SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map : Christian Books : Letter A

A Dictionary Of Christian Biography And Literature by Henry Wace

Letter A

Abercius, bp. of Hierapolis Abercius (Aberkios, Aouirkios, Aouerkios, 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. Fathers^2, 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 parthenos hagne), 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 IChThUS, 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 to us, not in any systematic form, but as the natural and simple expression of a pure and devout soul. For full literature, see Zahn, u.s.; for the development of the legend from the facts mentioned in the epitaph, and for the reconstruction of the text by Lightfoot and Ramsay, see three articles by the latter in Expositor, ix. (3rd ser.), also Ramsay's Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, ii.722. In addition to literature above, cf. art. by Lightfoot in Expositor, i. (3rd ser.), pp.3 ff.; and Farrar, Lives of the Fathers, i. pp.10 ff. Prof. V. Bartlet discusses Harnack's hypothesis in the Critical Review, April 1896, and regards it as at present holding the field; though he finds Harnack's elimination of any reference to Paul the Apostle in the inscription quite unintelligible. Even Schmiedel (Encycl. Bibl. ii.1778) refers unhesitatingly to the inscription as Christian. See further Dr. Swete's art. J. T. S. July 1907, p.502, on Avircius and prayers for the departed.

The following is a translation of the epitaph:

|Citizen of a chosen city I have made this (tomb) in my lifetime, that I may have here before the eyes of men (phaneros v.l. kairo) 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 (didaskon, so Ramsay, omitted by Zahn) the faithful writings; who sent me to Rome to behold the King (basilean, so Ramsay, but Lightfoot basilean, Zahn, basile anathresai), 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 (sunometheis, so Lightfoot and Ramsay; sunoditen, 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 epochon, or rather ep' ochon instead of hepomen), 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 Abgar. [[1]Thaddaeus.]

Acacius, bp. of Caesarea Acacius (2), bp. of Caesarea, from a personal defect known as ho monophthalmos, 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. [[2]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,| homoion kata ten boulesin monon, 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 Eudoxius of Antioch, then bp. of Constantinople, put forth their whole influence to bring the edicts of the Nicene council, and all mention of the Homoousion, into disuse and oblivion (Soz. iv.26). On his return to the East in 361 Acacius and his party consecrated new bishops to the vacant sees, Meletius being placed in the see of Antioch. When the imperial throne was filled by the orthodox Jovian, Acacius with his friends found it convenient to change their views, and in 363 they voluntarily accepted the Nicene Symbol (Socr. iii.25). On the accession of the Arian Valens in 364 Acacius once more went over to the more powerful side, making common cause with the Arian Eudoxius (Socr. iv.2). But he found no favour with the council of Macedonian bishops at Lampsacus, and his deposition at Seleucia was confirmed. According to Baronius, he died A.D.366.

Acacius enriched with parchments the library at Caesarea founded by Pamphilus (Hieron. Ep. ad. Marcellam, 141). He wrote on Ecclesiastes, six books of summikta zetemata and other treatises; a considerable fragment of his Antilogia 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, bp. of Beroea 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 [[4]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 Roman bp. Coelestinus to bring about an agreement. He ultimately succeeded in establishing friendly communion between John and Cyril. He saw the peace of the church re-established, and died full of days and honour, aged, it is said, more than 110 years, A.D.436.

Three letters are still extant out of the large number that he wrote, especially on the Nestorian controversy: two to Alexander of Hierapolis, Baluzius, Nov. Collect. Concil. c. xli. p.746, c. lv. p.757; and one to Cyril, ib. c. xxii. p.440; Labbe, Conc. vol. iii. p.382 (Cave, Hist. Lit. i.417; Tillemont, Mem. eccl. vol. xiv.; Hefele, Konz. Gesch. Bd. ii.).


