 1
- ἐν εἰρήνῃ: 1
- ἐν πνεύματι: 1
- ἐν τῇ ἀρχῇ τῆς βασιλείας Ἰουστίνου τοῦ Ῥωμαίων βασίλεως: 1
- ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ: 1
- ἐν τῷ ναῷ: 1
- ἐν τῷ προτρεπτικῷ ἐπιγραφομένῳ ἡμῖν λόγῳ: 1
- ἐν ταῖς λεγομέναις θλίψεσιν: 1
- ἐνανθρωπήσαντα: 1
- ἐνδιάθετος: 1
- ἐνεργῶς: 1
- ἐνεργεία: 1 2 3
- ἐνεργείας: 1
- ἐνσάρκωσις: 1
- ἐξ ἀποῤῥοίας τῆς οὐσίας: 1
- ἐξ ἑτέρας οὐσίας: 1
- ἐξ αὐτῆς τῆς ἑνώσεως: 1
- ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων: 1
- ἐξαὶρετοι λόγοι: 1
- ἐξαίφνης: 1
- ἐξεπέτασα: 1
- ἐξηγεῖται: 1
- ἐξομοιουμένων: 1
- ἐξομολόγησις: 1
- ἐξουσία κοσμοποίος: 1
- ἐπέστειλε Διονυσίῳ δηλῶσαι: 1
- ἐπέχων καὶ τὸν τόπον: 1
- ἐπὶ Τραϊανοῦ: 1
- ἐπὶ καταλύσει τῶν δαιμόνων: 1
- ἐπὶ τὴν θέαν τοῦ ζωαρχικοῦ καὶ θεοδόχου: 1
- ἐπὶ τὸ πελιδνότερον μεταβαλόντες τὴν πορφήν: 1
- ἐπίδειξις τοῦ ἀποστολικοῦ κηρύγματος: 1
- ἐπίλυτοι: 1
- ἐπίσκοποι: 1 2
- ἐπίσκοπος: 1 2 3
- ἐπίτροπος: 1
- ἐπ᾿ ἀλλαγῇ καὶ ἐπαναγωγῇ τοῦ ἀνθρωπείου γένους: 1
- ἐπ᾿ ὀχῶν: 1
- ἐπαθῆκε καὶ τὸ Ἰουδαίων φῦλον ἡμῖν: 1
- ἐπαρχιῶται: 1
- ἐπεὶ οὖν τὸν Λόγον οὐ δέχονται τὸν παρὰ Ἰωάννου κεκηρυγμένον, Ἄλογοι κληθήσονται: 1
- ἐπειδὴ γὰρ ἡμᾶς ὄντας ἐν σώματι σωματικὰς ἔδει ποιεῖσθαι τοῖς θεοῖς καὶ τὰς λατρείας, ἀσώματοι δέ εἰσιν αὐτοί,: 1
- ἐπετίμα τοῖς τε Ἁλλοις, καὶ οὐχ ἥκιστα (τοῖς φιλοσόφοις) εἰ τῶν βεβιωμένων αὐτὸν εἰς μακάρων νήσους ἀγόντων, οἱ δὲ ὡς ἀξίως ταρτάρου βεβιωκότα δακρύουσιν: 1
- ἐπεχείρησαν: 1
- ἐπεχείρησεν: 1
- ἐπιδημία: 1 2 3
- ἐπιδημιῶν κηρυγμάτων: 1
- ἐπιείκεια: 1 2
- ἐπιεικεῖς καὶ πανάγιοι πρεσβύτεροι καὶ διδάσκαλοι τῆς ἁγίας ἐκκλησίας: 1
- ἐπιζητούμενος: 1
- ἐπιλύτῳ: 1
- ἐπιλύχνιος εύχαριστία: 1
- ἐπιούσιος: 1 2
- ἐπισκιάζειν δύναμις ὑψίστου: 1
- ἐπιστέλλω: 1
- ἐπιστήμη: 1 2
- ἐπισυμβαίνει: 1
- ἐπισυμβαίνει τοῖς πράγμασιν: 1
- ἐπιτάφιος: 1
- ἐπιτίμως: 1
- ἐπιφανὴς διδάσκαλος: 1
- ἐποπτεία: 1
- ἐποχή τῆς ἀπείριας,: 1
- ἐπτομή: 1
- ἐραστὴς παιδείας: 1
- ἐργοδιώκτης: 1
- ἐρμηνέα: 1
- ἐρωτικοι ὕμνοι: 1
- ἐς Σάλωνας: 1
- ἐσαπόστολος: 1
- ἐσμεν: 1
- ἐφ᾿ ἡμῶν γενόμενος: 1
- ἐχειροτόνησε: 1
- ἑνότης: 1
- ἑπόμην: 1
- ἑπιφανὴς διδάσκαλος: 1
- ἑτέρωθι περὶ τὸν αὐτὸν τόπον: 1
- ἑτεροούσιος: 1
- ἓν καλεῖται καὶ ἔστι σῶμα: 1
- ἓν σῶμα: 1
- ἔγγραφον πίστιν: 1
- ἔκθεσις πίστεως: 1
- ἔκθεσις τῆς κατὰ μέρος πίστεως: 1 2
- ἔκστασιν: 1
- ἔκφρασις τοῦ ἄμβωνος: 1
- ἔλεγε: 1
- ἔμψυχον τὸν ἐνανθρωπήσαντα: 1
- ἔνθα δὴ πλείους ἦσαν οἰ δυσμενεῖς: 1
- ἔννοια πρώτη: 1
- ἔνοχος εἰς: 1
- ἔνωσις φυσική: 1
- ἔξω τούτων ἐστί: 1
- ἔποχον,: 1
- ἕν: 1
- ἕνα τοῦτον [τὸν κόσμον] εἶναι μονογενῆ τῷ θεῷ καὶ ἀγαπητόν: 1
- ἕνωσις: 1
- ἕνωσις σχετική: 1
- ἕνωσις φυσική: 1
- ἕτερος: 1
- Ἐγὼ τῶν θηρίων ἐκείνων ὀναίμην: 1
- Ἐγγαστρίμυθος: 1
- Ἐγκρατῖται: 1
- Ἐγκρατεῖς: 1
- Ἐγκρατηταί: 1
- Ἐκ τῆν Θεοδότου καὶ τῆς ἀνατολικῆς καλουμένης διδασκαλίας ἐπιτομαί: 1
- Ἐκκλησία: 1 2 3
- Ἐκκλησιαστικὴ Ἀπόδειξις: 1
- Ἐκκλησιαστικὴ Προπαρασκευή: 1
- Ἐκκλησιαστικός: 1
- Ἐλεύσιος: 1
- Ἐλπίς, Μητρικός: 1
- Ἐμμαοῦς,: 1
- Ἐμοὶ δέ: 1
- Ἐν σαρκί: 1
- Ἐνθύμησις: 1
- Ἐξηγητικά: 1
- Ἐπίσκοπος: 1
- Ἐρμηνεία εἰς τὴν Ἀποκάλυψιν: 1
- Ἑκηβὸλῳ: 1
- Ἑληνικῶν θεραπευτικὴ παθημάτων: 1
- Ἑλκεσαιταί: 1
- Ἑρμηνεία εἰς Ὀκτάτευχον: 1
- Ἔλεγγος καὶ ἀνατροπὴ τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσευς: 1
- Ἔλεγχος καὶ ἀνατροπὴ τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως: 1
- Ἔλεγχος κατὰ πασῶν αἱρέσεων: 1
- Ἔννοια: 1 2
- Ἔστω σὺν σοι ὁ συμβασιλεύων σοι: 1
- Ἕνωσις, Αὐτοφνὴς: 1
- ἠ τῶν ὑπερκοσμίων γνῶσις: 1
- ἠγαπηκέναι: 1
- ἡ ἄνωθεν δύναμις: 1
- ἡ ὑπὲρ τὰ ὅλα αὐθεντεία: 1
- ἡ ὑπὸ τῆς ἐλλκησίας κηρυσσουένη ἀλήθεια: 1
- ἡ Σκῆτις: 1
- ἡ αἱμοῤῥοοῦσα: 1
- ἡ δύναμις: 1
- ἡ δύναμις τοῦ Πατρός: 1
- ἡ δευτέρα χώρα: 1
- ἡ καθαρίνη: 1
- ἡ καινὴ πόλις: 1
- ἡ κλείς: 1
- ἡ κορυφαία καὶ πρεσβυτάτη τῶν θεολόγων ἀκρότης: 1
- ἡ μέλλουσα κατάστασις: 1
- ἡ μεγάλη: 1
- ἡ σύμπασα κτίσις: 1
- ἡ σκοτία τὸ φῶς οὐ καταλαμβάνει: 1
- ἡ τῶν μελλόντων καὶ ὑψηλοτέρων ἀναγωγὴ καὶ θεωρία: 1
- ἡ τοῦ ἡλίου ἡμέρα: 1
- ἡ τοῦ δεσπότου μου Εὐσεβίου σπουδὴ ἡ ὑπὲρ ἀληθοῦς λόγου: 1
- ἡ τροπολογία ἐξ αἰσθητῶν ἐπὶ τὰ νοητὰ ὁδηγοῦσα τὸν ἀναγινώσκοντα: 1
- ἡγούμενοι, αι: 1
- ἡμεῖς δέ: 1
- ἤδη δὲ ἐτόλμησεν: 1
- ἤν καὶ ἐγένετο: 1
- ἥλιος: 1
- ἦν ὅτε οὐκ ἦν: 1
- ἧττοϖ: 1
- Ἠλχασαί: 1
- Ἡδονή, Ἀκίνητος: 1
- ἰδία θεότης: 1
- ἰδίωμα: 1
- ἰδιότης: 1
- ἰδιότητας: 1
- ἰδιώματα: 1
- ἰδικῶς: 1
- ἰσάγγελοι: 1
- ἰσχὺς τοῦ μυστηρίου τοῦ σταυροῦ: 1
- ἰταμώτερον καὶ αὐθαδέστερον: 1
- ἰχθυβόλου παρὰ τέχνης: 1
- ἱεράρχης: 1
- ἱερεύς: 1 2 3
- ἱκανῶς ἐπεστείλαμεν.: 1
- ἱκανωτάτη: 1
- ἱστορία νέα: 1
- ἴχνη καὶ λείμματα: 1
- ἵνα ὁ καινὸς . . . μὴ ἀνθρωποιητον ἔχῃ την προσφοράν: 1
- ἵνα μὴ προσερχώμεθα ὡς ἐπηλύται τῷ ἐκείνων νόμῳ: 1
- ἵνα μὴ προσρησσώμεθα ὡς ἐπίλυτῳ τῷ ἐκείνων νόμῳ: 1
- Ἰησοῦς: 1
- Ἰλλούστριος: 1
- Ἰνδικοπλευστής: 1
- Ἰούνιλος: 1
- Ἰσδεγέρδης: 1
- Ἰσδιγέρδης: 1
- Ἰωάννης: 1
- Ἰωάννης Τρ.: 1
- Ἰωάννης Χρυσόστομος: 1
- Ἰωαν: 1
- ὀρέγεται: 1
- ὀχούμενα: 1
- ὁ ἀδελφόθεος: 1
- ὁ ἀλόγως μισῶν τὸ Ἰουδαίων κ.τ.λ.: 1
- ὁ ἀπὸ Σείδονος: 1
- ὁ ἀπὸκοπος: 1
- ὁ ἀπόκυπος: 1
- ὁ ἀποστολικὸς Βαρνάβας: 1
- ὁ ἄγγελος: 1 2
- ὁ Ἀμίδιος: 1
- ὁ Ἀσκιδᾶς: 1
- ὁ ἐκ τοῦ θείου τοῦ Κυρίου: 1
- ὁ ἐν τῷ ἐπιστηθίῳ φοιτήσας: 1
- ὁ ἠθικὸς λόγος: 1
- ὁ ἡμέτερος: 1
- ὁ Ἰωάννου τοῦ εὐαγγελιστοῦ φοιτητής: 1
- ὁ ὑπηρέτης: 1
- ὁ ὤν: 1
- ὁ Θήβηθεν: 1
- ὁ Θεός: 1 2 3 4
- ὁ Θεός, ἀπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς τῶν ὅλων γεννγθείς: 1
- ὁ Κύριος: 1
- ὁ Λόγος: 1
- ὁ Παιδαγωγός: 1
- ὁ Φιλαλήθης: 1
- ὁ Χλωρός,: 1
- ὁ γνωστικός: 1
- ὁ δὲ πατὴρ προϋπάρχει τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τῆς γενέσως αὐτοῦ προϋφέστηκεν: 1
- ὁ δεσπότης: 1
- ὁ διάκονος: 1
- ὁ δράκων: 1
- ὁ θεὸς προσκυνητός: 1
- ὁ θεόπνευστος πρεσβύτης καὶ κήρυξ τῆς ἀληθείας: 1
- ὁ θεός, ὁ λόγος: 1
- ὁ θεῖος γνόφος: 1
- ὁ θεοφιλὴς πρεσβύτης: 1
- ὁ κόσμος: 1
- ὁ καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς διωγμός: 1
- ὁ κανὼν τῆς ἀληθείας: 1
- ὁ κανὼν τῆς ἐκκλησίας: 1
- ὁ λόγος ὁπηνίκα μὲν ἐπὶ σωτηρίαν παρεκάλει, προτρεπτικὸς ὄνομα οὐτῷ ἦν: 1
- ὁ λόγος ὃς σαρκοποιηθεὶς ἄνθρωπος γέγομεν: 1
- ὁ λόγος πρὸς Ἕλληνας ὁ ἐπιγεγραμμένος κατὰ Πλάτωνα περὶ τῆς τοῦ παντὸς αἰτίας: 1
- ὁ μέγας: 1 2
- ὁ μόνος λεγόμενος κυρίως υἱός: 1 2
- ὁ μονόφθαλμος, : 1
- ὁ μονογενὴς θεός : 1
- ὁ πάντα τολμῶν: 1
- ὁ πάνυ: 1
- ὁ παθετός: 1
- ὁ παρθένος: 1
- ὁ πατὴρ τῶν ὅλων: 1
- ὁ πιστεύων ἐπιγνώσεται: 1
- ὁ πολύς: 1
- ὁ πολύς ἐν σοφίᾳ: 1
- ὁ πολυθρύλλητος ἀσκητής: 1
- ὁ σκυτεύς: 1
- ὁ σταυρωθεὶς δἰ᾿ ἡμᾶς: 1
- ὁ τῆς ἀγίας ἄξιος μνήμης: 1
- ὁ τῆς δοκήσεως ἐξάρχων: 1
- ὁ τρίτος: 1
- ὁ φιλαληθέστατος: 1
- ὁδοῦ δὴ πάρεργον: 1
- ὁμοίως τῷ Ἀδὰμ καὶ τῇ Εὔᾳ ἐξομοιούμενοι, θάνατον ἑαυτοῖς ἑργάζονται: 1
- ὁμοιούσιον: 1 2 3
- ὁμοιούσιος: 1 2
- ὁμοιουσία: 1
- ὁμολογία πίστεως: 1
- ὁμολογία πίστεως Ἰουστινιανοῦ αὐτοκράτορος: 1
- ὁμολογουμένα: 1
- ὁμοοίσιον: 1
- ὁμοούσιον: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
- ὁμοούσιον καὶ ὁμότιμον: 1
- ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί: 1
- ὁμοούσιος: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
- ὁμοουσίῳ: 1 2
- ὁμοουσία: 1
- ὁμοουσιος: 1
- ὁρθογνώμονες κατὰ πάντα Χριστιανοί: 1
- ὃ γέγονεν ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν: 1
- ὃ δὲ λέγει κ.τ.λ.: 1
- ὃν ἴστε: 1
- ὃν καὶ αὐτὸν κατείληφεν ὁ διωγμός: 1
- ὄντα ἀνεψιὸν τοῦ Κυρίου: 1
- ὅμοιον κατὰ τὴν βούλησιν μόνον,: 1
- ὅν φασί τινες Ἀλεξανδρέα ἕτεροι δὲ Ἀθηναῖον: 1
- ὅραμα: 1
- ὅροι κατὰ ἐπιτομήν,: 1
- ὅροι κατὰ πλάτον: 1
- ὅρος: 1 2
- ὅρος Οὐαλεντίνου: 1
- ὅς ἐστι Χριστός: 1
- ὅταν δὲ κ.τ.λ.: 1
- ὅταν δὲ λέγω, φησίν, τό Ἦν, οὐχ ὅτι ἦν λέγω, ἀλλ᾿ ἵνα σημάνω τοῦτο ὅπερ βούλομαι δεῖξαι, λέγω, φησίν, ὅτι ἦν ὅλως οὐδέν· . . . καὶ οὐ δέχομαι, φησίν κ.τ.λ.: 1
- Ὀνῷ λύπα: 1
- Ὀρθόδοξος: 1
- Ὁ ἄγνωστος ἐν σαρκὶ πάσχει Θεός, κ.τ.λ.: 1
- Ὁμιλίαι: 1
- Ὁμοιουύιος: 1
- Ὁμοούσιος: 1
- Ὄλβιος: 1
- Ὄνῳ λύρα: 1
- Ὅλβιος: 1
- ὐπηρέτης: 1
- ὐψῶν: 1
- ὑλικοί: 1
- ὑμῶν τὴν ἐπιστολὴν: 1
- ὑπὲρ μικρῶν καὶ λίαν ἐλαχίστων φιλονεικούντον—ὑπὲρ τῶν ἐλαχίστων τούτων ζητήσεων ἀκριβολογεῖσθε: 1
- ὑπὲρ πᾶσαν ἁμαρτίαν ἀνομώτεροι: 1
- ὑπὲρ τοῦ κατὰ Ἰωάννην εὐαγγελίου καὶ ἀποκαλύψεως: 1
- ὑπέλαβες ἐσόμενος ἔσομαι ὅμοιός σοι: 1
- ὑπέστησε: 1
- ὑπόστασις: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
- ὑπαρχούσας: 1
- ὑπεμνηματίσθη: 1
- ὑπηχῶν: 1
- ὑπομνήματα: 1 2 3
- ὑπονοίαν ἔχῃ: 1
- ὑποτάσσεσθαι: 1
- ὑποτύπωσις ἀσκήσεως: 1
- ὑποτυπώσεις: 1
- ὑστέρημα: 1
- ὕλη: 1 2 3
- ὕμνος τοῦ Σωτῆρος Χριστοῦ: 1
- Ὑπομνήματα: 1
- Ὑποτυπώσεις: 1 2
- ὡραιότητος: 1
- ὡς ἐν υἱῷ: 1
- ὡς ἤδη δεδικαιωμένοι: 1
- ὡς ἴδια θελήματα: 1
- ὡς γέγραπται: 1
- ὡς μονογενής: 1
- ὡς οἰκείου ἀγαθοῦ μεταποιηθῆναι: 1
- ὡς οἶμαι: 1
- ὡς οὐκ ἀπείληφε τὴν προεδρίαν τε, καὶ τὴν εἴσδυσιν τῆς ἐκκλησίας: 1
- ὡς σκώληκος οκαρίζοντος: 1
- ὡς φασιν—ὡς αὐτοὶ λέγουσιν: 1
- ὡς φθάσαντα λεχθῆναι ὑπὸ τοῦ τὰ μέλλοντα λέγεσθαι ὅτε δεῖ καὶ οἷα δεῖ καὶ ὡς δεῖ λελογισμένου: 1
- ὢν γὰρ ἔστιν: 1
- ὥς φησιν ὁ Θεόδοτος: 1
- ὥσπερ γὰρ ἀλὴθεια μία, οὕτω δὲ καί φιλοσοφία μία: 1
- ᾠδὴ μεγάλη: 1
- ᾠδαὶ εἰς πάσας τὰς γραφάς: 1
- ῥέοντα καὶ φερόμενα: 1
- ῥύπου: 1
- ῥητά: 1
- ῶ Κένταυρε: 1
- Αἰγυπτιακά: 1
- Αὐτοπάτωρ: 1
- ΑΒΡΑΣΑΞ: 1
- Αγάπη: 1
- Αγκυρωτός: 1
- Ανθρωπος: 1
- Αρειος: 1
- Βύθιος: 1
- Βασίλειος: 1 2
- Βασιλείδης: 1
- Βοέτιος: 1
- Βυθός: 1 2
- Β. ὁμοῦ καὶ Ἰ.: 1
- Γερμανικοῖς: 1
- Διαιτητής: 1
- Διαλέξεις περὶ νηστείας: 1
- Εἰρηναῖος: 1
- Εἰς Ἀγαπετούς: 1
- Εἰς τὸν δεσπότην Χριστόν: 1
- Εἰς τὸν σωτῆρα: 1
- Εὐσέβιος Παμφίλου: 1
- Εὐχαριστία: 1
- ΕΠΙ + ΜΡ: 1
- ΕΥΤΥΧΙΑΝΟC ΕΠΙC: 1
- Εκ τοῦ Θευδότου καὶ τῆς Ἀνατολικῆς καλουμένης διδασκαλίας: 1
- Ερανίστης: 1
- Ζεὺς Τραγῳδός: 1 2
- Ζωή: 1 2 3 4
- Ζωή. Ἄνθρωπος: 1
- Ηἱκαθαρίνα: 1
- Ηλξαί, Ἐλκεσσαῖοι: 1
- Θ: 1
- Θεὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ: 1
- Θεὸν ἐκ παρθένου, Θεὸν ἐκ Ναζαρὲτ ὀφθέντα: 1
- Θεὸς καὶ Κύριος: 1
- Θεὸς καὶ Κύριος τῶν δυνάμεων: 1
- Θεὸς σωτήρ: 1
- Θεότης: 1 2
- Θεοῦ σαρκωθέντος μητέρα: 1
- Θεοπασχιτισμός: 1
- Θεοσεβὴς γὰρ ἦν: 1
- Θεοσεβεῖς: 1
- Θεοτόκος: 1 2
- Θεοφάνεια: 1
- Θεοφόρος: 1
- ΙΧΘΥΣ, : 1
- Κέρδων: 1
- Κόρη κόσμου: 1
- Κύρῳ: 1
- Κύριλλος: 1
- Κύριος ἔκτισέν με ἀρχὴν ὁδῶν αὐτοῦ: 1
- Καθαροί: 1
- Καλανδίων: 1
- Κανὼν ἐκκλησιαστικὸς ἢ πρὸς τοὺς Ἰουδαΐ ζοντας: 1
- Καρποκράτης: 1
- Καρποκρᾱς: 1
- Κατὰ Εὐνομιάνων: 1
- Κελλία: 1
- Κλαυδίου Ἀπολιναρίου τοῦ μακαριωτάτου γενομένου ἐν Ιεραπόλει τῆς Ἀσίας ἐπισκόπου: 1
- Κοινή: 1
- Κολλυριδιάνιδες: 1
- Κοσμοκράτωρ: 1
- Κυρίῳ: 1
- Κυριακῶν λογίων ἐξηγήσεις: 1
- Λἱρετικῆς Κακομυθίας ἐπιτομή: 1
- Λόγος: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
- Λόγος : 1 2
- Λόγος ἀπὸ Σιγῆς προελθών: 1
- Λόγος ἐνδιάθετος: 1
- Λόγος πρὸς Ἕλληνας: 1
- Λόγος προτρεπτικὸ;ς πρὸς Ἕλληνας: 1
- Λόγος τέλειος: 1 2
- Λόγος φιλαλήθης πρὸς τοὺς Χριστιανούς: 1
- Λόγος, : 1
- Λόγος, ἀντιῤῥητικὸς πρὸς τὰ Ἀπολλιναρίου: 1
- ΛΟΥΚΙC: 1
- Λατεῖνος: 1
- Λειμών: 1
- Λειμωναριον: 1
- Λογίων Κυριακῶν ἐξηγήσεις: 1
- Λογίων κυριακῶν ἐξηγήσεις: 1
- Λουκᾶνος: 1
- Λουκιανός: 1
- Μάρκος ἀσκητής: 1
- Μήτηρ: 1
- Μίξις: 1
- Μακαρία: 1
- Μακαρία, Πίστις, Ἐλπίς: 1
- Μακαριότης, Θελητός: 1
- Μανιχαῖοι: 1
- Μανιχαῖος: 1
- Μαρκιανοί: 1
- Μεγάλη Ἀποφάσις: 1
- Μεγαλομάρτυς: 1
- Μετάθεσθε, σωφρονίσθητε: 1
- Μεταβολή: 1
- Μονάς: 1
- Μονογενής: 1 2 3 4
- Νέον Παραδείσιον: 1
- Νέοσ Παράδεισος: 1
- Νέρων Καῖσαρ: 1
- Ναυάτος: 1
- Νικαρέτη: 1
- Νοῦς: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
- Νοουάτος: 1
- Οἰκαρχίαις δὴ γυναικῶν οὕτως ὑποχωρήσομεν, ὥσπερ ἐχιδναίοις ἐπιδρομαῖς: 1
- Οὐαλεντῖνος: 1
- Οσα παρὰ πᾶσι καλῶς εἴρηται ἡμῶν τῶν Χριστιανῶν ἐστι: 1
- Π: 1
- Πίστις, Πατρικός: 1
- Πύστεις: 1
- Παιδαγωγός: 1
- Πανάριον: 1
- Πανδέκται: 1
- Παντοκράτωρ: 1
- Παπίᾳ Διῒ σωτῆρι: 1