Acacius, patriarch of Constantinople 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. (Akakios). 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 Petrus Mongus as patriarch, who had already been conspicuous among them; on the other side the Catholics put forward Johannes Talaia. Both aspirants lay open to grave objections. Mongus was, or at least had been, unorthodox; Talaia was bound by a solemn promise to the Emperor not to seek or (as it appears) accept the patriarchate (Liberat. c.17; Evagr. H. E. iii.12). Talaia at once sought and obtained the support of Simplicius, and slighted Acacius. Mongus represented to Acacius that he was able, if confirmed in his post, to heal the divisions by which the Alexandrine church was rent. Acacius and Zeno readily listened to the promises of Mongus, and in spite of the vehement opposition of Simplicius, received the envoys whom he sent to discuss the terms of reunion. Shortly afterwards the Henoticon (An Instrument of Union) was drawn up, in which the creed of Nicaea, as completed at Constantinople, was affirmed to be the one necessary and final definition of faith; and though an anathema was pronounced against Eutyches, no express judgment was pronounced upon the doctrine of the two Natures (Evagr. H. E. iii.14) Mongus accepted the Henoticon, and was confirmed in his see. Talaia retired to Rome (482-483), and Simplicius wrote again to Acacius, charging him in the strongest language to check the progress of heresy elsewhere and at Alexandria (Simplic. Epp.18, 19). The letters were without effect, and Simplicius died soon afterwards. His successor, Felix III. (II.), espoused the cause of Talaia with zeal, and despatched two bishops, Vitalis and Misenus, to Constantinople with letters to Zeno and Acacius, demanding that the latter should repair to Rome to answer the charges brought against him by Talaia (Felix, Epp.1, 2). The mission utterly failed. Vitalis and Misenus were induced to communicate publicly with Acacius and the representatives of Mongus, and returned dishonoured to Italy (484). On their arrival at Rome a synod was held. They were themselves deposed and excommunicated; a new anathema was issued against Mongus, and Acacius was irrevocably excommunicated for his connexion with Mongus, for exceeding the limits of his jurisdiction, and for refusing to answer at Rome the accusations of Talaia (Evagr. H. E. iii.21; Felix, Ep.6); but no direct heretical opinion was proved or urged against him. Felix communicated the sentence to Acacias, and at the same time wrote to Zeno, and to the church at Constantinople, charging every one, under pain of excommunication, to separate from the deposed patriarch (Epp.9, 10, 12). Once again the envoy of the pope was seduced from his allegiance, and on his return to Rome fell under ecclesiastical censure (Felix, Ep.11). For the rest, the threats of Felix produced no practical effect. The Eastern Christians, with very few exceptions, remained in communion with Acacias; Talaia acknowledged the hopelessness of his cause by accepting the bishopric of Nola; and Zeno and Acacius took active measures to obtain the general acceptance of the Henoticon. Under these circumstances the condemnation of Acacius, which had been made in the name of the Pope, was repeated in the name of the council of Chalcedon, and the schism was complete (485). Acacius took no heed of the sentence up to his death in 489, which was followed by that of Mongus in 490, and of Zeno in 491. Fravitas (Flavitas, Flavianus), his successor, during a very short patriarchate, entered on negotiations with Felix, which led to no result. The policy of Acacius broke down when he was no longer able to animate it. In the course of a few years all for which he had laboured was undone. The Henoticon failed to restore unity to the East, and in 519 the emperor Justin submitted to pope Hormisdas, and the condemnation of Acacius was recognized by the Constantinopolitan church.

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 Acephali (from a and kephale, 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. Peter Mongus, the Monophysite patriarch of Alexandria, subscribed this compromise [[6]Acacius (7)]; for this reason many of his party, especially among the monks, separated from him, and were called Acephali. They were condemned, under Justinian by a synod of Constantinople, 536, as schismatics, who sinned against the churches, the pope, and the emperor. Cf. Mansi, Conc. tom. viii. p.891 sqq.; Harduin, Conc. tom. ii, 1203 sqq.; Walch, Ketzerhistorie, vol. vii.; Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, vol. ii. pp.549, 744. (3) To the clerici vagi, i.e. clergymen belonging to no diocese (as in Isid. Hispal. de 0ffic. Eccl., the so-called Egbert's Excerpts, 160, and repeatedly in Carlovingian Councils: see Du Cange) [D. C. A. art. VAGI Clerici]. (4) It is said to be used sometimes for autokephaloi. [D. C. A. art. Autocephali.]


Adamantius (1) Adamantius (1). [[7]Origen.]

Aerius, founder of the heretical sect of the Aerians Aerius, Aerios, 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 (xenodocheion, or ptochotropheion). 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 apotaxia, 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, mia taxis, mia time. hen axioma. (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, an Arian sect founder and head Aetius (Aetios), 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,| atheos (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, anomoios, 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 as Heterusiasts and Exukontians, as affirming that the Son was ex heteras ousias from the Father, and created ex ouk onton.