- Παράκλητος: 1 2
- Πατὴρ ἀγέννητος: 1
- Πατήρ: 1 2 3
- Πατρικός, Μητρικός, Ἐκκλησιαστικός: 1
- Πελάγιος: 1
- Περὶ ἀναστάσεως: 1
- Περὶ Ἀρχῶν: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
- Περὶ Αρχῶν: 1
- Περὶ Υἱοῦ: 1 2
- Περὶ δικαίου καὶ θείου δικαιωτηρίου: 1
- Περὶ θείων ὀνομάτων: 1
- Περὶ θεολογίας: 1
- Περὶ καταλαλίας: 1
- Περὶ προσφυοῦς ψυχῆς: 1
- Περὶ τῶν γενητῶν: 1
- Περὶ τῶν εἰς ἐαντόν: 1
- Περὶ τοῦ Ἁγίου πνεύματος: 1
- Περὶ τοῦ πάσχα: 1
- Περίοδοι: 1
- Περίοδοι Παύλου καὶ Θεκλης: 1
- Περιοδοὶ τοῦ Πέτρου: 1
- Πνεῦμα προφητικὸν ἐν τρίτῃ τάξει τιμῶμεν: 1
- Πνευματομάχοι: 1
- Ποιμάνδρης: 1 2
- Ποιμήν,: 1
- Πολυχρονίου ἐκ τῆς εἰς τὸν Ἰεζεκιὴλ ἑρμηνείας: 1
- Πρὸς Ἕλληνας λόγος προτρεπτικός: 1
- Πρόκλος: 1
- Πρόσπειρός τις: 1
- Πρόχορος: 1
- Πρεσβύτεροι: 1
- Πρεσβεία: 1 2
- Προσομιλία : 1
- Προτρεπτικὸς εἰς ὑπομονήν ἢ πρὸς τοὺς νεωστὶ βεβαπτισμένους: 1
- Σύγκρασις, Μονογενής: 1
- Σύνεσις: 1
- Σαρᾶς ἀπό: 1
- Σεβαστὸς πρὸς τῶν στρατοπέδων ἀναγορευθείς: 1
- Σιγή: 1
- Σοφία: 1
- Στέρησις ἄρα ἐστὶ τὸ κακόν, καὶ ἔλλειψις, καὶ ἀσυένεια, καὶ ἀσυμμετρία, κ.τ.λ.: 1
- Στιχηρά: 1
- Στιχηρὸν: 1
- Στρωματεῖς: 1 2 3 4
- Σχόλια, σημειώσεις: 1
- Τίς ὁ σωζόμενος πλούασιος: 1
- Τίτου Φλανίου Κλήμεντος: 1
- Τόμοι: 1 2 3 4
- Τόμοι, σημειώσεις: 1
- Τατιανοῦ πρὸς Ἕλληνας: 1
- Τζινίτζαι: 1
- Τοῦ Αὐτοῦ Ἀπολογητικός: 1
- Υἱός: 1 2
- ΦΑΒΙΑΝΟC: 1
- Φαρών: 1
- Φαρᾶ: 1
- Φαρῶν: 1
- Φθαρτολάτραι: 1
- Χ: 1
- Χριστὲ Βασιλεῦ: 1
- Χριστός: 1 2
- Χριστεμπορεία: 1
- Χριστιανόφρων: 1
- Χριστιανοὺς δὲ μηκέτι γεγενῆσθαι: 1
- Χριστοτόκος: 1
- Χριστοφόρος: 1
- Ψάλτης: 1
- Ψαθυροπώλης: 1
- Ψυχομαχία: 1
- α: 1 2
- αἰών: 1 2 3
- αἰώνιον διχόμοιαν: 1
- αἰώνιον κόλασιν: 1
- αἰώνιος: 1
- αἰώνιος καὶ ἄλυτος: 1
- αἰτήσει: 1
- αἱ ἅγιαι γραφαί: 1
- αἱ ἐνδιάθηκοι βίβλοι: 1
- αἱ περίοδοι: 1
- αἴλουρος: 1
- αἴτιος: 1
- αὐθ: 1
- αὐτῶν: 1
- αὐτοῖς: 1
- αὐτοκέφαλοι.: 1
- αὐτοκράτωρ: 1
- αὔτη πύλη τοῦ κυρίου δίκεοι εἰσελεύσοντε: 1
- απολογια: 1
- β: 1 2
- βῆμα: 1
- βαδδὶν: 1
- βαπτίσθητε τὴν ψυχὴν ἀπὸ ὀργῆς καὶ ἰδού, τὸ σῶμα καθαρόν ἐστι: 1
- βασίληαν, : 1
- βασιλῆ ἀναθρῆσαι: 1
- βασιλῆαν, : 1
- βασιλικὸς λόγος: 1
- βασιλικός: 1
- βασιλισμόν: 1
- βιβλία: 1
- βιβλίδιον: 1
- βιβλίον διαλέξεων διαφόρων: 1 2
- βιβλιδάριον: 1
- βούτομον: 1
- βοηθός: 1
- γέγονεν ἄνθρωπος ἀντιληπτικὸς παθῶν: 1
- γέγονεν ἢ ὑπέρ: 1
- γέγονεν ὑπό: 1
- γέννημα: 1
- γέννημα ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐγεγέννητο: 1
- γέννησις: 1
- γένος διαφέρον: 1
- γαμετῆς: 1
- γεγέννηται: 1
- γεγονέναι: 1
- γεννηθέντα ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός μονογενῆ: 1
- γεννηθέντα, οὐ ποιηθέντα: 1
- γινόμενος: 1
- γνώριμος: 1
- γνώσιν καὶ διδαχήν: 1
- γνῶσις: 1 2
- γνωστικὴ: 1
- γνωστικοί: 1
- γοργὸς Ἕλλην: 1
- γραψαὶ καθεξῆς: 1
- γυνὴ θεοσεβεστάτη εἰ καὶ τις ἄλλη γεγονυία: 1
- δἰ ἐνύπνια: 1
- δἰ αἵματος καὶ μυστηρίου τοῦ σταυροῦ κτησάμενος αὐτούς: 1
- δἰ αὐτοῦ: 1
- δἰ αὐτοῦ πάντα ἔκτισε: 1
- δἰ εὐχῆς λόγου: 1
- δἰ εὑρέσεως καὶ θεωρίας: 1
- δάκρυά ἐσμεν . . . οἱ εἰς αὐτὸν πεπιστευκότες: 1
- δίδασκε: 1
- δίκαιοι εἰσελεύσονται: 1
- δίττος, ὀχή: 1
- δύναμίς ἐστι τοῦ Πατρός: 1
- δύναμιν λογικήν: 1
- δύναμις: 1
- δῶρον ἀληθῶς ἀντάξιον: 1
- δαίμονες: 1
- δεύτερος: 1
- δεσποτείαν: 1
- δηλαδὴ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις: 1
- δημοσίοις βίβλιος: 1
- διὰ Μαρίας: 1
- διὰ Μωϋσέως προεμήνυσε: 1
- διὰ λογιχῆς δυνάμεως: 1
- διὰ τὴν διαφορωτέραν ἀρχήν: 1
- διὰ τῆς Βιθυνίας: 1
- διά: 1
- διάκονον τινα τῶν ἐν τῇ Ἀσίᾳ: 1
- διάκονος: 1 2
- διάστημα: 1
- διέλαμπε: 1
- διέσφυξεν: 1
- διήγημα: 1
- διήκουσιν: 1
- διαβόητος: 1
- διαιρετικόν: 1
- διαλέξεις: 1 2
- διαλέξεις διάφοροι: 1
- διαστήματα: 1
- διαστολὴ τῶν χειρῶν: 1
- διαφέρουσα μᾶλλον: 1
- διαφοράν: 1
- διδάσκαλος: 1
- διδάσκων, : 1
- διδασκαλεῖον: 1
- διδαχὴ ἀποστόλων: 1
- διδαχὴ καλουμένη τῶν ἀποστόλον: 1
- διδαχὴ τῶν ἀποστόλων: 1
- διδαχή: 1
- διδαχαί: 1 2
- διηγήματα: 1
- διηγούμεθα: 1
- διικνούμενον: 1
- δικαιοσύνης: 1
- διμοιρία: 1
- διοίκησις: 1
- διοίοκησις: 1
- διττόχαιον: 1
- δοκέω: 1
- δοκιμώτατος: 1
- δουλεύων τῇ Εβραϊκῇ λέξει: 1
- δράκων: 1
- δυὰς ἀνονόμαστος: 1
- δυνάμει: 1
- δυνάσταιΒασὰν διεδημα τίσαντό με: 1
- δυσκολίαι: 1
- δυσσέβης: 1
- δυσφήμοις ἐπαπορήσεσιν: 1
- δυωδεκάριθμος: 1
- εἰ . . . τις αὐτῶν λέγοι—πέπτωκεν ἡ ὑπόθεσις αὐτοῖς—ὡς φάναι,: 1
- εἰκάζετο: 1
- εἰκόνας: 1
- εἰκὼν τοῦ Θεοῦ: 1
- εἰκών: 1
- εἰργάζετο: 1
- εἰς ἐπιστήμης γνωστικῆς παραδοχήν: 1
- εἰς ἴδιον χαρακτῃρα διδασκαλείου: 1
- εἰς δυάδα: 1
- εἰς τὰ μετὰ τὴν ἑξαήμερον: 1
- εἰς τὴν ἐγγαστρίμυθον: 1
- εἰς τὴν βασιλεύουσαν νέαν Ρώμην: 1
- εἰς τὸ κοιμητήριον κατέστησεν: 1
- εἰς τὸν Μελχισεδέκ: 1
- εἰς τοὺς ἀπαιδεύτους κύνας,: 1
- εἱς τὸν Παιδαγωγόν: 1
- εἴ τις προσίεται: 1
- εἴτε δὲ χωρὶς θεοῦ . . . εἴτε χάριτι . . .: 1
- εὐήθεια: 1
- εὐαγγέλια: 1
- εὐαγγελιον: 1
- εὐεργετούμενοι: 1
- εὐηγγελισμένον: 1
- εὐλαβής: 1
- εὐσεβής: 1
- εὐχή: 1
- εὐχήται: 1
- εὐχόμενοι: 1
- εὐχῖται: 1
- εὐχαριστία: 1 2
- εὺχῶν διατάξεις: 1
- ζῳα: 1
- ζηλοῦσι: 1
- ζωγράφος: 1 2
- θέειν: 1
- θέσις: 1
- θαύματα: 1
- θανταζόμενα περὶ τὴν ψυχήν: 1
- θαυμαστὸς συγγραφεύς: 1
- θαυμαστόν: 1
- θεάνθρωπος: 1
- θεὸς λόγος: 1
- θεός: 1 2
- θεός σαρκοφόρος: 1
- θεός, λόγος: 1
- θεότης: 1
- θεῖος: 1
- θεῷ ὁμοίως ἀπαθεῖς καὶ ἀθανάτους: 1
- θεννὶν: 1
- θεοδρόμος: 1
- θεολογικαί στοιχειώσεις: 1
- θεοπάτωρ: 1
- θεοσεβεστάτη: 1
- θεοτόκος: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
- θεοτόκος.: 1
- θεοφοροῦνται λόγῳ θείῳ: 1
- θεραφὶν: 1
- θηριομαχεῖν: 1
- θρέμματα: 1
- θρόνοι: 1
- θρησκεία: 1
- θυσίαι: 1
- ιδιότης: 1
- ιδιώματα: 1
- κάτω δὲ περὶ τοὺς κ.τ.λ. γεγόνασι: 1
- κάτωθεν: 1
- κένωμα: 1 2 3
- κόθορνος: 1
- κόλασις πυρός: 1
- κόσμος: 1 2
- κόσμος αἰσθητός: 1
- κόσμος νοερός: 1 2
- κόσμος νοηρός: 1
- κύων, κυνίσκος, ἀμφόδων ὑπηρέτης: 1
- καὶ μάχαιρα στομάτων ἐν χερσὶν αὐτῶν: 1
- καὶ νῦν ἐγέλασαν ἐπ᾿ ἐμοὶ βραξεῖς παῤ ἐμὲ ταῖς ἡμέρας: 1
- καθάπερ θεοφορουμένη τῷ ἁγίῳ Πνεύματι: 1
- καθ᾿ ἃ προείρηται: 1 2
- καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν: 1
- καθαρὰ καὶ εὐσεβὴς γνώμη: 1
- καθαρός: 1
- καθηγητὴν: 1
- καθημερίνων ὕμνων: 1
- καθολικός: 1
- καινὴ κυριακή: 1
- καιρὸς εὔκαιρος: 1
- καιρῷ: 1
- κακὰ κακοῖς ἐπιτειχίζοντες: 1
- κακονοία: 1
- καλῶς: 1
- καλούμεθα καὶ ἐσμέν: 1
- κανόναρχος: 1
- κανὼν ἐκκλησιαστικός: ὁ ἐκκλ. κ.: 1
- κανὼν τῆς ἀληθείας: 1
- κατ οὐσίαν ὐπάρχειν: 1
- κατὰ Ἰουδαίων βίβλος: 1
- κατὰ θέσιν: 1
- κατὰ καιρούς: 1
- κατὰ κενοῦ: 1
- κατὰ λόγου μέρος: 1
- κατὰ μερισμὸν οὐ κατὰ ἀποκοπὴν: 1
- κατὰ μεταβολήν: 1
- κατὰ πάντα πρόπον: 1
- κατὰ τὸ κεχρίσθαι τὰ πάντα δἰ αὐτόν: 1
- κατὰ τοῦτο: 1
- κατάπαυσις: 1
- κατάφασις: 1
- κατέχει λόγος: 1
- κατ᾿ ἀφαίρεσιν: 1
- κατ᾿ ἐπιβουλὴν δυνάμεως: 1
- κατ᾿ ἰδίαν οὑσίας περιγραφήν: 1
- κατ᾿ εἰκόνα καὶ καθ᾿ ὁμοίωσιν: 1
- κατ᾿ οἰκονομίαν: 1 2
- κατ᾿ οὐσίαν, κατ᾿ ἐνέργειαν, κατ᾿ εὐδοκίαν: 1
- καταστάσεις: 1
- κατηφής: 1
- κατηχήσεις φωτιζομένων: 1
- κατιδών: 1
- κατωφερής: 1
- κενά: 1
- κενοτάφια: 1
- κενοφωνίας: 1
- κενωτικόν: 1
- κεράσται: 1
- κεστοί,: 1
- κεφάλαια: 1 2
- κεφάλαια νηπτικά: 1
- κεφαλή: 1
- κλῖμαξ: 1
- κνίζων: 1
- κοινά: 1
- κοινὸν ἄρτον: 1
- κολλύριδες: 1
- κολλυρίς: 1
- κοντάκια: 1 2
- κοντάκιον: 1
- κοσμικοὶ ἄνθρωποι: 1
- κοσμοπλάνος: 1
- κρατούμενα: 1
- κρεμάμενα: 1
- κτίσμα: 1 2
- κτιστόν: 1
- κυρίως υἱότης: 1
- κυριακή: 1
- λάρνακα: 1
- λάτρεία: 1
- λέγουσιν: 1
- λόγῳ ἀληθεῖ καὶ ἐξεταστικῶς: 1
- λόγῳ καὶ ἀληθείᾳ τιμῶντες: 1
- λόγῳ πειραθέντες τὰ πράγματα θεωρῆσαι καὶ ἐλέγξαῖ . . . διὰ λόγου ζητήσεως θεοῦ τοῦ ἀγνώστου ἐπίγνωσιν: 1
- λόγια: 1 2
- λόγιον: 1
- λόγοι: 1
- λόγος: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
- λόγος ἀσκητικός: 1
- λόγος ἐνδιάθετος: 1 2 3
- λόγος εἰς τὴν ᾠδὴν τὴν μεγάλην: 1
- λόγος παραινετικὸς πρὸς Ἕλληνας: 1
- λόγος πρὸς Ἕλληνας: 1
- λόγος προφορικός: 1 2 3
- λόγος σπερματικός: 1
- λόγου ἀποσώζουσι πρὸς τὸ πᾶν ἅπαντα: 1
- λόγους: 1
- λόγους ἀποκρύφους: 1
- λαός: 1
- λατρείας: 1
- λεπτομερές: 1
- λογίδιον: 1
- λογικῆς: 1
- λογισμός: 1
- λυτρωτής: 1
- μέγα ἀνέκραγε: 1
- μέγα καὶ ἐπίσημον τεῦχος: 1
- μέθεξις: 1
- μέρος: 1
- μέση τις, οὐκ ἀπὸ τῶν ἄκρων κραθεῖσα, τελεία δὲ καὶ ἀμιγὴς ἀφ᾿ ὅλων τῶν θεῶν ἐμφανῶν τε καὶ ἀφανῶν καὶ αἰσθητῶν καὶ νοητῶν, ἡ τοῦ βασιλέως Ἡλίου νοερὰ καὶ πάγκαλος οὐσία,: 1
- μέτρον τῆς ἀλγηδόνης ἡ τῆς κακίας ἐν ἑκάστῳ ποσότης ἐστίν: 1
- μέχρι νῦν: 1
- μέχρι τριάδος: 1
- μὴ ὄν: 1
- μὴ θεομαχεῖν: 1
- μήτηρ Θεοῦ: 1
- μία τάξις, μία τιμή. ἕν ἀξίωμα.: 1
- μία φύσις διττή: 1
- μία φύσις σύνθετος: 1
- μόνα τὰ πρὸς τὸν θεοφιλῆ συντείνοντα βίον): 1
- μύησις: 1
- μύθος: 1
- μῆτερ, μῆτερ, τεκοῦσα, τεκοῦσα, βοήθει, σφάζομαι: 1
- μαθήματα ἤτοι προπαιδεύματα: 1
- μακρὰν κειμήνοις: 1
- μακρόστιχος: 1
- μαργαρίτας τοῦ ξενῶνος: 1
- μαχίμης, ἀντέχου: 1
- μεγάλη ἀπόφασις: 1
- μεθόριον: 1
- μετὰ σκιᾶς τινος: 1
- μετὰ τὴν δέουσαν προκατασκευήν: 1
- μετὰ τὸ ἐμπλησθῆναι: 1
- μεταῤῥυθμίζειν: 1
- μετρίως: 1
- μεχρὶ σήμερον παῤ ἡμῖν φαινόμενον: 1
- μεχρὶ σήμερον φαινόμενον: 1
- μη αγνονματισης με: 1
- μικρόν τι τὰ Ἀρείου ὑπονούμενα: 1
- μονάς: 1
- μονή: 1 2
- μονότης: 1
- μοναδικὴ γνῶσις: 1
- μοναδικός: 1
- μοναρχία: 1
- μοναστήριον: 1 2
- μοναστηρία: 1
- μονογενὴς θεός: 1
- μονογενὴς νἱός: 1
- μονογενῆ τε κόσμον: 1
- μονομερής: 1
- μορφή: 1
- μορφώματα: 1
- μυρία: 1
- μυριάκις γράφων: 1
- μυστήρια: 1
- μυσταγωγεῖται: 1
- μυσταγωγικαὶ κατηχήσεις πρὸς τοὺς νεοφωτίστους: 1
- νἱὸς ἀνθρώπου: 1
- νόθα: 1
- νῦν δωδεκάτῳ τόπῳ τὸν τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς ἀπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων κατέχει κλῆρον Ἐλεύθερος: 1
- ναύτης: 1
- νεᾶνις: 1 2 3
- νεαραὶ διατάξεις: 1
- νεαραί: 1
- νεκραγγέλους: 1
- νερτεροδρόμους: 1
- νεωστί: 1
- νικήτης: 1
- νοήματα: 1
- νοῦν: 1
- νοῦς: 1 2 3 4 5
- νοῦς, πνεῦμα, ψυχὴ λογική: 1
- νοητὴν καὶ αἰσθητήν: 1
- νοηταὶ φύσεις: 1
- νοσοκομεῖον: 1
- νρόνους ὁκτώ: 1
- ξενοδοχεῖα, καταγώγια ξένων καὶ πτωχῶν,: 1
- ξενοδοχεῖον,: 1
- ο προεστως: 1
- οἰκείαν: 1
- οἰκετην ἔχειν: 1
- οἰκονόμος: 1
- οἰκονομία: 1
- οἰκονομίας τε καὶ θεολογίας: 1
- οἰκουμένη: 1
- οἱ ἀμφὶ τὸν Β.: 1 2
- οἱ ἀπὸ Β.: 1 2 3 4 5 6
- οἱ ἀπὸ Β. φασί—λέγουσι—᾿ξηγοῦνται—φασί: 1
- οἱ ἀπὸ Β., οἱ ἀμφὶ τὸν Β: 1
- οἱ ἀπὸ Οὐαλεντίνου: 1
- οἱ Ουαλεντινιανοί: 1
- οἱ δὲ τεσσαράκοντα ὥρας ἡμερινάς τε καὶ νυκτερινὰς συμμετροῦσι τὴν ἡμέραν αὐτῶν: 1
- οἱ νέοι ποιηταί: 1
- οἱ περὶ Εὐσέβιον: 1
- οἱ ταῖς δευτέραις τῶν ἀποστόλων διατάξεσι παρηκολουθηκότες: 1
- οἱονεὶ ἐκτρώματι: 1
- οἱονεί τι νικητικὸν ἀλεξιφάρμακον: 1
- οἶμαι: 1
- οὐ μόνον ἄφθαρτον ἐξ αὐτῆς ἑνώσεως, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἄκτιστον: 1
- οὐ τοιαύταις: 1
- οὐδὲ ἓν ὃ γέγονεν: 1
- οὐκ ἀφανῦς: 1
- οὐκ ὢν θεός: 1
- οὐσία: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
- οὐσιακῶς: 1
- οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν—Θεῷ: 1
- οὔτε ἄνθρωπος ὅλος, οὔτε θεός, ἀλλὰ θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπου μίξις: 1
- ονοκοιτης: 1
- ους: 1
- πάθος: 1
- πάλαι: 1 2
- πάντα ὁμοῦ καλά ἐστιν ἐὰν ἐν ἀγάπῃ πιστεύητε: 1
- πάντα ὑπ᾿ αὐτοῦ καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ γέγονεν οὐδε ἕν: 1
- πάντα δι᾿ α αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν: 1
- πάνυ Ἰουδαίους δἰ ἀπεχθείας ἔξοντα: 1
- πέταλον: 1
- πίστις: 1
- πᾶσα δόσις ἀγαθή, κ.τ.λ.: 1
- πᾶσαν τὴν παιδαριώδη φαντασίαν ἐπὶ τῶν ἱερῶν συμβόλων ἀποσκευαζομένοις: 1
- πᾶσι κηρύξας κομίζεσθαι τὰ αὑτῶν: 1
- πῶς ἄνθρωπος χωρήσει εἰς Θεόν, εἰ μὴ ὁ Θεὸς ἐχωρήθη εἰς ἄνθρωπον: 1
- παῖδα γνήσιον . . . καταλιπών: 1
- παῤ ὧν ἡμεῖς πολλὰς λαβόντες ἀφορμάς . . . καθὼς ἔν τισι τόποις χρήσεις τούτων παρεθέμεθα: 1
- παθητός: 1
- παιδαγωγός: 1
- παλαιὰς αἱρέσεις: 1
- παντοκράτωρ: 1