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. Aetios). 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 and the intrigues of the court brought about its division into two synods. The West met at Ariminum; the East at Seleucia in Isauria, A.D.359. The latter separated without any definite conclusion. |The Arians, semi-Arians, and Anomoeans, mingled in tumultuous strife, and hurled anathemas at one another| (Milman, Hist. Christ. iii. c.8). Whatever triumph was gained rested with the opponents of the Aetians, who appealed to the emperor and the court, and a second general council was summoned to meet at Constantinople (Athan. de Synod. § 10, 12). Of this council Acacius was the leading spirit, but a split occurred among the Anomoean followers of Aetius. The party triumphed, but its founder was sent into banishment, first to Mopsuestia, then to Amblada in Pisidia. Here he gained the goodwill of the savage inhabitants by his prayers having, as they supposed, averted a pestilence (Theod. ii.23; Soz. iv.23, 24; Philost. iv.12; Greg. Nys. u.s. p.301).

The death of Constantius, A.D.361, put an end to Aetius's exile. Julian recalled all the banished bishops, and invited Aetius to his court (Ep. 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 Africanus, Julius (Aphrkanos), a Christian writer at the beginning of the 3rd cent. A great part of his life was passed at Emmaus in Palestine -- not, however, the Emmaus of St. Luke (xxiv.16), as assumed by the ancient authorities (Soz. H. E. v.21; Hieron. in libro de Locis Hebraicis, s.v. Emmaous, ii. p.439; et in Epitaph. Paulae, iv. p.673); but, as Reland has shewn in his Palaestina, pp.427, 758 (see also Smith's Dict. of Geogr. s.v. Emmaus), the Emmaus in the plain (1 Macc. iii.40), 22 Roman miles (=176 stadia) from Jerusalem. He may have been born A.D.170 or a little earlier, and died A.D.240 or a little later. There seems to be no ancient authority for dating his death A.D.232.

Africanus ranks with Clement and Origen as among the most learned of the ante-Nicene fathers (Socr. H. E. ii.35; Hieron. Ep. ad Magnum, 83, vol. iv. p.656). His great work, 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. Aphrikanos; 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. Augustine (Retract. lib. ii. c. vii.), see Mill, On the Mythical Interpretation of the Gospels, p.201.

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 chronika 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, Gen. xxxv.4., held in honour; and that Jacob's tent had been preserved in Edessa until struck by lightning in the reign of the emperor Antoninus (Elagabalus ?). Africanus probably had personally visited Edessa, whose king, Abgarus, he elsewhere mentions.

The work in all probability concluded with the Doxology, which St. Basil has cited (de Spir. Sanct. § 73, iii.61) in justification of the form of doxology sun Agio Pneumati.

It remains to speak of another work, the kestoi, 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 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 the war; Justinian had already incurred such expense as to be unwilling to turn back (Liberat. quoted by Baronius, Annales Ecclesiastici, vii. p.314), and as a matter of fact Belisarius took Rome within the year. In 535 Anthimus, who was suspected of Monothelitism, had been appointed patriarch of Constantinople by the influence of Theodora. Agapetus, on his first arrival, refused to receive Anthimus unless he could prove himself orthodox, and then only as bp. of Trebizond, for he was averse to the practice of translating bishops. At the same time he boldly accused Justinian himself of Monophysitism; who was fain to satisfy him by signing a |libellus fidei| and professing himself a true Catholic. But the emperor insisted upon his communicating with Anthimus, and even threatened him with expulsion from the city if he refused. Agapetus replied with spirit that he thought he was visiting an orthodox prince, and not a second Diocletian. Then the emperor confronted him with Anthimus, who was easily convicted by Agapetus. Anthimus was formally deposed, and Mennas substituted; and this was done without a council, by the single authority of the pope Agapetus; Justinian of course allowing it, in spite of the remonstrances of Theodora (Anast. vol. i. p.102; Theophanes, Chronogr. p.184). Agapetus followed up his victory by denouncing the other heretics who had collected at Constantinople under the patronage of Theodora. He received petitions against them from the Eastern bishops, and from the |monks| in Constantinople, as the Archimandrite coenobites were beginning to be called (Baronius, vii. p.322). He died on April 21, 536 (Clint. F. R. p.765). His body was taken to Rome and buried in St. Peter's basilica, Sept.17. Five of his letters remain: (1) July 18, 535, to Caesarius, bp. of Arles, about a dispute of the latter with bp. Contumeliosus (Mansi, viii. p.856). (2) Same date, to same, |De augendis alimoniis pauperum| (ib.855). (3) Sept.9, 535, Reply to a letter from African bishops to his predecessor Johannes (ib.848). (4) Same date, reply to Reparatus, bp. of Carthage, who had congratulated him on his accession (ib.850). (5) March 13, 536, to Peter, bp. of Jerusalem, announcing the deposition of Anthimus and consecration of Mennas (ib.921). Hefele, Konz. Gesch. Bd. ii.


Agatha 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 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 (peri Stephanon, 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 Agnoëtae (from agnoeo, 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. [[11]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 (Mark xiii.32, cf. John xi.34). Most Monophysites rejected this view, as inconsistent with their theory of one nature in Christ, which implied also a unity of knowledge, and they called the followers of Themistius Agnoëtae. The orthodox, who might from the Chalcedonian dogma of the two natures in Christ have inferred two kinds of knowledge, a perfect Divine and an imperfect human admitting of growth (Luke ii.52), nevertheless rejected the view of the Agnoëtae, as making too wide a rupture between the two natures, and generally understood the famous passage in Mark of the official ignorance only, inasmuch as Christ did not choose to reveal to His disciples the day of judgment, and thus appeared ignorant for a wise purpose (kat' oikonomian). His inquiry concerning Lazarus was explained from reference to the Jews and the intention to increase the effect of the miracle. Eulogius, Patriarch of Alexandria, wrote against the Agnoëtae a treatise on the absolute knowledge of Christ, of which Photius has preserved large extracts. Sophronius, patriarch of Jerusalem, anathematized Themistius. Agnoëtism was revived by the Adoptionists in the 8th cent. Felix of Urgel maintained the limitation of the knowledge of Christ according to His human nature, and appealed to Mark xiii.32. Gallandi, Bibl. Patr. xii. p.634; Mansi, Conc. xi.502; Leont. Byz. de Sectis, Actio X. c. iii.; Photius, Cod.230 (ed. Bekk. p.284); Baronius, Annal. ad A.D.535; Walch. Hist. der Ketzereien, viii.644-684; Baur, Lehre v. der Dreieinigkeit, etc., ii. pp.87 ff; Dorner, Entwicklungsgeschichte, etc., ii. pp.172 f; cf. D. C. B. (4 vol. ed.) art. PERSON OF CHRIST.


Alaric 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) asserts that on his approach to Athens its walls were seen to be guarded by Minerva and Achilles. Gibbon says that |the invasion of the Goths, instead of vindicating the honour, contributed, at least accidentally, to extirpate the last remains of Paganism| (vol. iv. p.37).

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 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 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 end of the 8th cent., in the last days of the Lombard monarchy.


Alexander, of Alexandria 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. [[12]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 [[13]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 drew up (perhaps with the help of his secretary and |archdeacon,| Athanasius) his famous encyclic to all his fellow-ministers, i.e. to the whole Christian episcopate, giving an account of the opinions for which the Egyptian synod had excommunicated the original Arians, adducing Scriptural texts in refutation, and warning his brethren against the intrigues of Eusebius (Socr. i.6). This letter, which he caused his clergy to sign, probably preceded the |Tome| or confession of faith which he referred to as having been signed by some bishops, when he wrote to Alexander, bp. of Byzantium, the long and elaborate letter preserved by Theod. i.4; in which, while using some language which in strictness must be called inaccurate, he gives an exposition of texts which became watchwords of the orthodox in the struggle (A.D.323).

Another correspondent now appears on the scene. Eusebius of Nicomedia, who had a strong influence over the emperor Constantine, persuaded the latter to write, or to adopt and sign, a letter to Alexander and Arius, in which the controversy was treated as a logomachy (Eus. 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 [[14]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, of Byzantium 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, of Hierapolis Euphratensis 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 be required to abandon all he had written on the Nestorian controversy (Labbe, iii.114, 1151, 1157, iv.666; Baluz.786). Cyril's reply was accepted by Acacius and John of Antioch, and other bishops now sincerely anxious for peace, but not by Alexander or Theodoret (Baluz.757, 782). The former renewed his charge of Apollinarianism and refused to sign the deposition of Nestorius (ib.762-763). This defection of Acacius of Beroea and John of Antioch was received with indignant sorrow by Alexander. It was the first breach in the hitherto compact opposition, and led to its gradual dissolution, leaving Alexander almost without supporters. In a vehement letter to Andrew of Samosata, he bitterly complained of Acacius's fickleness and protested that he would rather fly to the desert, resign his bishopric, and cut off his right hand than recognize Cyril as a Catholic until he had recanted his errors (ib.764-765). The month of April, 433, saw the reconciliation of John and the majority of the Oriental bishops with Cyril fully established (Labbe, iv.659; Cyril, Ep.31, 42, 44). Alexander was informed of this in a private letter from John, beseeching him no longer to hinder the peace of the church. Alexander's indignation now knew no bounds. He wrote in furious terms to Andrew and Theodoret (Baluz.799, 800). His language became more and more extravagant, |exile, violent death, the beasts, the fire, the precipice, were to be chosen before communion with a heretic| (ib.768, 775, 799, 800, 809, 810), and he even |made a vow to avoid the sight, hearing, or even the remembrance of all who in their hearts turned back again to Egypt| (ib.865). Alexander's contumacy had been regarded as depriving him of his functions as metropolitan. John, as patriarch, stepped in, A.D.434, and ordained bishops in the Euphratensian province. This act, of very doubtful legality, excited serious displeasure, and was appealed against by Alexander and six of his suffragans (ib.831-833, 865).