- παξαμάτης: 1
- παρὰ τὸ μνῆμα τὸ Δεσποτικόν: 1
- παρά: 1
- παράδοσις: 1
- παράταξις: 1
- παρέδωκεν: 1
- παρώνυμοι πέτρας πάντες οἱ μιμηταὶ Χριστοῦ . . . Χριστοῦ μέλη ὄντες παρώνυμοι ἐχρημάτισαν Χριστιανοί, πέτρας δὲ πέτροι: 1
- παραθέσεις: 1 2
- παρθένος: 1 2 3
- παρθένος ἁγνή: 1
- παροικία: 1 2
- παροικίαι: 1
- παροικούση: 1
- πατὴρ ἄγνωστος: 1
- πατήρ, Θεός, κτίστης, κύριος, δεσπότης: 1
- πατρικὴ θεότης: 1 2
- παχυμερές: 1
- πείθειν οἷός το εἶναι τοὺς ἐντυγχάνοντας θρησκεύειν τὰ ἡμέτερα: 1
- περὶ: 1
- περὶ ἀληθείας: 1
- περὶ ἀληθείας.: 1
- περὶ ἀναστάσεως καὶ ἀφθαρσίας: 1
- περὶ ἀπαθείας: 1 2
- περὶ ἀποχής τῶν ἐμψύχων: 1
- περὶ ἀρχῶν: 1 2
- περὶ Ἀναστάσεως: 1
- περὶ Ἀρχῶν: 1 2 3 4 5
- περὶ ἐγκρατείας, ἢ περὶ εὐνουχίας: 1
- περὶ ἐκκλησίας: 1
- περὶ ἐνσωμάτου θεοῦ: 1
- περὶ ἐπιστήμης: 1 2
- περὶ ἑρμηνείας: 1
- περὶ ὀγδοάδος: 1
- περὶ ὑπακοῆς πίστεως αἰσθητηρίων: 1
- περὶ Αρχῶν: 1
- περὶ Θεοῦ καὶ σαρκὸς ἀναστάσεως: 1
- περὶ Μοναρχίας: 1
- περὶ Στεφάνων: 1
- περὶ Χριστοῦ καὶ ἀντιχρίστου: 1
- περὶ αϘδιότητος: 1
- περὶ θείας καὶ ἁγίας ἀγάπης: 1
- περὶ θεολογίας: 1
- περὶ θεολογίας καὶ σαρκώσεως: 1
- περὶ θυσιῶν: 1
- περὶ κακολογίας: 1
- περὶ κανόνων ἐκκλησιαστικῶν: 1
- περὶ κτίσεως καὶ γενέσεως Χριστοῦ: 1
- περὶ κυριακῆς: 1
- περὶ λογισμῶν: 1
- περὶ λουτροῦ: 1
- περὶ μοναρχίας: 1
- περὶ μοναρχίας : 1
- περὶ μοναρχίας ἢ περὶ τοῦ μὴ εἶναι τὸν Θεὸν ποιητὴν κακῶν: 1
- περὶ νόμου πνευματικοῦ: 1
- περὶ νηστείας: 1
- περὶ πένθους: 1
- περὶ πίστεως: 1
- περὶ πλάσεως: 1
- περὶ προνοίας: 1 2
- περὶ προφητείας: 1
- περὶ σαρκώσεως τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰ. Χ.: 1
- περὶ σαρκώσεως, περὶ πίστεως, περὶ ἀναστάσεως, κατὰ κεφάλειον: 1
- περὶ στεφάνων: 1
- περὶ σχίσματος: 1 2
- περὶ τἀγαθοῦ καὶ πόθεν τὸ κακόν: 1
- περὶ τῆς ἑξαημέρου: 1
- περὶ τῆς ὕλης: 1
- περὶ τῆς Περεγρίνου τελευτῆς: 1
- περὶ τῆς τοῦ παντὸς οὐσίας: 1 2
- περὶ τῶν οἰομένων ἐξ ἔργων δικαιοῦσθαι: 1
- περὶ τοῦ Ἀββᾶ Ἰσὰακ τοῦ πρεσβυτέρου τῶν Κελλίων: 1
- περὶ τοῦ ἐνσώματον εἶναι τὸν θεόν: 1
- περὶ τοῦ Πάσχα: 1
- περὶ τοῦ μὴ δεῖν προφήτηϖ ἐν ἐκστάσει λαλεῖν: 1
- περὶ τοῦ πάσχα: 1 2 3
- περὶ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ περὶ τοῦ ἀντιχρίστου: 1
- περὶ τριῶν κεφαλίαων: 1
- περὶ φύσεως ἀνθρώπου: 1 2
- περὶ φιλοξενίας: 1
- περὶ χαρισμάτων ἀποστολικὴ παράδοσις: 1
- περὶ ψυχῆς: 1 2 3
- περὶ ψυχῆς καὶ σώματος καὶ νοός: 1
- περί ἀναστάσεως: 1
- περί ἀρχῶν: 1
- περί Ἀπχῶν: 1
- περί ὀγδοάδος: 1
- περί μετανοίας: 1
- περί πιστεως: 1
- περίοδοι: 1 2 3
- περίοδοι Κλημέντος: 1
- περίοδοι Πέτρου: 1
- περιούσιον: 1
- περιούσιος: 1
- πλάσμα: 1
- πλήρωμα: 1
- πλείσταις κεχρήμεθα φωναῖς: 1
- πνεῦμα: 1 2 3 4
- πνεῦμα ἀγάπης: 1
- πνεῦμα ὁ Θεός: 1 2
- πνεῦμα γνώσεως: 1 2
- πνεῦμα διαφέρον: 1
- πνευματόμαχος: 1
- πνευματικοὶ: 1
- πνευματικοί: 1 2 3 4
- πνευματοφόροι: 1
- ποίημα: 1
- ποδήρης: 1
- ποιεῖν: 1
- πολίτευμα ἐν οὐρανῷ ὕπαρχον: 1
- πολλὰ κέρδαινον δύσκολα: 1
- πολυΐστωρ: 1
- πομπάς: 1
- πονηρός: 1
- πρὲς Ἕλληνας: 1
- πρέπει χειροτονῆσαί τινα ὃς δυνήσεται θεοδρόμος καλεῖσθαι: 1
- πρὸς Ἐλληνας καὶ περὶ ἀληθείας καὶ περὶ εὐσεβείας: 1
- πρὸς Ἕλληνας: 1 2
- πρὸς Ἕλληνας καὶ πρὸς Πλάτωνα ἣ καὶ περὶ τοῦ παντός: 1
- πρὸς Ἰουδαίους: 1 2
- πρὸς ὠφελείας: 1
- πρὸς Νικόλαον: 1
- πρὸς τὴν μεθοδείαν τῆς πλανῆς: 1
- πρὸς τὸ κοινὸν της Ἀσίας: 1
- πρὸς τοὺς Σεουηριανοὺς Ἐγκρατίτας: 1
- πρόοδοι: 1
- πρός αἱρέσεις: 1
- πρός τὸ κοινὸν τῆς Ἀσίας: 1
- πρόσωπα: 1
- πρόσωπον: 1 2 3 4
- πρόσωτον: 1
- πρᾳότης: 1
- πρᾶγμα: 1
- πρῶτος θεός: 1
- πρῶτος τῶν τότε: 1
- πρακτική: 1
- πρεσβύτεροι: 1 2 3 4 5
- πρεσβύτεροι καὶ προεστῶτες: 1
- πρεσβύτερος: 1 2 3
- πρεσβῦται: 1 2
- πρεσβῦτεροι: 1
- πρεσβεία: 1 2
- πρεσβεύοντες: 1
- πρεσβυτέρου Ἀλεξανδρείας: 1
- πρησβεῖα: 1
- προβεβλημένη: 1
- προβληθὲν γέννημα: 1
- προβλημάτων βιβλίον: 1 2
- προβολή: 1 2 3
- προδιανυκτερεύοντες ἀναγνώσεσι: 1
- προηγούμενοι: 1
- προλελογισμένος: 1
- προπηδᾶ: 1
- προσήλυτος δὲ ὁ Ἀκύλας ἦν οὐ φύσει Ἰουδαῖος: 1
- προσώπων: 1
- προσαρτήματα: 1
- προσεπιφύεσθαι ταύταις: 1
- προσκυνοῦμεν: 1
- προσοικειοῦνται: 1
- προσομιλεῖ: 1 2
- προσφωνητικός: 1
- προτατώρ: 1
- προτεθεικώς: 1
- προφῆται ἀληθείας: 1
- προφῆται συνέσεως οὐκ ἀληθείας: 1
- προφητικός: 1
- προφορικὸς Λόγος: 1
- προφορικός: 1
- πρωτόκοτος: 1
- πρωτότοκος καὶ δύναμις: 1
- πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως: 1
- πτωχοτροφεῖον: 1 2
- πυκτίον τῆς Ὠριγένους Φιλοκαλίας: 1
- σάρξ: 1 2
- σέβω: 1
- σήκρητον: 1
- σὺν Ἀγίῳ Πνεύματι.: 1
- σὺν αὐτῷ διὰ λογικῆς δυνάμεως αὐτὸς καὶ ὁ λόγος: 1
- σύγχυσιν καὶ κρᾶσιν: 1 2
- σύγχυσις: 1 2
- σύζυγος: 1 2
- σύμμικτα ζητήματα: 1
- σύνζυγε: 1
- σύνθημα: 1
- σύνταγμα: 1 2
- σύσκηνος: 1
- σώματος: 1
- σῶμα: 1 2
- σῶμα, ψυχή, πνεῦμα: 1
- σαββατίζειν: 1
- σακκοφόρος: 1
- σαρκολάτρης.: 1
- σαρκωθέντα: 1
- σεβένια: 1
- σεβόμεθα: 1
- σεβόμεθα καὶ προσκυνοῦμεν: 1
- σειρῆνες: 1
- σεμνῶς καὶ ἀτραγῴδως: 1
- σκαρίζο: 1
- σκιὰ κενώματος: 1
- σκυτεύς: 1
- σολοικοειδῆ: 1
- σουδάριον: 1
- σοφία: 1
- σοφία φυλοκρινητική, ἀποκαταστατική: 1
- σπέρμα τῆς ἄνωθεν οὐσίας: 1
- στέφανος ζώης: 1
- στίχοι: 1 2 3 4 5
- στηλιτευτικοί: 1
- στρατηλάτης: 1
- στρωματό: 1
- συκοφάνται: 1
- συμβλεκόμενον τῇ ψυχῇ: 1
- συμβουλία νοὸς πρὸς τὴν ἑαυτοῦ ψυχήν: 1
- συνάφεια: 1
- συνάφειαν τινα καὶ συναγωγὴν οὐκ οἶδ᾿ ὅπως τῶν εὐαγγελίων συνθείς: 1
- συνέδριον: 1
- συνών: 1
- συνῆν: 1 2
- συνῆν τῷ πατρὶ πρὸ πάντων τῶν ποιημάτων: 1
- συνακμάσαντα τῷ θείῳ εὐαγγελιστῇ Ἰωάννῃ: 1
- συναρπαγείς: 1
- συνείσακται: 1
- συνείσακται, : 1
- συνεκροτήθησαν: 1
- συνεξαφθεὶς τῷ φωτί: 1
- συνεστηριγμένην: 1
- συνοδίτην,: 1
- συνομήθεις, : 1
- συνουσίωσιν: 1
- συντρεχούσης: 1
- σχολαστικὸς: 1
- σωμάτιον: 1
- σωματικῶς: 1
- σωφροσύνῃ καὶ ἀρετῇ καὶ βίῳ δικαιοσύνης: 1
- τ: 1
- τὰ ἅγια: 1
- τὰ ἐπισυμβεβηκότα Θεῷ: 1
- τὰ ἴσα πρεσβεῖα: 1
- τὰ ὀρθὰ καὶ ἀμώμητα δόγματα: 1
- τὰ Κλημέντια: 1
- τὰ Μακρίνια: 1 2
- τὰ γενητά: 1 2
- τὰ δὲ πάντα ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ: 1
- τὰ εὐαγγελικὰ καὶ τὰ ἀποστολικά: 1
- τὰ κελλία: 1
- τὰ κοινά: 1
- τὰ κυριακὰ λόγια: 1
- τὰ λόγια: 1 2
- τὰ λόγια τοῦ θεοῦ: 1
- τὰ μαθήματα ἀναποδείκτως εὑρίσκουσαν καταλήψει νοητικῇ: 1
- τὰ περὶ πολιτείας καὶ προφητῶν: 1
- τὰ περὶ τοῦ διαβόλου καὶ τῆς ἀποκαλύψεως Ἰωάννου: 1
- τὰ τῆς οἰκουμένης ἐν χερσὶν ἔχων πράγματα: 1
- τὰς ἐνσωματώσεις: 1
- τὰς ἐντολάς: 1
- τὰς ἱερὰς γραφὰς: 1
- τὰς παλαιὰς ἀπομνύμενοι δόξας: 1
- τὰς τῶν ᾀσμάτων προσύλους καὶ ἑταιρικὰς πολυπαθείας: 1
- τάξιν νόμων ἐπέχειν: 1
- τάξις: 1
- τάχα τ τιμίῳ αἵματα τῶν μαρτύρων ἀγοραθήσονταί τινες: 1
- τέλειος: 1
- τέλειος ἄνθρωπος: 1
- τὴν εὐχαριστίαν σάρκα εἶναι τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ: 1
- τὴν θεότητα τοῦ Μονογενοῦς τὴν τοῦ νοῦ φύσιν ἀναπληρώσασαν: 1
- τὴν τῆς ἀσυγχύτου ἑνώσεως ἔννοιαν: 1
- τήνδε τῆς καθέδρας τιμήν: 1
- τί μοι γύναι ἠὲ καὶ αὐτῇ: 1
- τίθημι: 1
- τίς ὁ σωζόμενος πλούσιος: 1
- τὸ ἀγενητόν: 1
- τὸ ἀνεξέταστον τῆς πίστεως: 1
- τὸ ἀρχαῖον τῆς ἐκκλησίας σύστημα: 1
- τὸ ἁμαρτητικόν: 1
- τὸ ἓν: 1
- τὸ ἓν οὖσαι: 1
- τὸ ἡγεμονικόν: 1
- τὸ ἱερὸν τοῦ μεγάλου Χριστοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ: 1
- τὸ ῾ἐγένετο᾽ . . . κατὰ τὸ δοκεῖν . . . οὐ γὰρ μετεποιήθη εἰς σάρκα: 1
- τὸ βαυκάλιον: 1
- τὸ γὰρ γνώρισμα τοῦ ἁγιωτάτου ἐκείνου πάθους ὑπὸ τῇ γῇ πάλαι κρυπτόμενον: 1
- τὸ γράμμα καὶ ἡ κατ᾿ αἴσθησιν ἱστορία: 1
- τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων εὐαγγέλιον: 1
- τὸ εἰρημένον: 1
- τὸ εὐαγγέλια: 1
- τὸ κλάσμα: 1
- τὸ κοινὸν τῆς Ἀσίας: 1
- τὸ περὶ τοῦ πάσχα σύγγραμμα: 1
- τὸ προνοῦν: 1
- τὸ τῶν ἀφροδισίων: 1
- τὸ φῶς ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ φαίνει, καὶ ἡ σκοτία αὐτὸ οὐ κατέλαβεν: 1
- τὸ . . , οἰκονομίας τὴν αἵρεσιν προσλαβόν: 1
- τὸν ἐν αὐτῷ ἐν ἀρχῆ ὄντα θεὸν λόγον: 1
- τὸν ἐν τῷ διωγμῷ διαπρέψαντα: 1
- τὸν ὁμόψυχον ἡμῶν: 1
- τὸν ὑπὲρ πάντα θέον: 1
- τὸν γεννηθέντα ἐκ Πνεύματος ἁγίου: 1
- τὸν διάβολου Μαγνέντιον: 1
- τὸν διάκονον τοῦ πεπονθότος θεοῦ: 1
- τὸν καὶ πρὸ ποιήσεως κόσμου ὄντα Θεόν: 1
- τό Πνεῦμα τὸ προφητικόν: 1
- τό εὐαγγέλιον: 1
- τό πάθος ὃ πέπονθε: 1
- τό τρίτον: 1
- τόμοι: 1 2
- τύποι τῆς τρίαδος: 1
- τῆς ἀκρωρείας τοῦ μ. ἄ.: 1
- τῆς Ἀλεξανδρέων ἱερεύς: 1
- τῆς ἐκκλησιας τὸ κοινὸν ἔρεισμα: 1
- τῆς ἐλάττονος ἐν ἡμῖν κτίσεως: 1
- τῆς ἰδίας φύσεως: 1
- τῆς αὐτοῦ ἀπωλείας βάραθρον: 1
- τῆς διοικήσεως: 1
- τῆς δυτικῆς ὀφρύος): 1
- τῆς θύραθεν παιδείας οὐ μετειληχὼς σὺν ἐκείνοις: 1
- τῆς θυγατρὸς αὐτοῦ Ἡρῳδιάδος: 1
- τῆς κατὰ τὴν ἐποπτικὴν θεωρίαν γνώσεως,—τὴν τῷ ὄντι γνωστικὴν φυσιολογίαν: 1
- τῆς φυλοκρινήσεῶς τῶν συγκεχυμένων: 1
- τῇ αὐτῇ τάξει καὶ τῇ αὐτῇ διαδοχῇ, ἥ τε ἀπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ παράδοσις καὶ τὸ τῆς ἀληθείας κήρυγμα κατήντηκεν εἰς ἡμᾳς: 1
- τῇ περιφορᾷ: 1
- τῶν ἀποστόλων αἱ λεγόμεναι διδαχαί: 1
- τῶν ἐπαίνων τοῦ βασίλευς καὶ τῆς πανηγυρικῆς ὑψηγορίας τῶν λόγων μᾶλλον ὡς ἐν ἐγκωμίῳ φροντίσας ἢ περὶ τοῦ ἀκριβῶς περιλαβεῖν τὰ γενόμενα: 1
- τῶν ἐπτὰ αἱρέσεων: 1
- τῶν ἑξῆς ἀπ ἄλλης ἀρχῆς ποιησόμεθα τὸν λόγον: 1
- τῶν ἑτεροδόξων: 1
- τῶν κατὰ Μιλτιάδην: 1
- τῶν κατὰ τὴν ἀληθῆ φιλοσοφίαν γνωστικῶν ὑπομνηάτων στρωματεῖς.: 1
- τῶν κατὰ τὴν ἀληθῆ φιλοσοφίαν γνωστικῶν ὑπομνημάτων στρωματεῖς: 1
- τῶν κρατούντων: 1
- τῶν νῦν: 1
- τῶν νοερῶν θεῶν μέσος ἐν μέσοις τεταγμένος κατὰ παντοίαν μεσότητα.: 1
- τῶν πάντων: 1
- τῶν παθῶν τῶν ἡμετέρων συμμέτοχος: 1
- τῶν προλεγομένων: 1
- τῶν τότε: 1
- τῶν τῆς προσκυνητῆς τριάδος ἐπικλήσεων: 1
- τῷ ἀρχιερεῖ βασιλεῖ: 1
- τῷ ὄντι ἀπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς προβληθὲν γέννημα: 1
- τῷ λογιστικῷ: 1
- τῷ νῦν γεγενημένῳ πολέμῳ: 1
- ταῦτα, ὦ καλὲ Διονύσιε, θείων ἀμοιβαὶ πραγμάτων: 1
- ταχυγράφοι: 1
- τεῦχος θαυμάσιον: 1
- τειχίω: 1
- τελέως: 1
- τελῦν ἔτι ἐν λαικοῖς: 1
- τελεία: 1
- τελείοι: 1
- τιη: 1
- τούτῳ νίκα: 1
- τούτεστιν ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Πατρός: 1
- τοῖς προηγουμένοις τῆς ἐκκλησίας καὶ τοῖς πρωτοκαθεδρίταις: 1
- τοῖς φιλολόγοις: 1
- τοῦ ἁγίου Κλήμεντος: 1
- τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις: 1
- τοῦ ἐπιγεγραμμένου κατὰ Πέτρον εὐαγγελίου ἢ τῆς βίβλου Ἰακώβου: 1
- τοῦ ἰδιώματος: 1
- τοῦ Ξενῶνος: 1
- τοῦ εὐχαριστηθέντος ἄρτου: 1
- τοῦ ζῶντος αἰῶνος: 1
- τοῦ περιάγοντος: 1
- τοῦ σωτηρίου πάθους πίστιν εἰς φῶς προήγαγεν: 1
- τοῦτον ἐζήτουν: 1
- τρία κεφάλαια: 1 2
- τρία μυστήρια κραυγῆς: 1
- τρίτη χώρα: 1
- τρίτον: 1
- τρίχωρον: 1
- τρεπτότης: 1
- τριῶν ὑποστάσεων ἐν οὐσίᾳ μιᾷ: 1
- τριακονταετηρικὅς: 1
- τρισσὰ καὶ τετρασσά: 1
- τυχαίῳ: 1
- υἱὸν αὐτοῦ τοῦ ὄντως Θεοῦ: 1
- υἱός: 1 2
- φίλη Λουκετία: 1
- φίλη γὰρ ἡ ἀλήθεια: 1
- φύσει σωζόμενον γένος: 1
- φύσεις: 1
- φύσις: 1
- φανερῶς : 1
- φασί: 1 2
- φησί: 1
- φθάνει: 1
- φθαρτός: 1
- φθορά: 1
- φιλίας ἐνέχυρον, σύνδεσμος, συνάφεια: 1
- φιλόθεος: 1
- φιλόθεος ἱστορία: 1
- φιλομαθέστατοι καὶ γνησιώτατιο ἐν θεοσεβείᾳ ἀδελφοί: 1
- φιλοσοφούμενα ἢ κατὰ πασῶν αἱρέσεων ἐλέγχος: 1
- φοβηθεῖσα ἡ γῆ: 1
- φονικὸς καὶ λῃστρικὸς: 1
- φωνὴ βοῶντος: 1
- φωτειναὶ χαρακτῆρες: 1
- φωτισμός: 1
- φωτοδόχου: 1
- χάριτι Θεοῦ: 1
- χάριτι θεοῦ: 1
- χαίρει καλούμενος ἱερεὺς οὐχ ἧττον ἢ βασιλεύς: 1
- χαρακτήρ: 1
- χαρακτηρος ἀϊδίου: 1
- χοϊκοί: 1
- χρίσμα: 1
- χρόνος: 1 2
- χρηστός: 1
- χριστέμπορός ἐστιν: 1
- χριστότοκος: 1
- χριστιανικῷ τύπῳ: 1
- χρονικά: 1
- χρονικῶν πρὸς Ἕλληνας: 1
- χρονικῶν πρὸς Ἕλληνας καὶ πρὸς Πλάτωνα ἢ καὶ περὶ τοῦ παντός: 1
- χωρὶς Θεοῦ: 1
- χωρὶς θεοῦ: 1
- ψήφω: 1
- ψεύδονται: 1
- ψευδόμαντις: 1
- ψευδώνυμος γνῶσις: 1 2
- ψυξή: 1
- ψυχὴ ἄλογος: 1
- ψυχή: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
- ψυχικοί: 1 2 3 4 5
Index of Hebrew Words and Phrases
Index of Latin Words and Phrases
- " . . . pestem subeuntum prima recidit : 1