The end was now near at hand. Pulcheria and Theodosius had been carefully informed of the obstinate refusal of Alexander and the few left to support him to communicate with those whose orthodoxy had been recognized by the church. John had obtained imperial rescripts decreeing the expulsion and banishment of all bishops who still refused to communicate with him (ib.876). This rescript was executed in the case of other recusants; Alexander still remained. John expressed great 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 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. [[15]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 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 Alogians, or Alogi (from a privative and Logos, deniers of the Logos, or at least of the strongest witness for the Logos; not from alogoi, unreasonable), a heretical sect of disputed existence in the latter half of 2nd cent. (c.170). Epiphanius invented the term (Haeres.1. I, adv. Al. c.3), to characterize their rejection of the Divine Word preached by John (epei oun ton Logon ou dechontai ton para Ioannou kekerugmenon, Alogoi klethesontai). He traces their origin to Theodotus of Byzantium (Haer. liv. c.1). According to his representation they denied, in ardent opposition to the Gnosticism of Cerinthus on the one hand, and to the Montanists on the other, that Jesus Christ was the eternal Logos, as taught in John i.1-14.; and rejected the Fourth Gospel and the Apocalypse as productions of Cerinthus. Heinichen supposes that the Alogi rejected only the Apocalypse and not the Fourth Gospel; but this is directly contradicted by Epiphanius (l. c.3; cf. Haer. l. iv.1). That they attributed these books to Cerinthus, the Docetist and enemy of St. John, shows their utter want of critical judgment. They tried to refute the Gospel of St. John by the Synoptic Gospels, but with very poor arguments. In opposition to the Montanists, they also denied the continuance of the spiritual gifts in the church. It is not clear from Epiphanius whether the Alogi rejected only St. John's doctrines of the Logos, or also the divinity of Christ in any form. He calls them in his violent way (l. c.3) allotrioi pantapasin tou kerugmatos tes aletheias; and says of their heresy (Haer. liv. c.1) that it denied the Gospel of St. John and the God-Word taught therein (ton en auto en arche onta theon logon). Yet he clearly distinguishes them from the Ebionites; and their opposition to Cerinthus implies that they believed in the real humanity of Christ. Dorner (Hist. of Christology, i. p.503, German ed.) thinks it probable that they allowed no distinctions in the Godhead, and thought that the divinity of the Father dwelt in the man Jesus. But this would identify them with the Patripassians. Lardner (Works, iv.190, viii.627) doubts the existence of this sect, because of the absence of other data, and the tendency of Epiphanius to multiply and exaggerate heresies. But the testimony of Epiphanius is essentially sustained by Irenaeus, who mentions persons who rejected both the Gospel of St. John and the prophetic Spirit (simul et evangelium et propheticum repellunt Spiritum: adv. Haer. iii. c. ii. § 9).

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 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 1 Tim. iii.15, |Ecclesia . . . cujus hodie rector est Damasus,| shows that it was written during the pontificate of Damasus (366-384). It has been suggested that this clause may be an interpolation; but such an interpolation seems difficult to account for. Other marks, negative and positive, point to the same period. The text used is not the Vulgate, but a prior form of the Latin version. The ecclesiastical authors to whom he refers -- Tertullian, Cyprian, Victorinus -- belong to an earlier date. Among the heresies which he mentions he applies himself more especially to those of the 4th cent. -- e.g. those of Arias, Novatian, Photinus -- while the absence of allusion to later forms of error points the same way. He speaks of the Marcionites as on the verge of extinction (|quamvis pene defecerint,| in Ep. ad Timoth. I. iv.1). The date thus indicated would be the latter half of the 4th cent.; although, in that case, it is certainly somewhat surprising that Jerome in his treatise de Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis should not mention any other Latin commentator on the Pauline Epistles than Victorinus.

It was the generally received opinion in the Middle Ages that our author was Ambrose, bp. of Milan; but this belief, which Erasmus was among the first to question, is now universally admitted to rest on no sufficient grounds, though opinions differ much as to the probable author. From certain expressions which 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. v.12, |Manifestum est in Adam omnes peccasse quasi in massâ|).

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 of Arles. By many modern scholars Hilary the deacon has been accepted as the author of the work. But Petavius and others have objected that Augustine was not likely to apply the epithet sanctus to one whom he must have known to be guilty of schism. There can be little doubt that, whoever was the author, the work no longer retains its original form. The well-meaning zeal of copyists appears to have freely inserted comments from various sources, such as Augustine, Chrysostom, Jerome, the commentary which is printed at the end of the works of Jerome and is usually ascribed to Pelagius. These circumstances sufficiently account for the various forms of the text in MSS., and for the discrepancies and inequalities of treatment in several parts.

There is, moreover, a marked 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 of Alexandria Ambrosius (1) (Ambrosios) 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,| ergodioktes (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 of Greece 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| (Logos pros Hellenas), 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 of Milan 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| magistrate of the provinces of Liguria and Aemilia. He made an admirable magistrate, and became known to the people of Milan, where he held his court, as a high-minded, conscientious, and religious man. Whilst he was discharging his office, Auxentius, whom the Arian party had foisted into the see of Milan, died. The Catholic party had now grown stronger, and a vehement strife arose as to the appointment of a successor to Auxentius. The consular came down to the church to keep the peace and was addressing the people in his character as a civil magistrate, when a cry (which tradition asserts to have been that of a child) was heard, |Ambrose for bishop!| In a moment it struck the whole multitude as a solution in which both parties might acquiesce without the sense of defeat, and a unanimous shout arose, |We will have Ambrose for bishop!| It was a singular choice, even for those rougher and more tumultuous times, for Ambrose was not yet so much as baptized. But he was an earnest Christian in his belief, and had only been kept from seeking baptism by a religious awe, of which there were then many examples. Such an one naturally shrank from being made bishop. With undoubted sincerity, he resisted this popular nomination. He was, he says, raptus a tribunalibus ad sacerdotium de Officiis, i.4). He was baptized, passed summarily through the intermediate ecclesiastical stages, and on the eighth day was consecrated bp. of Milan. This was in the year 374 (a year after the death of Athanasius, and before the death of Valentinian I.), Ambrose being thirty-four years of age. The vox populi was never more thoroughly justified. The foundation of his excellence was laid in a singular and unsullied purity of character. In the see of Milan Ambrose had found precisely his place, and he laboured indefatigably as its bishop for twenty-three years till his death.

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 orthodox faith. The work de Spiritu Sancto, in three books, was written in the year 381.

The successes of the Goths which attended the defeat and death of Valens were the occasion of frightful calamities to the empire. From Illyricum and Thrace, especially, an immense number of captives were carried off by the barbarians, in ransoming whom the whole available resources of the church were exhausted by Ambrose; and when everything else had been taken, he did not scruple to break up and sell the sacramental vessels. He himself relates this fact with pride (de Off. lib. ii.136, 138). We now see Ambrose zealous in the general affairs of the church, and the leading ecclesiastic of his time. 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 whilst he was preaching he was told that the imperial curtains were taken down. The emperor was worsted by the bishop, and was naturally angry. He sent a secretary to reproach Ambrose, and ask if he meant to make himself a tyrant. Soldiers continued to surround the church, and Ambrose remained there singing psalms with the faithful. The next day the soldiers were withdrawn, and the merchants who had been imprisoned were released. The struggle was over; but Ambrose heard that the emperor had said bitterly to the soldiers, |If Ambrose orders you, you will give me up in chains.| He records another saying, which drew from him a retort of characteristic felicity. The court chamberlain sent him a message: |Whilst I am alive, shall you despise Valentinian? I will take off your head.| Ambrose answered: |May God grant you to fulfil what you threaten; for then my fate will be that of a bishop, your act will be that of a eunuch.|