- "Tempore quo gladius secuit pia viscera matris: 1
- "Veridicus rector lapsis quia crimina flere : 1
- "Vos soli Ingrati, quos urit gratia, cujus : 1
- AGAPE QVE VXIT ANNIS VGINTI ET SEX IN PACE: 1
- Apostolici: 1
- PISTE SPEI SORORI DULCISSIMAE FECIT.: 1
- cathedra unitatis,: 1
- civitas Dei: 1
- et crasso sensu: 1
- ignorante.: 1
- non-possumus: 1
- notarius: 1
- oeconomus: 1
- parens.: 1
- refarciunt: 1
- teste: 1
- ut prisca aetas ferebat: 1
- via media: 1
- "Fenus pecuniae," he says, "est funus animae." : 1
- Miretur omne saeculum; : 1
- Talis decet partus Deum '": 1
- 'Veni, Redemptor gentium, : 1
- ;nos suo arbitrio diligebat: 1
- ;unus omnino; non confusione substantiae; sed unitate personae: 1
- Ad Deum: 1
- Ad Scotos in Christum credentes ordinatur a Papa Celestino Palladius et primus Episcopus mittitur.: 1
- Ad quam primum ex hâc sede Trophimus summus antistes, ex cujus fonte totae Galliae fidei rivulos acceperunt, directus est: 1
- Aeterne rerum conditor, Deus creator omnium, Veni redemptor gentium, : 1
- Agonistici: 1
- Alia est ratio verum tacendi, alia verum dicendi necessitas . . . ne pejores faciamus eos qui non intelligunt dum volumus eos qui intelligunt facere doctiores: 1
- Alia quoque multa ex Graeco transtulit in Latinam, quae utilitati possunt ecclesiasticae convenire: 1
- Aman ad recordationem: 1
- Animosus, iracundus: 1
- Apostoli, : 1
- Apostolica sedes,: 1
- Apostolicae ecclesiae: 1
- Apostolici: 1
- Apostolici viri,: 1
- Apostolicus: 1
- Apud Acta proconsulis: 1
- Areae non sint!: 1
- Aut Deus naturae patitur, aut mundi machina dissolvitur,: 1
- Beatus qui intelligit super: 1
- Caret omni humanitate: 1
- Caro enim Christi velamen est verbi, quo omnis qui ipsum integre confitetur induitur: 1
- Catholica disciplina dicit et semper fuisse Patrem et semper Filium: 1
- Cedat curiositas fidei, cedat gloria saluti.: 1
- Cedat oportet censura: 1
- Cesset superstitio, sacrificiorum aboleatur insania: 1
- Christian ac pastoralis simplicitas: 1
- Christianos ad leones: 1
- Christianos ad loenes: 1
- Christianus: 1
- Christus baptizandi potestatem episcopis dedit: 1
- Christus instituit quod quaeri oportet, quod credi necesse est.: 1
- Cirtensis noster: 1
- Coelicolae: 1
- Cogite intrare.: 1
- Colossenses et hii sicut Laodicienses sunt Asiani: 1
- Comes: 1
- Commonitorium: 1
- Commonitus est in quiete Constantinus ut : 1
- Communicamus cum : 1
- Conciliabulum: 1
- Constituimus: 1
- Contra S. Augustinum defendentem originale peccatum et Adam per transgressionem mortalem factum catholice disserentem.: 1
- Corpus S. Felicis papae et martyris, qui damnavit Constantium.: 1
- Corpus ipsius Vita est, Corpus autem Panis.: 1
- Crede, si salvus fieri velis: 1
- Cum Christo meo et eram, et sum, et ero: 1
- Cuneta quae trans Alpes Galliae sunt Constantio commissa; Africa Italiaque Herculio: 1
- Cyprianum ad leonem: 1
- Cyprianus qui et Thascius: 1
- Da mihi magistrum: 1
- Damasus Episcopus feci.: 1
- Date veniam, Fratres, quam frequenter poposci. Ariani non estis; cur negando homoousion censemini Ariani?: 1
- De Deo dicere, supra hominem audacia est: 1
- De nobis proposuisti.: 1
- De partibus divinae legis: 1
- Decem libros historiarum, septem miraculorum, unum de vitis Patrum scripsi: in Psalterii tractatum librum unum commentatus sum: de cursibus etiam ecclesiasticis unum librum condidi: 1
- Decio et Grato consulibus: 1
- Deo enim velle pro facto est,: 1
- Deo laudes: 1
- Detectio et eversio falso cognominatae agnitionis: 1
- Deum: 1
- Deum colimus per Christum.: 1
- Deum esse datorem: 1
- Deus conquassabit capita inimicorum suorum, verticem capilli: 1
- Deus creator omnium: 1
- Deus fecit hominem, substantiam : 1
- Deus genitus de ingenito Deo.: 1
- Deus in homine: 1
- Deus non sanguine sed pietate placatur,: 1
- Deus re certâ: Deus, homo tamen natus; Deus interiorum potentiarum; Deus sublimis; radice ex intimâ; ab incognitis regnis; sospitator, ab omnium principe missus: 1
- Dicet aliquis: Ergo dissuades nuptias? ego vero suadeo, et eos damno qui dissuadere consuerunt . . . . Paucarum quippe hoc munus [virginity] est, illud omnium: 1
- Diesque nostros in tua pace disponas, atque ab aeterna damnatione eripi et in electorum tuorum jubeas grege numerari: 1
- Dilectissimus et honorabilis sanctus frater: 1
- Divinae aspirationis Senior et Praeco veritatis: 1
- Divinas probamus (scripturas: 1
- Dolus: 1
- Domine da quod jubes: 1
- Dominentur nobis regulae,: 1
- Dominus jugo suo in gremio ecclesiae: 1
- Donum Perseverantiae,: 1
- Ecce vivit, ecce ut bonus pastor suo medius assistit in grege.: 1
- Ecclesia . . . cujus hodie rector est Damasus: 1
- Ecclesia in Imperio.: 1
- Ecclesia quatuor habet evangelia, haeresis plurima, a quibus . . .: 1
- Ecclesiae hominem non fuisse.: 1
- Ego ipse, qui contra te scribo, quum in eadem urbe consistam, albus, ut aiunt, aterve sis, nescio.: 1
- Egregium librum: 1
- Egregius: 1
- Encratitarum acerrimus haeresiarches: 1
- Episcopatus unus est cujus a singulis in solidum pars tenetur.: 1
- Episcoporum Magister: 1
- Episcopus episcoporum: 1
- Epistolarum ad Paulam et Eustochium, quia quotidie scribuntur, in certus est numerus.: 1
- Eraclius xvii nunc agit imperii annum: Judaei in Hispania Christiani efficiuntur. Residuum sextae aetatis soli Deo est cognitum.: 1
- Eusebio Episcopo et martyri.: 1
- Eusebio Homini Dei.: 1
- Eusebius miseros docuit sua crimina f: 1
- Eutychianus episcopus: 1
- Evangelia quae falsavit Isicius [Hesychius]—Apocrypha: 1
- Ex istis si qui ad nos venerint, non requirendum ab eis utrum baptizati sint an non, sed hoc tantum, si credant in ecclesiae fidem, et baptizentur ecclesiastico baptismate: 1
- Ex majori pane Asianae decem provinciae intra quas consisto, vere Deum nesciunt.: 1
- Expergiscere igitur, o homo, et dignitatem tuae cognosce naturae; recordare te factum ad imaginem Dei, quae etsi in Adam corrupta in Christo tamen est reformata: 1
- Extemplo pariter pulsi feritate tyranni : 1
- Fama malum, quo non aliud velocius ullum.: 1
- Fausta conjuge ut putant suggerente Crispum filium necari jussit. Dehine uxorem suam Faustam in balneas ardentes conjectam interemit, cum eum mater Helena dolore nimie nepotis increparet: 1
- Feri, feri: 1
- Filietas: 1
- Fiunt, non nascuntur Christiani: 1
- Flagrabant verendum nescio quid umbone corusci et caelestium armorum lux terribilis ardebat . . . Haec ipsorum sermocinatio, hoc inter audientes ferebant 'Constantinum petimus, Constantino imus auxilio.': 1
- Gaude gallium et exsulta!: 1
- Glycerium ab imperio expellens, in Salona Dalmatiae episcopum fecit: 1
- Gracchorum soboles, Agamemnonis inclyta proles.: 1
- Grande pallii beneficium est.: 1
- Gratiani sagitta non est reversa retro: 1
- Haec vis Deo grata est: 1
- Hanc igitur oblationem,: 1
- Hanc mensam indignam noverit esse sibi.: 1
- Has res unicuique non ejusdem rei operarius sed credentis fides et Trinitas: 1
- Hegumenus,: 1
- Heraclius vetuit lapsos peccata dolere : 1
- Hic accepit epistolam a Lucio Britanniae Rege ut Christianus efficeretur per ejus mandatum.: 1
- Hic fateor Damasus volui mea condere membra,: 1
- Homo ex substantiâ Matris.: 1
- Hortulus Novus: 1
- Hymnum dicat turba fratrum: 1
- Idatii conversio ad Dominum peccatoris: 1
- Idem locus, eadem causa. . . .: 1
- Idem sumus imperatoribus qui et vicinis nostris: 1
- Ille modo se lavit: 1
- Illi enim electi: 1
- In Caesarea Cappadociae depositio sancti Eusebii: 1
- In Caesarea Palestinae sancti Eusebii historiographi: 1
- In Trinitate enim divina, nihil dissimile, nihil impar est, ut omnibus existentiae gradibus exclusis, nulls ibi Persona sit anterior, nulla posterior: 1
- In carceribus, in exiliis: 1
- In nomine Christi baptizatus: 1
- In omnibus cupio sequi Ecclesiam Romanam; sed tamen et nos homines sensum habemus; ideo quod alibi rectius servatur, et nos rectius custodimus. Ipsum sequimur apostolum Petrum, . . . qui sacredos fuit Ecclesiae Romanae: 1
- In quantum mali sumus, in tantum etiam minus sumas: 1
- Indulgentia domini nostri: 1
- Ingemuit totus orbis et Arianum se esse miratus est.: 1 2
- Ingenuus fui secundum carnem, decurione patre nascor.: 1
- Ingrati,: 1
- Instituta regularia divinae legis: 1
- Instructio, qua non modo confitens de confessione pie et integre edenda instituitur, sed etiam sacerdos, qua ratione confessiones excipiat, poenitentiam imponat et reconciliationem praestet informatur: 1
- Integra cum rector servaret foedera pacis : 1
- Integritas praesidentium salus est subditorum, et ubi est incolumitas obedientiae ibi sana est forma doctrinae: 1
- Iste Caupo Calagurritanus: 1
- Ita nunquam jam Valentinus, et tamen Valentiniani, qui per Valentinum.: 1
- Item Germanus: in quo conjuncta Aniciorum gens cum Amala stirpe spem adhuc utriusque generis Domino praestante promittit.: 1
- Item inveni in claustro—librum Papie librum de verbis Domini.: 1
- Jam enim de hac causa duo concilia missa sent ad sedem Apostolicam, inde etiam rescripta venerunt. Causa finita est; utinam aliquando finiatur error: 1
- Jesse Latino sermone refrigerium appellatur: 1
- Jesus refulsit omnium: 1
- Judaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantes Româ expulit.: 1
- Justa ira mater est disciplinae, ergo non solum peccant qui cum causa irascuntur sed e contra nisi irati fuerint peccant.: 1
- Laetentur caeli: 1
- Laetentur coeli: 1
- Latrocinium: 1
- Laus Christi: 1
- Liberatori suo Johanni Evangelistae, Hilarus famulus Christi: 1
- Libri omnes, quos fecit Leucius discipulus diaboli, apocryphi: 1
- Licinius Thessalonicae contra jus sacramenti privatus occiditur: 1
- Lis eorum est fides nostra.: 1
- Litore Trinacrio mundum vitamque reliquit. : 1
- Lucius Britanniae rex, missâ ad Eleutherium Romae episcopum epistolâ, ut Christianus efficiatur, impetrat: 1
- Magnam tuam intelligentiam quis fascinavit?: 1
- Manifestum est in Adam omnes peccasse quasi in massâ: 1
- Mathematici: 1
- Mihi autem adhaerere Deo bonum est: 1
- Miratur simplicia quasi vana, magnifica quasi impossibilia.: 1
- Miserrimus ego, semper aeger caloribus impatientiae: 1
- Mitis depone colla, Sicamber, adora quod incendisti, incende quod adorasti: 1
- Mortis opus, vera est vivere vita Deo.: 1
- Mortuus est Dei Filius; prorsus credibile est quia ineptum est; et sepultus resurrexit; certum est quia impossibile est: 1
- Munda tibi populum circumvitalem: 1
- Nam et sic sanctus Hilarius intellexit quod scriptum est, in quo omnes peccaverunt: ait enim, 'In quo, id est in Adam omnes peccaverunt.' Deinde addidit: 'Manifestum est in Adam omnes peccasse quasi in massâ; ipse enim per peccatum corruptus, quos genuit omnes nati sunt sub peccato.' Haec scribens Hilarius sine ambiguitate commonuit, quomodo intelligendum esset, in quo omnes peccaverunt: 1
- Natalis Solis invicti: 1
- Ne respondendo dignus fieret, qui vinceretur: 1
- Nemo in eum (Felicem) aliquid probare potuerit quod religiosissimas scripturas tradiderit vel exusserit.: 1
- Nicaena synodus auctore illo [Hosio] confecta habebatur: 1
- Nihil ad sollicitudinem redigatis, sed in omni precatione et oratione cum bona gratia petitiones vestrae innotescant apud Deum. Et pax Dei quae habet omnem intellectum custodiat corda vestra, item corpora vestra in Jesu Christo.: 1
- Nihil ex nihilo: 1
- Nihil extraordinarii muneris ecclesiae, vel sordidae functionis agnoscatur: 1
- Nobiscum Deus: 1
- Noli dicere Quid mihi et Regi! Quid tibi et possessioni?: 1
- Non autem habent Dei caritatem qui ecclesiae non diligunt unitatem; ac per hoc recte : 1