In the course of the following year the attempts of the 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. [[16]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.32).But Ambrose unhappily prevailed upon Theodosius to abandon a course which his stricter sense of his duty as a ruler had prompted him to take. In some obscure place in the East the Christians had been guilty of outrages, from which it had often been their lot to suffer. With the support of their bishop, they had demolished a Jewish synagogue and a meeting-house of certain Gnostic heretics. Theodosius, hearing of this violence, had ordered that the bishop should rebuild the synagogue at his own expense, and that the rioters, who were chiefly monks, should be punished at the discretion of the local governor. This order naturally affronted the party spirit of the Christians. Ambrose could not bear that his fellow-believers should be thus humiliated. He wrote a letter to the emperor (who was at Milan, Ambrose being for the moment at Aquileia), entreating him most earnestly to revoke the order. With much that Ambrose says we can sympathize; but he lays down a principle fruitful in disastrous issues: Cedat oportet censura (the functions of the civil ruler) devotioni (Ep. xl.11). Shortly after, he had the opportunity of preaching before the emperor at Milan. In a letter to his sister he gives the sermon at length, with its conclusion, addressed directly to the emperor, and begging of him the pardon of those who had been caught in a sin. When he came down from the pulpit, Theodosius said to him, De nobis proposuisti. |Only with a view to your advantage,| replied Ambrose. |In truth,| continued the emperor, |the order that the bishop should rebuild the synagogue was too hard. But that is amended. The monks commit many crimes.| Then he remained silent for a while. At last Ambrose said, |Enable me to offer the sacrifice for thee with a clear conscience.| The emperor sat down and nodded, but Ambrose would not be satisfied without extracting a solemn engagement that no further proceedings should be taken in the matter. After this he went up to the altar; |but I should not have gone,| adds Ambrose, |unless he had given me his full promise| (Ep. xli.28).

About two years later (A.D.390) the 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, Ep. lvii.4) gave him great power over a religious and magnanimous mind like that of Theodosius. Ambrose now wrote him a letter (Ep. li.), which Gibbon most unjustly calls |a miserable rhapsody on a noble subject,| but which most readers will feel to be worthy of its high purpose. With many protestations of respect and sympathy Ambrose urges his Emperor to a genuine repentance for the dreadful deed to which in an access of passion he had given his sanction. He intimates that he could not celebrate the Eucharist in the presence of one so stained with blood. Gibbon represents the behaviour of Ambrose as marked by a prelatical pomposity, of which there is no trace whatever in the only documents on which we can rely. In his own letter the bishop is most considerate and tender, though evidently resolute. He and Paulinus record simply that the emperor performed public penance, stripping himself of his royal insignia, and praying for pardon with groans and tears; and that he never passed a day afterwards without grieving for his error (Paulinus, 24; Amb. de Ob. Theod.34.).

In the course of the following year (391), Theodosius having returned to the East, the weak authority of Valentinian II. was 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 to live. The time was filled with busy labours of exposition, correspondence, and episcopal government; and, according to Paulinus, with various prodigies. Unhappily this biographer spoils with his childish miracles what is still a touching account of the good bishop's death. It became known that his strength was failing, and the count Stilicho, saying that the death of such a man threatened death to Italy itself, induced a number of the chief men of the city to go to him, and entreat him to pray to God that his life might be spared. Ambrose replied, |I have not so lived amongst you, that I should be ashamed to live; and I do not fear to die, because we have a good Lord.| For some hours before his death he lay with his hands crossed, praying; as Paulinus could see by the movement of his lips, though he heard no voice. When the last moment was at hand, Honoratus, the bp. of Vercellae, who was lying down in another room, thought he heard himself thrice called, and came to Ambrose, and offered him the Body of the Lord; immediately after receiving which he breathed his last breath -- a man, Paulinus says well, who for the fear of God had never feared to speak the truth to kings or any powers. He died on Good Friday night, 397, and was buried in the Ambrosian Basilica, in the presence of a multitude of every rank and age, including even Jews and pagans.

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 sacredos fuit Ecclesiae Romanae| (de Sacramentis, III. §§ 5, 6).

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 Ps. cxviii., Expositio Evang. secundum Lucam (10).