- Non credo—non credo: 1
- Non pecuniam Deus sed fidem quaerit,: 1
- Novellae: 1
- Novellae Constitutiones post Codicem: 1
- Novit enim mundus quae in hanc tenuerit aetatem qua constantia apud Sardicam et in Nicaeno tractatu assensus sit et damnaverit Arianos. . . . Si nonaginta fere annis male credidit, post nonaginta illum recte sentire non credam.: 1
- Novus Paradisus: 1
- Nox: 1
- Nullus invitis detur episcopus.: 1
- Numquid non possum tibi totam veterum scriptorum seriem commovere: Ignatium, Polycarpum, Irenaeum, Justinum Martyrem, multosque alios apostolicos et eloquentes viros, qui adversus Ebionem, et Theodotum Byzantium, Valentinum, haec eadem sentientes, plena sapientiae volumina conscripserunt. Quae si legisses aliquando, plus saperes.: 1
- Nuper S. Ambrosius sic Hexaemeron illius [Origenus] compilavit, ut magis Hippolyti sententias Basiliique sequeretur: 1
- O doctor optime: 1
- O laus magna deserti, ut diabolus, qui vicerat in Paradiso, in Eremo vinceretur: 1
- O lux beata Trinitas.: 1
- O testimonium animae naturaliter Christianae: 1
- Obsequium angelorum non ad infirmitatem domini pertinet sed ad illorum honorificentiam.: 1
- Omne quod est, corpus est sui generis, nihil est incorporale, nisi quod non est: 1
- Origenes qui et Adamantius: 1
- Origenis operum bonam partem evolvi; quo praeceptore mihi videor non-nullum fecisse operae pretium; aperit enim fontes quosdam et rationes indicat artis theologicae.: 1
- Osius ex Hispanis, . . . Silvestri Episcopi maximae Romae locum obtinebat: 1
- Ostende partum Virginis; : 1
- Paganos, si qui supersunt, quanquam jam nullos esse credamus, promulgatorum legum jam dudum praescripta compescant.: 1
- Pange lingua gloriosi: 1
- Panis : 1
- Pastor: 1
- Pater, qui es tranquillitas!: 1
- Patera rhetor Romae gloriosissime docet.: 1
- Patris Filii et Spiritus testimonium: 1
- Patrum invisibilem et impassibilem: 1
- Pax in terra hominibus boni decreti: 1
- Pelagianis nondum litigantibus securius: 1
- Per jura regum possidentur possessiones: 1
- Peregrinatio Silviae: 1
- Pertulit exilium domino sub judice laetus : 1
- Pestis inguinaria: 1
- Petri apostolatui conferendus est: 1
- Photiniani qui nunc vocantur Bonosiaci: 1
- Phryges nobiliores qui se animatos a Leucio mentiuntur, se institutos a Proculo gloriantur.: 1
- Placet.: 1
- Plus quam martyr quae septem pignoribus ad regnum praemissis, toties ante se mortua est. Ad poenas prima venit sed pervenit octava: 1
- Poenitentiale: 1
- Portatur non quasi infirmus sed propter honorem potestatis: 1
- Portuensis episcopus ordinatur: 1
- Praefectus Urbis: 1
- Praenotatio librorum S. Isidori a Braulione edita.: 1
- Praesente bis et Condiano Consulibus: 1
- Praeses: 1 2 3 4
- Praesidente bis Claudiano consule: 1
- Praesides: 1
- Proculus noster, virginis senectae et Christianae eloquentiae dignitas.: 1
- Pudeat vos hujus foederis, nec utilis nec decori!: 1
- Quae bona sunt transtuli, et mala vel amputavi vel correxi vel tacui. Per me Latini bona ejus habent et mala ignorant.: 1
- Quaestor,: 1
- Quam minime sim quietus, et in summis necessitatibus: 1
- Quattuor Tempora: 1
- Quatuor Coronati: 1
- Qui baptizatur a mortuo: 1
- Qui et Filius diceris et Pater inveniris: 1
- Qui infideles sunt, descendunt in infernum viventes; etsi nobiscum videntur vivere sed in inferno sunt: 1
- Qui non habet quomodo dat?: 1
- Qui sine teste ambulat non rectè vivit.: 1
- Quid amplius? Etiam ipse Dominus oravit.: 1
- Quid est imperatori cum ecclesiâ?: 1
- Quinquaginta Decisiones: 1 2
- Quis enim negabit, Deum corpus esse, etsi Deus Spiritus est? Spiritus enim corpus sui generis in effigie: 1
- Quisquis amat dictis absentem rodere vitam,: 1
- Quisquis se universalem sacerdotem vocat, vel vocari desiderat, in elatione sua Antichristum praecurrit, quia superbiendo se ceteris praeponit: 1
- Quod prius est, semen sit necesse est.: 1
- Quod religio Christiana damnanda non sit, nisi qualis sit prius intelligatur: 1
- Quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus.: 1
- Quorum omnium neminem ne ad societatem quidem ordinis clericorum, oportuerat pervenire: 1
- Quos hodie usu ecclesia Romana complectitur: 1
- Quos nec spectavit quisquam nec spectaturus est.: 1
- Quoties de religione agitur episcopos convenit agitare.: 1
- Regionarius: 1
- Regula Fidei: 1
- Resurrexit in eo mundus, resurrexit in eo coelum, resurrexit in eo terra,: 1
- Rex Italiae: 1
- Rhetor erat ille, non theologus: neque inter ecclesiae doctores locum unquam obtinuit: 1
- Rom. ecclesiae, in qua semper Apostolicae Cathedrae viguit principatus: 1
- Roma locuta est, et causa finita est.: 1
- Romae S. Sixti tertii, papae et confessoris: 1
- Romani apud: 1
- Romani regni vacillationem: 1
- Sacerdotes de laicis judicare debent, non laici de sacerdotibus: 1
- Sacerdotio, confusa jam ordinatione, suscepto: 1
- Sacrificati: 1 2
- Sacrilegii instar est dubitare: 1
- Salutaris: 1
- Salvo jure communionis diversa sentire.: 1
- Salvum lotum: 1
- Sancta salutiferi redeunt solemnia Christi,: 1
- Sanctitas tua: 1
- Sapientia: 1
- Sataniani: 1
- Scinditur in partes populus gliscente furore : 1
- Scipio quam genuit, Pauli fudere parentes, : 1
- Scotorum pultibus praegravatus: 1
- Scripsi sed nihil dixi. Non negavi, quia non juravi.: 1
- Scripta Cypriani nobis tanquam firmamenta canonicae auctoritatis opponitis.: 1
- Sed et Gelasianum codicem, de Missarum solemniis multa subtrahens, pauca convertens, nonnulla superadjiciens, in unius libelli volumine coarctavit: 1
- Sed nunquam id laici suscipere voluerunt.: 1
- Sed timui sanctos cineres vexare priorum: 1
- Seditio caedes bellum discordia lites : 1
- Semoni Santo Deo Fidio: 1
- Si hoc omnibus placet?: 1
- Si quis ergo a quacunque haeresi venerit: 1
- Sic lege: 1
- Sicut inseparabilis est unitate naturae sic inconfusibilis permanet proprietate personae: 1
- Simoni deo Sancto: 1
- Sol invictus.: 1
- Spiritus: 1 2
- Spiritus apertus: 1
- Spiritus caritatis,: 1
- Spiritus occultus: 1
- Spiritus sanctus desuper veniens naturae se humanae carne immiscuit.: 1
- St. Dewi nascitur anno tricesimo post discessum Patricii de Menevia: 1
- Summa tamen synodalis negotii: 1
- Supplex libellus: 1
- Talis decet partus Deum.: 1
- Talis decet partus hominem: 1
- Tatianus qui putativam Christi carnem introducens, omnem conjunctionem masculi ad foeminam immundam arbitratur, tali adversum nos sub occasione praesentis testimonii usus est argumento.: 1
- Tempore illo Dinoot abbas praefuisse narratur.: 1
- Theodosio et Valentiano regnantibus: 1
- Thurificati: 1
- Totas Hispanias Galliasque sibi jam proprio jure tenens.: 1
- Tractatu cum collegis plurimis habito susceptus est.: 1
- Tractatus: 1
- Tria Capitula: 1
- Trinitas, satisfactio, sacramentum, substantia, persona, liberum arbitrium: 1
- Trofimo et turificatis: 1
- Tu Domine fecisti nos ad te, et inquietum est cor nostrum donec requiescat in te: 1
- Tunc discipulus : 1
- Turificatus: 1
- Ubi apostolus Johannes, posteaquam in oleum igneum demersus nihil passus est, in insulam relegatur.: 1
- Una est columba mea, speciosa mea: 1
- Una sit catholica veneratio, una Salus sit, Trinitatis par sibique congruens Sanctitas expetatur.: 1
- Unde cum laetitiam—orbitatem: 1
- Unde factum est ut de gratia Dei quid sentirent breviter ac transeuntes attingerent.: 1
- Unicum simul—principaliter de tuenda catholicae partis veritate curetis: 1
- Universitatem, Antiquitatem, Consensionem: 1
- Verbum: 1
- Video ego evaginatum irae divinae gladium super domum hanc dependentem: 1
- Vigilantius noster: 1
- Vive precor, sed vive Deo, nam vivere mundo: 1
- Vos estis sal terrae.: 1
- [leguntur] tredecim epistolae ipsius, et ad Hebraeos interdum: 1
- a parentibus.: 1
- a prima statim plasmatione . . . Creator . . . occulte eidem copulatus existens non aberat cum formaretur, non dividebatur cum nascebatur: 1
- a principio libri usque ad obitum patriarchae Abrahae: 1
- ab Anastatio Imperatore codicillos de consulatu accepit, et in basilicâ beati Martini tunicâ blateâ indutus est et chlamyde, imponens vertice diadema, . . . et ab eâ die tanquam consul et (al. 'aut') Augustus est vocitatus: 1
- ab ipso: 1
- abbas: 1
- abscissus: 1
- absolutae fidei: 1
- abstineamus nos, fratres, a possessione rei privatae . . . fac locum domino: 1
- abstinentia jejunantis: 1
- accedant Georgius aut Hippolytus aut similes larvae: 1
- acceptio carnis: 1
- ad Deum: 1
- ad cellam propriam recessisset: 1
- ad diversos datae et dictatae: 1
- ad hodiernum homo in saeculo: 1
- ad id quod est esse iis quae sunt: 1
- ad imperatorem et concilium: 1
- ad interitum: 1
- ad literam: 1
- ad nihilum: 1
- ad populum.: 1
- ad remedium: 1
- ad vindimeam feriae judiciariam curam relaxaverant: 1
- ademptio communicationis: 1
- adhuc rudis fidei et cui nondum forsitan crederetur supergressus vetustatis actatem: 1
- adjectio largitatis: 1
- adjutorium Salvatoris qui suam tuetur ecclesiam: 1
- adjuva nos, Domine, tuorum prece sanctorum, ut quorum festa gerimus sentiamus auxilium: 1
- adolescens: 1
- adsertor idololatriae: 1
- adunatio, communio, commixtio: 1
- adversus gentes: 1
- adversus omnes haereses: 1
- aeleste signum Dei notaret in scutis atque ita proelium committeret. Fecit ut jussus est et tranversa Χ: 1
- aemuli: 1
- aeterna caro: 1
- afflatus: 1
- agens in rebus: 1
- alia Scriptura: 1
- alia enim est ratio rerum saecularium, alia divinarum: 1
- alio convenire conantur: 1
- altaria: 1
- altera, quod poenas reformident, poetarum scilicet fabulis territi, latratus Cerberi, et Cocyti fluminis tristem voraginem, etc., etc. Haec plena sunt fabularum, nec tamen negaverim poenas esse post mortem: 1
- amator Dei senior: 1
- angelicam stationem corpus esse: 1
- anima: 1 2 3 4 5
- anima animans: 1
- animae: 1
- animae naturalia: 1
- animae seminatae saeclis: 1
- annulus: 1
- annus calamitosus: 1
- ante splendida et theodocha: 1
- antinomia: 1
- antiquae consuetudini: 1 2
- antiquam plasmationem: 1
- antistes: 1
- antiuqior: 1
- apocrisiarii: 1
- apocrisiarius: 1 2 3
- apostolica ecclesiae traditio: 1
- apparitores: 1
- apud: 1
- apud Deum: 1
- apud acta locuti sunt.: 1
- apud quem, si vere dici debet, multum Constantius potuit: 1
- aquilinus et lividus: 1
- arbitrium dei caelestis: 1
- archflamens: 1
- argumentum ad hominem: 1
- armis potens, acer animis, alacer annis: 1
- assidere non passi sunt: 1
- astrum: 1
- astula: 1
- athleta: 1
- aucta non coepta: 1
- auctarium: 1
- auctor vitae monasticae: 1
- audacia, insolentia, inhumanitas: 1
- auditor: 1
- auditores: 1
- auraria pensio: 1
- aurei: 1
- aut Basilidis longam fabulositatem: 1
- auxiliamini reipublicae: 1
- aversans et detestans blasphemias [filii]: 1
- baltheus: 1
- banditti: 1
- baptizatus: 1
- basilicae: 1
- beatorum apostolorum natalem: 1
- beatus: 1
- beneficia gratiae: 1
- beneficium Christi: 1
- beneficium gratiae,: 1
- bestiarius: 1
- bibere autem dicimur sanguinem Christi non solum sacramentorum ritu sed et cum sermones ejus recipimus in quibus vita consistit, sicut et ipse dicit, Verba quae locutus sum spiritus et vita est: 1
- bis: 1
- bladum: 1
- blandimentorum melle: 1
- blasphemia apud Sirmium per Osium et Potamium conscripta: 1
- bonâ fide: 1
- bonus pastor: 1
- breviarium: 1
- breviarium totius evangelii: 1
- caeleste signum: 1
- caelestis regni janitorem: 1
- caligae: 1 2
- campagna: 1
- capellani: 1
- capitatio: 1
- capitula: 1 2
- cardiacus: 1
- cardines: 1
- caritas: 1
- caritas,: 1
- carnale connubium, ut et qui habent, sint tanquam non habentes, et qui non habent, permaneant singulares: 1
- carnifex.: 1
- caro: 1
- castità conjugale: 1
- casula: 1
- cathedra: 1
- catholica veritas,: 1
- catholica veritas, : 1
- catholicos: 1
- causa finita est: 1
- causa finita est.: 1
- cella quercus,: 1
- certis poenis intereant.: 1
- certus numerus: 1
- ceteris appendicibus, sensibus et affectibus,: 1
- charagma Caesaris: 1
- charisma veritatis: 1 2
- cilicia: 1
- cinerem praelibavit: 1
- circa Deum: 1
- circularis motus: 1
- citatis etiam patrum traditionibus.: 1
- civitas: 1 2 3
- civitas Dei.: 1 2
- civitas diaboli,: 1
- civitas superna,: 1
- civitas terrena: 1 2 3
- civitas terrena,: 1
- civitas,: 1
- civitates: 1 2
- civitates,: 1 2
- clarus magister: 1 2
- clerus: 1
- coemeterium ubi decollatus est Xystus: 1
- coetus religiosus: 1
- collegium: 1
- collegium illicitum: 1
- colloquebamur soli valde dulciter: 1
- colonia: 1 2
- coloniae: 1
- coluber Britannus: 1
- comes domesticorum: 1
- comes domus regiae: 1
- comes orientis: 1
- comes privatarum: 1
- comes sacrarum largitionum: 1
- comitatum: 1
- commatico sermone: 1
- commentum: 1
- comminister poster dilectissimus: 1
- commonitorium: 1
- commonitorium.: 1
- commune nobis ut esset magnum et uberrinum praedium ipse Deus.: 1
- communicatio idiomatum: 1 2
- communicatoriae: 1
- communio externa,: 1
- communio sanctorum: 1
- communio sanctorum,: 1
- communis sensus fide licun: 1
- competens numerus ordinantium, solemnitas temporis, locique qualitas: 1
- compositae: 1
- concessus: 1
- concilia: 1
- conciliabulum: 1 2 3 4
- conciliis episcopalibus: 1
- conciliorum episcoporum vigilantia,: 1
- concilium: 1
- concubinatus: 1
- confessor: 1
- confiteor: 1
- confiteor tibi dona tua,: 1
- confuso ordine: 1
- congiarium: 1
- congruere: 1
- conjugium inaequale: 1
- connexio omnium haereticorum: 1
- consecratum munus: 1
- consensus: 1
- consilium: 1
- consortes regni: 1
- constantiam mansuetudo commendet, justitiam lenitas temperet, patientia contineat libertatem: 1
- consuetudinis memor: 1
- consuetudo: 1
- consul suffect: 1
- consularis: 1
- consulibus: 1
- consummatae vitae praecepta: 1
- contemptissimae inertiae: 1
- contesseratio: 1
- continendum est a cibis sed multo magis ab erroribus jejunandum: 1
- contra Haereses: 1
- contra disciplinam: 1
- contra eos qui subintroductas habent; Regulares foeminae viris cohabitare non. debent: 1
- contra gentes: 1
- contra haruspicum monita: 1
- contra vanos poetas ad collegam: 1
- conventicula: 1
- conventus daemoniorum: 1
- copiosum corpus Episcoporum: 1
- copula: 1
- copulatio: 1
- corona: 1
- corporalis majestas: 1
- corpus Dei Verbi aut sanguis quid aliud esse potest nisi verbum quod nutrit et verbum quod laetificat?: 1
- corrector: 1
- correptio: 1
- correptio,: 1
- credendi simplicitas: 1
- credere quod indigni . . . sint qui ordinantur quid aliud est quam contendere quod non a Deo. . . . sacerdotes ejus in ecclesia constituantur?: 1
- crimen in religione divina in omnium fertur injuriam: 1
- criobolium: 1
- cubicularii: 1
- cubiculum: 1 2
- cujus membrum tenetis: 1
- culpae hujus affines: 1
- cultus: 1
- cum consensu ejus: 1
- cum de Psalmis per ordinem dictaremus: 1
- cum dicit Daniel—confusus est: 1
- cum ecce corpus elatum est, imus redimus sine lacrymis: 1
- cum grano: 1
- cum jure successionis: 1
- cum magno apparatu: 1
- cum maxime: 1
- cum praecepto ejus: 1
- cum successionem charisma veritatis certum: 1
- cum—te illuc injuncta pro causis fidei Visigothorum legatio perduxisset: 1
- curantes: 1
- curiales: 1 2
- curialis: 1
- curiosi: 1
- curiositatum omnium explorator: 1
- curvi starent: 1
- dalmatica: 1
- damnabilis usurpatio: 1
- damnare nunc audet sacrificantium manus: 1
- de Superis: 1
- de absconditis tuis adimpletus est venter eorum: 1
- de clericorum testimonio, de plebis . . . suffragio,: 1
- de episcopis ecclesiis et clericis: 1
- de laude Domini salvatoris.: 1
- de mundi opificio.: 1
- de natione Brittonum: 1
- de penitentia quae a fidelibus postulatur: 1
- de suo latere: 1
- de utroque sexu: 1
- decreta: 1
- decreta libertatis: 1
- decretum de fide: 1
- decubuit febribus: 1
- decurion: 1 2
- defensor civitatis: 1
- defensores: 1
- delatores: 1 2
- deliramenta Osii: 1
- deliramenta Osii et incrementa: 1
- demonstratio religionis eorum: 1
- demonstratio religionis nostrae: 1
- depositio martyrum: 1
- designator: 1
- destinatos nationibus magistros: 1
- destructis itaque his qui a Valentino sunt, omnis haereticorum eversa est multitudo: 1
- destructum et finitum: 1
- deus deificus: 1
- devotioni: 1
- diabolorum lerna: 1
- dicta: 1
- difficile est ut non plura peccata contrahant: 1
- digamus: 1 2
- digitus Dei: 1
- dignus vindice nodus: 1
- dii boni: 1
- diligebat illum virum sicut angelum Dei: 1
- dimitte: 1
- disciplina qua fiunt Christiani: 1
- dispensatio: 1
- distinctionem: 1
- distributiones charismatum: 1
- diu te Romae moratum sermo proprius indicavit: 1
- diversorium: 1
- divina praecepta: 1
- divinatio animae: 1
- divini commentarii: 1
- doctissimus illorum temporum: 1
- doctor gratia scientiae donatus: 1
- doctrina: 1
- doctrina eorum qui sunt a Valentino: 1
- documentum professionis dedit: 1
- dogmata : 1
- dolium ferventis olei: 1
- domina soror vitae atque oculis praeferenda: 1
- dominae apothecarum et cellariorum: 1
- dominus: 1
- domus fidelis, bonum membrum Ecclesiae: 1
- donativum: 1
- donec integra exemplaria veniant. : 1
- donum perseverantiae,: 1
- draconarius: 1
- duae cathedrae: 1
- duae scholae: 1
- ducere,: 1
- ducit ad se angelum: 1
- duo aspectus, una persona; duae naturae, unus salvator.: 1
- duo quaedam genera humanae societatatis: 1
- duo tempora: 1
- dux: 1 2 3
- dux Anastasius: 1
- dux Scythiae: 1
- ecclesia repraesentativa: 1
- ecclesiastica et apostolica veritas: 1
- ecclesiasticae historiae: 1
- ecclesiis Apostolicis, quod nulla doctrina diversa. Hoc est testimonium veritatis.: 1
- edicta: 1
- editio vulgata: 1
- effulgentia: 1
- ego sum qui sum quae mens potest capere: 1
- egregii libri: 1
- egregium volumen vitae et passionis Cypriani: 1
- electi: 1 2
- elimata ac librata verba: 1
- encaenia: 1
- enchiridion ille vocabat: 1
- episcopi: 1
- episcopi nomen: 1
- epistola tractoria: 1
- epistolam quae usque hodie in conventu Asiae legitur: 1
- erat sane illi etiam de nobis contubernium . . . Caeciliani: 1
- ere : 1
- eruditus et Sanctus: 1
- esse: 1 2
- esse, vivere, intelligere: 1
- essentia,: 1
- et a malis habetur et a bonis; tanto melius habetur quanto : 1
- et alia manu, Deus to incolumem custodiat, frater charissime.: 1
- et infantulus et pupillus: 1
- et martyr: 1
- et moveri ipsum quod est esse: 1
- et omnibus effectis: 1
- et omnibus perfectis: 1
- et reliqui Gnostici: 1
- etiamnum latet: 1
- eulogiae: 1
- eum: 1
- eunuchus: 1
- evocatio,: 1
- ex animo,: 1
- ex auctoritatibus propheticis: 1
- ex causa Dei sectae: 1
- ex eodem capite: 1
- ex fide: 1
- ex foedere: 1
- ex iis qui mihi noti sunt: 1
- ex minima quidem parte, sed tamen sine dubitatione: 1
- ex officina Sabini: 1
- ex professo: 1
- ex quibus quidem Tobiae, Judith, et Maccabaeorum, Hebraei non recipiunt. Ecclesia tamen eosdem intra canonicas scripturas enumerat.: 1
- ex traduce.: 1
- ex utero Patris: 1
- excerpta, commaticum interpretandi genus: 1
- exemplaria Alexandrina: 1
- exercitatio scripturarum: 1
- existentiae duae: 1
- exitiabilis superstitio: 1
- exoneravit,: 1
- exornavit: 1
- expectavimus: 1
- exponens in incertum animam suam: 1
- expulsi: 1
- externa communio: 1
- extorta subscriptio: 1
- extra ecclesiam nulla salus: 1
- extra ecclesiam nulla salus. : 1
- extra ordinem sacerdotalem: 1
- extra usum: 1
- fac de necessitate virtutem: 1
- falsarius: 1
- feminarum monasteria: 1
- feritas: 1
- ferox: 1
- festoset communem laetitiam: 1
- fictae laudes: 1 2
- fidelibus animis foederabuntur: 1
- filia: 1
- filii: 1
- filiis: 1
- finem poenarum aliquando futurum, nec impios in saeculum saeculorum puniendos fore, sed per ignem purgandos; atque ita et malos daemones misericordiam consequuturos esse, et cuncta in divinam naturam transmutanda, juxta illud Pauli, ut sit Deus omnia in omnibus.: 1
- finis est et quaerendi et pulsandi et petendi.: 1
- finitimi episcopi: 1
- firmatae: 1 2
- flamens: 1
- flamines: 1
- foederati: 1
- foedus: 1 2 3
- fontana vita: 1
- foris: 1
- forma: 1
- fortes libros: 1
- fratribus tam longe positis : 1
- frequenter quidem sed breviter: 1
- frequentissimum collegium inter haereticos.: 1
- frequentissimum plane collegium inter haereticos: 1
- fuitque illo in tempore pejor in ecclesiis gemitus quam tempore persecutionis Diocletiani: 1
- fundamentum et columna fidei nostrae: 1
- galli: 1
- generatio: 1
- genitus: 1 2
- genitus Deus ex prae-existente substantia: 1
- gens sancta, civitas sacerdotalis et regia, caput orbis effecta latius praesidet religione divina quam dominatione terrena: 1
- gesta: 1
- gladio perempti: 1
- globi flammarum prope fundamenta: 1
- glorificata permanet in glorificante, Verbo scilicet operante quod Verbi est et carne exsequente quod carnis est. Unum horum coruscat miraculis, aliud succumbit injuriis: 1
- graffiti: 1
- grammaticus: 1
- gratia Christi: 1 2
- gratia Dei per : 1
- gratia Dei quae revelata est : 1
- gratia gratis data: 1
- gratia gratum faciens,: 1
- gratis gratis data,: 1
- gratum faciens: 1
- gula, fornicatio, cupiditas, ira, tristitia, acedia, vana gloria, superbia.: 1
- habes profecto aliquod cum ills mente divina, Constantine, secretum, quae, delegate nostri diis minoribus cure, uni se tibi dignetur ostendere?: 1
- habet progeniem Scoticae gentis de Britannorum vicinia: 1
- hae namque primitivae, virtutes—audita est: 1
- haec [Tyrus] et Origenis corpus occultat sicut oculata fide etiam hodie licet inspicere: 1
- haruspex: 1
- hominem rusticanum, et vix primis quoque imbutum literis: 1
- homines antiquae religionis: 1
- hominum aevi, loci, populi sui ingeniosissimus: 1
- homo acris et vehementis ingenii: 1
- homo mendacissimus: 1
- homo natura Graecus: 1
- honesta fornicatio: 1
- horti: 1 2
- hos coronat in occulto Pater: 1
- hospitium: 1
- hujus: 1
- humile esse caelo sideribusque conciliatum lugeri principem dicens: 1
- humilitas: 1
- ibi censetur qualitus actionis, ubi invenitur initium voluntatis: 1
- idem ipse et Christus et Spiritus Sanctus: 1
- ignoratio elenchi: 1 2
- illam sedem usque ad finem fallere non potuit: 1
- illud vulgatum: 1
- illustres ac magnifci viri: 1
- illustres viros: 1
- illustris: 1
- immensus Pater in Filio mensuratus: 1
- immortalitas major,: 1
- immortalitas minor: 1
- immutatâ literâ Chrestum: 1
- imperio expulsus, in portu urbis Romae ex Caesare episcopus ordinatus est, et obiit: 1
- imperium in ecclesia,: 1
- impii in ambustione aeterna; justi autem cum Deo in vita aeterna: 1
- importune: 1
- impulsore Chresto.: 1
- in Divinis Scripturis eruditus, et in Homiliis declamator admirabilis: 1
- in Lemica civitate: 1
- in Spiritu Sancto: 1
- in abscondito: 1
- in absidicula post fratrum cellarium: 1
- in agro Calventiano: 1
- in cimiterio suo juxta cimiterium via Appia: 1
- in coemeterio Calepodii ad Callistum: 1
- in concilio nostro agere cupio, et si opus fuerit: 1
- in confuso.: 1
- in conspectu januae vivifici sepulchri.: 1
- in deserto loco: 1
- in ecclesia Hispalensi Sancta Jerusalem: 1
- in ecclesiastica historia: 1
- in eis libris quos adversus Sabellium, Photinum et Arianum sub nomine Athanasii, conscripsimus: 1
- in formâ pauperis: 1
- in graeco non dicit 'beati pauperes' sed 'beati egeni' vel 'beati mendici': 1
- in his qui necdum crediderun: 1
- in illis credentibus: 1
- in integra ergo veri hominis perfectaque natura verus natus est Deus, totus in suis, totus in nostris . . . humana augens, divina non minuens: 1
- in manifesto: 1
- in monasterio positus: 1
- in morte: 1
- in nono Stromatum volumine: 1
- in occulto: 1
- in patrum traditionibus: 1
- in perpetuam rei memoriam: 1
- in quantum sumus, boni sumus,: 1
- in quibus est minuta nimis et subtilis expositio: 1
- in rebus rusticis ordinandis,: 1
- in secretario: 1
- in spiritali viâ comitem: 1
- in summo pontifice: 1
- in tantam gloriam venit eloquentiae ut oratoriam quoque doceret Carthagini: 1
- in uno motu: 1
- inaequalis, nimius, confusus,: 1
- inclinatio in nihilum: 1
- inconcussa series: 1
- increate,: 1
- index verborum: 1
- indiculus: 1
- indolentia: 1
- infer tibi violentiam ad orandum, et praestolare auxilium, et veniet tibi t: 1
- inferiora superiosibus praeponendo,: 1
- infernum: 1
- infirmiores.: 1
- infirmitate urgente: 1
- infra contemptum Christianae legis: 1
- infructuosi negotiis: 1
- ingemuit totus orbis et se esse Arianum miratus est: 1
- ingenium, atque in res divinas inflammatus animus: 1
- ingenuitas: 1
- initium finemque et plura in medio mea dictione permiscens: 1
- initium morientium: 1
- initium viventium: 1
- inordinate moveri, bona inferiora superioribus praeponendo: 1
- insidiis petitus: 1
- insignioris apud eos magistri.: 1
- insignis ac facundus.: 1
- insignis causidicus Romani fori: 1
- insolito Brittonibus more: 1
- instinctus divinitatis: 1
- instituta patrum,: 1
- intellige te et alium mundum esse parvum et intra te esse solem, esse lunam, etiam stellas: 1
- intelligendi vivacitas: 1
- inter auditorum tirocinia: 1
- inter ipsos quis cui praeponatur incertum est: 1
- inter licitas factiones: 1
- inter nobilissimas: 1
- interior Christi virtus: 1
- interpellet contra me mille concilia, naviget: 1
- intra ecclesiam,: 1
- ita ut tantum nomen, aecesserit, res eadem fuerit: 1
- jam post Maximi tyranni mortem,: 1
- judices pedanei: 1
- judicium Dei: 1
- judicium episcoporum.: 1
- junctis manibus: 1
- jus vetus: 1
- jussionis terrore perculsos,: 1
- justitia,: 1
- juvenis inchoavi senex edidi: 1
- juvenis veni ad istam civitatem, quaerebam ubi constituerem monasterium . . . veni ad istam civitatem propter videndum amicum quem putabam lucrari me posse Deo ut nobiscum esset in monasterio.: 1
- juvenum splendidum, hilarem, atque arridentem sibi: 1
- laesae augustioris majestatis: 1
- lapsi: 1 2 3 4
- lapsi,: 1
- latrocinium: 1
- latrocinium magnum: 1
- lectu dignissimae: 1
- leges, senatus consulta: 1
- lenius actum est.: 1
- libellatici: 1 2 3 4 5
- libellaticus.: 1
- libelli: 1
- libelli pacis: 1
- libellos: 1
- libellus: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
- libellus pacis: 1
- liber de vita et miraculis ejus, barbario [barbarice] scriptus: 1
- liberiori genere,: 1
- libri luculentissimi : 1
- libri rectissimi ac luculenti: 1
- librum contra Helvidium de beatae Mariae virginitate perpetuâ: 1
- librum instructionis plenissimae.: 1
- licita religio: 1
- literae formatae: 1 2
- litterae: 1
- locus a non lucendo: 1
- locus standi: 1
- ludimagister: 1
- ludos scenicos: 1
- magister equitum: 1
- magister militiae: 1
- magister militum: 1
- magister officiorum: 1 2
- magistriani,: 1
- magistrianus: 1
- magnam voluntatis caritatem in unum convenire; iii. velociter currentes, iv. quoniam sermo . . . distribuatur: 1
- magnorum sui saeculi pontificum longe maximus: 1
- mali praepositi: 1
- mansiones: 1
- manu mox injecta: 1
- martyriani: 1
- matre vilissima: 1
- matricibus et originalibus fidei: 1
- maxime filius: 1
- meis cellulis: 1
- memento Domine omnium pastorum et doctorum ecclesiae orthodoxae . . . praecipue vero Jacobi Bordaei: 1
- memoria: 1
- mente captus et fanaticus: 1
- metas ruituras: 1
- meum: 1
- mi fili: 1
- mihi autem certum est nusquam prorsus ab auctoritate Christi discedere: 1
- millia: 1
- ministrae: 1
- ministri sceleris, quos falso nomine antistites vocant: 1
- ministros: 1
- missus in ferventis olei dolium, et inde ad suscipiendam coronam Christi athleta processerit, statimque relegatus in Pathmos insulam: 1
- mittentes retia: 1 2
- monachi: 1
- monachus: 1
- monasterium: 1
- monasterium : 1
- monasterium Vivariense: 1
- monasterium castellense: 1
- monasterium vivariense: 1
- monticulus: 1
- moratus: 1
- mortuus: 1 2
- motio: 1
- motus: 1 2 3 4
- moveri: 1
- multa et gravia delicta: 1
- multitudine et magnitudine: 1
- multitudo Gnosticorum: 1
- multo nobis meliores: 1
- municipia: 1
- mutatio: 1
- naevos explicare, emollire et vindicare satagit.: 1
- nativum dicendi genus: 1
- natura: 1
- naturalia legis per quae homo justificatur quae etiam ante legislationem custodiebant qui fide justificabantur et placebant Deo: 1
- naturalia praecepta: 1
- ne a fratribus divelleretur: 1
- ne in philosophiae gremium celeriter advolarem, uxoris honorisque illecebra detinebar: 1
- ne nos patiaris induci: 1
- ne quid tentare: 1
- ne unquam obliviscantur legis tuae: 1
- necessitate cogente: 1
- necessitatem de omnibus tractandi: 1
- nefas: 1
- negotia: 1
- negotia Christianae factionis: 1
- negotia civium;: 1
- nemo vos seducat in humilitate et religione angelorum: 1
- neque enim aliud possumus dicere, nisi sancti Spiritus hanc priore gratiam, quod ignorantibus omnibus subito Basilicam reddidisti: 1
- neque filius: 1
- neque ullis omnino membrorum lineamentis compositum: 1
- nihil credendum incorporeum praeter Deum: 1
- nobilissima femina: 1
- nociva insula: 1
- nocturna sacrificia: 1
- noli facere: 1
- nolite illud in nobis requirere quod in papa Alexandro habetis: 1
- nolo episcopari: 1
- non : 1
- non ad vanas fabulas et aniles loquacitates: 1
- non aspernetur Anatolius," he says, "etiam meam epistolam recensere, quam pietati patrum per omnia concordare reperiet: 1
- non deficiens in sua justitia juste etiam adversus ipsam conversus est apostasiam, ea quae sunt sua redimens ab ea: 1
- non ei obiciens, quam in me video, creaturam: 1
- non enim sua sunt quae dicunt, sed Dei, qui in cathedra unitatis doctrinam posuit veritatis: 1
- non est substantia: 1
- non ignobilis inter causidicos loci: 1
- non manichaeus, sed neque catholicus christianus: 1
- non minus stultum quam impium: 1
- non omnia restaurantur sed quae in Christo sunt: 1
- non parcendum corpori: 1
- non parvo provectu Christianus: 1
- non penitus perit, sed in infimis ordinatur: 1
- non posse mori.: 1
- non pro meis commodis faciebam,: 1
- non propagine sed exemplo: 1
- non quia ratio manifesta docuerit, sed quia unitatis cura persuaserit: 1
- non regulis dominemur; simus subjecti canonibus: 1
- non solum tibi non succensebunt; sed tunc amabunt, tunc magis favebunt: 1
- non vi sed gratiâ: 1
- nondum: 1
- nonnulla eodem metro ad sacramentorum ordinem pertinentia: 1
- nostrae partes: 1
- notaculo corporis,: 1
- notarius: 1 2
- novae legislator, sabbati spiritalis cultor, sacrificiorum aeternorum antistes, regni aeterni aeternus dominator: 1
- nubit assidue: 1
- nulli parvus est census, cui magnus est animus: 1
- nullius ante trita solo: 1
- nullum diem praetermittebat oblationem ad altare [Domini]: 1
- numerus praedestinatorum: 1
- nunc: 1
- nunc se ad perniciem lapsorum verterunt: 1
- nunquam Ecclesia Christi non habuit: 1
- nunquam se Arianae miscuit pravitati.: 1
- nuper: 1
- nuperrime temporibus nostris: 1
- obediendo nobis, probent se esse nostros: 1
- objurgare et instruxisse: 1
- obtrectatorem: 1
- odium theologicum: 1
- oeconomus: 1
- oleum peccatoris non impinguet caput meum: 1
- olim secundum vestra suffragia: 1
- omne quod Christus est vita aeterna est: 1
- omnes baptizati in aquis istis visibilibus et in chrismate visibili: 1
- omnes illas ancoras,: 1
- omnes qui baptizant operarios esse non dominos et sacramenta per se sancta esse non per omines: 1
- omnibus aequalis, omnibus rex, omnibus judex, omnibus Deus et Dominus est.: 1
- omnibus, quae adversus illam pestem scribere potui, facile praepono.: 1
- omnis bonorum operum donatio, divina praeparatio est: 1
- omnis generatio per mutationem est: 1
- optimum et valde congruentissimum: 1
- opus operatum: 1
- opus profecto nobilissimum: 1
- oratiunculae: 1
- ordinatissima potestas: 1
- ordinatissima totius ecclesiae charitas in Petri sede Petrum suscipit: 1
- ordo: 1
- organis cantantibus die nuptiarum: 1
- origines: 1
- os eloquentissimum et columnam ecclesiae: 1
- paganus: 1
- palaestra: 1
- palatini canes: 1
- pallium: 1 2 3 4 5 6
- paludamentum: 1
- panis ex ipsa aut in ipsa Substantia, hoc est vitae panis: 1
- parabolatus de anima sua: 1
- parentalia: 1
- pari passu: 1
- pars paene major cujusque civitatis: 1
- parum est si carnis substantia tenuatur et animae fortitudo non alitur: 1
- pasti ex his quidam templorum spoliis: 1
- pastumque venire victimarum: 1
- patefacta quaerere, perfecta retractare, definita convellere: 1
- pater: 1
- paterfamilias: 1
- patres: 1
- patria: 1
- patrias: 1
- patrocinium mendacii suscipiendo.: 1
- paucissimi, : 1
- paulisper: 1
- pax coelestis: 1
- pax terrena,: 1 2
- pax terrena.: 1
- peccavimus: 1
- peculia gratiae: 1
- pene: 1
- penes Sanctum Leandrum Hispal. ecclesiae episcopum et beatissimum Eutropium monasterii Servitani abbatem fuit.: 1
- penuriâ discipulorum: 1
- per Filium in Spiritu Sancto: 1
- per apostolicam successionem: 1
- per hanc unius essentiae nuncupationem solitarium atque unicum sibi esse Patrem et Filium praedicabat: 1
- per jura regum possidentur possessiones,: 1
- per saltum: 1 2
- per subsequens matrimonium: 1
- per successionem ab initio decurrentem: 1
- per vos mala foederum currunt, per vos regni utriusque pacta conditionesque portantur: 1
- perfecti: 1
- pis aller: 1
- pistrinum,: 1
- placata ritu secretiori Bellona: 1
- planeta: 1 2 3
- plebes: 1
- plenaria synodus: 1
- plenius sapere coepi,: 1
- plumbata: 1
- plurimi . . . nescic qua praesumptione quidam: 1
- pontificium: 1
- populitui: 1
- populum abundantem: 1
- populus circa Tuam Substantiam veniens: 1
- porticus: 1
- portio totius: 1
- posse non mori: 1
- potentiae principales: 1
- potentior principalitas: 1
- potius: 1
- potuit non mori: 1
- praeceptor Armeniae: 1
- praeceptor meus: 1
- praeceptum.: 1
- praeconium ecclesiae: 1 2
- praefationes: 1
- praefectus annonae: 1
- praefectus praetorio: 1
- praefectus urbi: 1
- praefectus urbi,: 1
- praepositi: 1
- praepositus cubiculariorum: 1
- praesens quaero, nihil stat: 1
- praesident majores natu: 1
- praesides: 1
- praetor: 1
- presbyteri: 1
- presbyterum: 1
- prima facie,: 1
- prima intra Gallias Arelatensis civitas missum a beatissimo Petro apostolo sanctum Trophimum habere meruit sacerdotem, et exinde aliis paulatim regionibus Galliarum bonum fidei et religionis infusum: 1
- prima sedes: 1
- primae sedis: 1
- primae sedis Episcopus,: 1
- primarius: 1
- primas: 1
- primores: 1
- princeps vitae monasticae: 1
- principaliter: 1
- principes: 1
- principes super omnem terram.: 1
- pro salute imperatoris: 1
- pro venerabili viro papa et episcopo nostro, sancto Sylvestro, ita credentes sicut scriptum est.: 1
- procedens: 1
- processio: 1
- proconsul jussit eum velut rebellem in dolio ferventis olei mergi, qui statim ut conjectus in aeneo est, veluti athleta, unctus non adustus de vase exiit.: 1
- profectus religionis: 1
- progenies et figuratio Dei: 1
- prolatio: 1 2
- proponendo et loquendo: 1
- propraetor: 1
- proprie: 1
- proprietas divinae humanaeque naturae individua permanet: 1
- proprium: 1 2
- propter potiorem principalitatem: 1
- prudenter et amanter: 1
- publici hostes: 1
- qua: 1
- quae committenda litteris non fuerunt: 1
- quae dicit Deum aliquos praedestinâsse ad benedictionem, alios ad maledictionem.: 1
- quae initium Dei filii ex partu Virginis mentiebatur.: 1
- quae ipsi miserrima viderunt: 1
- quae salvari possent: 1
- quaestor: 1
- quam majus putabat fusum in viscera, quod tantum sibi tectum orario profuisset!: 1
- quamvis ipse in ea: 1
- quamvis pene defecerint: 1
- quarum viri mansuetiores erant [Patricio]: 1
- quasi ipsi obstetricaverint prolationem enunciant: 1
- quatuor versuum: 1
- questor: 1
- qui Parmeniani nunc appellantur a Parmenione quodam qui eorum nuper successit erroribus et falsitati: 1
- qui Silvestri episcopi maximae Romae locum obtinebat: 1
- qui aliquos, devios licet a fide, ad necem petebant,: 1
- qui appellatur Duae Viae vel Judicium Petri: 1
- qui est noster socius: 1
- qui fuit olim Coenobii S. Mariae Montis Dei: 1
- qui indiscrete vivunt: 1
- qui majores dioceses tenes: 1
- qui non alta sapis quamvis altius praesideas: 1
- qui potuit malitia pollui, studeat benignitate purgari: 1
- qui secundem Deum vixerunt eique placuerunt, pertinentes ad spiritalem Hierusalem: 1
- quia Petrus praedicavit evangelium et non composuit, sed Marcus ab eo praedicata composuit; Joannes autem et praedicavit evangelium et ipse composuit.: 1
- quia genus sacramenti est: 1
- quibus Apostoli scripserunt: 1
- quibus ibi initiis coaluerit: 1
- quibus nulla natalium: 1
- quicquid sanxit vel sanxerit apostolicae sedis auctoritas: 1
- quid autem si neque apostoli quidem Scripturas reliquissent nobis, nonne oportebat ordinem sequi traditionis quam tradiderunt iis quibus committebant, ecclesias?: 1
- quo tempore fuit persecutio: 1
- quod accipimus Corpus Christi est, ipse autem Christus, vita est . . . divitiae in Christo corporaliter: 1
- quod in venerabili die Paschatis ab omnibus dissentiant.: 1
- quod nimius fuerim: 1
- quod semper, quod ubique, quad ab omnibus: 1
- quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est: 1
- quod volumus sanctum est: 1
- quondam ad Arelatensem urbem ab apostolica sede transmissus: 1
- quorum circa Deum nostrum solicitudo laudanda est: 1
- quotidiana medela: 1
- quotidianum: 1
- raptus a tribunalibus ad sacerdotium de Officiis,: 1
- ratio sapientiae: 1
- ratio substantiae corporalis: 1
- rebus supervenientem, unde pullulaverit: 1
- recapitulatio: 1
- recapitulatio omnium haereticorum: 1
- recapitulatio totius iniquitatis: 1
- reconciliatas amicitias: 1
- rectores patrimonii: 1
- redemptio aufert captivitatem et regeneratio mutat originem et fides justificat peccatorem: 1
- redimuntur: 1
- refectio pauperis: 1
- reges sed tyrannos: 1
- regionarii: 1
- regionarius: 1
- regionarius nostrae sedis: 1
- regula: 1 2
- regula fidei: 1 2
- regula fidei una, sola, immobilis et irreformabilis: 1
- regulus: 1
- religio: 1
- religio illicita: 1 2 3
- religio licita: 1 2 3
- religio paganorum: 1
- religionem: 1
- religiones licitae,: 1
- religiosa: 1
- religiosum Dei famulum Bedam: 1
- religiosum famulum Dei N. venerabilis monasterii tui,: 1
- relinque mortuos sepelire mortuos suos: 1
- remota justitia: 1
- rescripta: 1 2 3
- resolutionem sensualis vigoris: 1
- resurrectio Christi, resurrectio nostra: 1
- retia componentes: 1
- sacerdos: 1
- sacerdotes: 1
- sacerdotium: 1
- sacerdotium moritur, non sacerdos: 1
- sacramenta: 1
- sacras hostias et casta libamina: 1
- sacrificati: 1
- sacrificati,: 1
- sacrificatus: 1
- sacrum ministerium talis consortii vilitate polluitur: 1
- saevae religionis obtentu: 1
- sanctae memoriae: 1
- sanctis . . . multiplicatae sunt infirmitates eorum, postea acceleraverunt: 1
- satellitem suum diaconum constituit: 1
- satisagentes: 1
- saturati sunt porcina: 1
- saturitas carnis: 1
- scala ascensionis ad Deum: 1
- sceleratissimum facinus: 1
- scholastici: 1
- scientem volentemque fefellisse: 1
- scripsit . . . contra Gentes volumen breve et de Disciplina aliud: 1
- scutarii: 1
- secundum mysterium nominis Jesu Christi quod est in litera iota, id est perfectionis indicio: 1
- secundum suadelam, quemadmodum decebat Deum suadentem, non vim inferentem, accipere quae vellet: 1
- secuta est clementia nostra judicium sanctitatis tuae,: 1
- sed haec puer: 1
- sedes: 1
- semet ipsum homini et hominem sibimet ipsi assimilans: 1
- semivir: 1
- semper aut discere, aut docere, aut scribere dulce habui.: 1
- semper coexistens Filius Patri: 1
- senatus amplissimus: 1
- senatus consulta: 1
- seniores: 1
- seniores et praepositi (= presbyteri et epicopi): 1
- sensus catholicus,: 1
- sentiamus nobis bonum esse quod vincimur: 1
- sentiant humanitatem nostram aegritudines decumbentium, imbecillitates debilium, labores exulum, destitutio pupillorum et desolatarum maestitudo viduarum: 1
- sermo enthronisticus: 1
- sermone scholasticus et assertionibus nervosus: 1
- severa praecepta: 1
- si illorum essent recepta essent ab ecclesia,: 1
- sic est adhibenda correptio, ut semper sit salva dilectio: 1
- signaculum: 1
- signifer Arianae factionis: 1
- signifer seditionis: 1
- signis et prodigiis pollens: 1
- signum venerandae crucis: 1
- simiarum more: 1
- simul et evangelium et propheticum repellunt Spiritum: : 1
- sine Deo: 1
- sine solatio mortis.: 1
- sine turba ac tumultu: 1
- sola vobis reliquimus templa: 1
- solemnia Missarum: 1
- solidus: 1
- solus cum solis.: 1
- solus scilicet fortis inter tot fratres commilitones, solus Christianus: 1
- spado: 1 2
- speculum monasticum:: 1
- sphaera: 1
- spinas et tribulos: 1
- spurciloquium: 1
- statio: 1
- status: 1
- status, progressio, regressus: 1
- stulti, : 1
- suadela: 1
- sub id tempus: 1
- sub ingenti abstinentia: 1
- sub specie aeterna: 1
- subintroductae: 1 2
- subitus turbo: 1
- sublimitas: 1
- substantia: 1
- substantia,: 1
- substantialiter: 1
- substomachans taedio: 1
- suburbicaria loca: 1
- successio sacerdotum: 1
- successiones episcoporum: 1 2
- successiones presbyterorum: 1
- sudarium: 1
- suffragium: 1
- summis sacerdotibus ipsorum morte truncatis: 1
- summopere persequi: 1
- summum bonum: 1
- suo jure: 1
- superstitio: 1
- supersubstantialem: 1
- supervenerunt: 1
- supervenient: 1
- symphonia instrumentorum: 1
- syncellus: 1
- synodalia decreta: 1
- synodo praesidens: 1
- tabula: 1
- tabulae similitudinem: 1
- taciturnus amnis,: 1
- tam audenter: 1
- tam potens etiam in significationibus suis: 1
- tanquam a latere,: 1
- tanquam daemon carne indutus: 1
- tanquam servilis vilitas hunc honorem capiat: 1
- tanquam speculum habuimus eos totius eversionis: 1
- tanta clericorum ac monachorum audacia est, ut bellum velint potius quam judicium: 1
- tantum valeat quantum si non fuisset: 1
- tardiores patres: 1
- taurobolium: 1 2
- te auctore: 1
- tenebrae: 1
- tenera et lucida et aerii coloris, et forma per omnia humana.: 1
- tenuissima ex suspicione: 1
- teste: 1 2
- testimonia patrum: 1
- teter odor fumi: 1
- theatrum: 1
- thurificati: 1
- thurificati,: 1
- tituli: 1
- titulus: 1
- titulus Pastoris: 1
- toga: 1
- toga virilis: 1
- togati: 1
- tolle, lege: 1
- tomus: 1
- tot semiruti parietes ecclesiarum, tot anfractus porticuum, tanta turba ruderum, quantum vix alibi cernas: 1
- totius Ecclesiae gubernacula: 1
- totius fidei Jacobiticae norma et fundamentum: 1
- tractatus: 1
- tractatus et excerpta: 1
- tractatuum: 1 2
- tractoria: 1
- tractoria,: 1
- tradens: 1
- traditio: 1
- traditio symboli. : 1
- traditio.: 1
- traditor: 1 2 3 4 5
- traditors: 1
- traditors,: 1
- tradux animae, tradux peccati.: 1
- transeamus in: 1
- tres libelli de fide: 1
- tria capitula: 1
- tribulos, quasi trinitatis professores et triangulam bajulantes impietatem: 1
- tricennalia: 1 2
- trichorum: 1
- tua autem excellens prudentia disponere debet, ut per tua scripta: 1
- tunica molesta : 1
- turba: 1
- tuum: 1
- tyrannus: 1
- ubi nobis placuerit: 1
- ultio: 1
- umbilicus: 1
- una cum nobis,: 1
- unctio: 1
- unigenitus Deus: 1
- unijuge: 1
- unionem in natura: 1
- unius et ejusdem substantiae sunt: 1
- unius noctis lucubratione: 1
- universae Scripturae: 1
- universalis caro, universalis anima; in isto omnia universalia erant: 1
- universalis cura: 1
- universitas: 1
- universos, sed qui sequerentur: 1
- uno in loco: 1
- unus a Trinitate descendit de coelo, incarnatus est, crucifixus, mortuus, resurrexit, ascendit in caelum.: 1
- urbs regia: 1
- usque ad contemptum Dei.: 1
- usque ad contemptum sui;: 1
- usu ipso multiplicatur, unde dicitur usura ab usu: 1
- ut ergo et tu sis, transcende tempus: 1
- ut et to sis, transcende tempus.: 1
- ut idem esset dives in paupertate, omnipotens in abjectione, impassibilis in supplicio, immortalis in morte: 1
- ut ostenderet : 1
- ut primus ille episcopus aliquem ex apostolis vel apostolicis viris, qui tamen cum apostolis perseveravit, habuerit auctorem et antecessorem. Hoc enim modo ecclesiae apostolicae census suos deferunt sicut Smyrnaeorum ecclesia Polycarpum ab Joanne collocatum refert, sicut Romanorum Clementem a Petro ordinatum itidem,: 1
- ut rugitus tonitrui putaretur: 1
- ut statutis nostrae mediocritatis etiam apostolicae sedis auctoritas adhibeatur: 1
- ut vel sero redamaremus eum,: 1
- ut videtur: 1
- uteri tumentes, infantium vagitus: 1
- v. inexcusabilem; vi. eos qui Romae sunt; aequaliter quae; vii. possident: 1
- vacuae: 1
- varietate: 1
- vel levi argumento a tramite Catholica: 1
- venationes: 1
- veniam plane et festinabo ut jubes: 1
- vera icon: 1
- verae religionis homines: 1
- verberibus et cruciatibus: 1
- verbum est in Deo: 1
- vere nominis sui si in talem magistrum non impegisset: 1
- versus: 1 2
- verticem capitis: 1
- vetus haereticus: 1
- via Tiburtina juxta corpus beati Laurentii martyris: 1
- via media: 1
- vicarii: 1
- vicarius: 1
- vicinus apostolicorum temporum: 1
- viii. nisi si his episcopis quibus nunc: 1
- vir acer ingenio, in divinis Scripturis doctus, Graeca et Latina lingua scholasticus: 1
- vir apostolicus episcopus et martyr: 1
- vir curialis: 1
- vir ille tam egregie Christianus: 1
- vir insignis,: 1
- viri egregii: 1
- viridarium: 1
- virtus duritia extruitur, mollitia vero destruitur: 1
- viscera: 1
- visio, videre, discernere: 1
- vita: 1
- vitia: 1
- vivâ voce: 1
- viva voce: 1
- vivens: 1
- vivere quidem Christus, intelligere Spiritus: 1
- vividus: 1
- vocatio congrua: 1
- vocatio congrua,: 1
- vocatio congrua.: 1
- vocatio non congrua: 1
- voluit revocare Acacium: 1
- volumina: 1
- voluntas emendationis, non falsitas dogmatis approbata est.: 1
- voluptates: 1
- voluptates et editiones populo celebrarunt: 1
- vota civium, testimonia populorum, honoratorum arbitrium, electio clericorum: 1
- vox: 1
- vox populi: 1
- vox vocis: 1
- xii. ut per eos qui cum: 1
Index of French Words and Phrases
- Ce bon homme semble chargé de la partie comique dans le drame terrible de l᾿histoire mérovingienne: 1
- formant l’extrémité de l’aile droite du Semiarianisme touchant à l’orthodoxie, ou de l’aile gauche de l’orthodoxie touchant au Semiarianisme: 1
- la propriété c’est le vol: 1
- le même que St. Clet, comme les savants en conviennent: 1
- on ne se trompera sur Constantin en croyant tout le mil qu’en dit Eusebe, et tout le bien qu’en dit Zosime: 1
- raison d’étre: 1
- une loy . . . trop favorable à la puissance du siége [de S. Léon] mais peu honorable à sa piété.: 1
Index of Pages of the Print Edition
i ii iii iv v vi vii viii ix x xi xii 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028