(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. [[17]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 (Amon), St 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| (teleioi) 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 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 paroes (Niceph. Hist. xi.37), in consequence of having cut off one of his ears to escape being made a bishop (Pall. Hist. Laus.12). In his youth he accompanied St. Athanasius to Rome (Socr. Hist. iv.23; Pall.12). He was a learned man, and could repeat, it is said, the O. and N. T. by heart, as well as passages from Origen and other Fathers (Pall.12). He was banished to Diocaesarea in the persecution under Valens (ib.117). After being for some time high in favour with Theophilus of Alexandria, he and his brothers were accused by him of Origenism. Sozomen (viii.12) and Nicephorus (xiii.10) ascribe the accusation to personal animosity on the part of Theophilus. Socrates (vi.7) explains the accusation as an attempt to divert from himself the odium which he had incurred as an Origenist. Jerome considers the accusation merited (Ep. ad Alex.). Driven from Egypt, the brothers took refuge first in Palestine (Niceph. xiii.11) and afterwards at Constantinople, where they were well received by Chrysostom (viii.13). There they were protected also by the favour of the Empress Eudoxia (Soz. viii.13), and even satisfied Epiphanius of Salamis, who came to Constantinople at the instigation of Theophilus to convict them of heresy (viii.15). At the synod |ad Quercum,| held on the arrival of Theophilus, they were persuaded to submit to him, Ammonius being ill at the time. He died shortly afterwards. Perhaps this Ammonius is the author of the Institutiones Asceticae, of which 22 chapters are extant (Lambec. Biblioth. Vindob. iv.155).


Ammonius Saccas Ammonius Saccas. Next to nothing is known of this philosopher. That he obtained his name of Saccas (= sakkophoros) 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!| (touton ezetoun), 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, archbishop of Iconium 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| he has |sent Amphilochius to God| (Op. ii. p.1068). And now his closer friendship with Basil and Gregory begins. Ozizala was situated not far from Nazianzus, for Gregory's correspondence implies that they were near neighbours. A letter of Basil, apparently belonging to this period, is in the name of one Heraclidas, who, like Amphilochius, had renounced the profession of the bar and devoted himself to a religious life. Heraclidas, lodged in a large hospital (ptochotropheion) recently erected by Basil near Caesarea, and enjoying the constant instructions of the bishop, urges Amphilochius to obtain leave from his father to visit Caesarea and profit by the teaching and example of the same instructor (Ep.150). This letter was written in the year 372 or 373 (see Garnier's Basil. Op. iii. p. cxxxiv.). The invitation to Caesarea appears to have been promptly accepted, and was fraught with immediate consequences. It does not appear that at that time Amphilochius was even ordained; yet at the very beginning of the year 374 we find him occupying the important see of Iconium. Amphilochius can hardly have been then more than about 35 years of age. A few months before Faustinus, bp. of Iconium, had died, and the Iconians applied to the bp. of Caesarea to recommend them a successor (Basil. Ep.138). It is impossible not to connect this application to Basil with the ultimate appointment of Amphilochius.

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 (muriakis graphon), 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). Obtaining an audience of Theodosius, he saluted the emperor himself with the usual marks of respect, but paid no attention to his son Arcadius, who had recently (neosti) been created Augustus and was present at the interview. Theodosius, indignant at this slight, demanded an explanation. |Sire,| said the bishop, |any disrespect shewn to your son arouses your displeasure. Be assured, therefore, that the Lord of the universe abhorreth those who are ungrateful towards His Son, their Saviour and Benefactor.| The emperor, adds Theodoret, immediately issued an edict prohibiting the meetings of the heretics. As Arcadius was created Augustus in the beginning of the year 383 (Clinton, Fast. Rom. i. p.504), and as Theodosius issued his edict against the Eunomians, Arians, Macedonians, and Apollinarians in Sept. of that year (ib. p.507), the date is accurately ascertained (see Tillem. Mém. eccl. vi. pp.627 seq., 802). In 383 also we find Amphilochius taking energetic measures against heretics of a different stamp. He presided over a synod of 25 bishops assembled at Sida in Pamphylia, in which the Messalians were condemned, and his energy seems to have instigated the religious crusade which led to the extirpation of this heresy (Photius, Bibl.52; Theod. E. H. iv.10; cf. Labb. Conc. ii.1209, ed. Coleti).

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 the doxology. It is entitled Amphigochio Basileios in one MS., but was certainly not written by Basil, who indeed is mentioned in it.

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, bp. of Sida 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 Anastasia. [[18]Chrysogonus.]

Anastasius, a presbyter of Antioch 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 theotokos. 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). [[19]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 Anastasius I., bp. of Rome, was consecrated A.D.398 (|Honorio IV. et Eutychiano coss.| Prosp. Aq. Chron.), and died in April, 402 (Anast. Bibl. vol. i. p.62). According to Anastasius Bibliothecarius, he put an end to an unseemly strife between the priests and deacons of his church, by enacting that priests as well as deacons should stand bowed (|curvi starent|) at the reading of the Gospels. Jerome calls him a |vir insignis,| taken from the evil to come, i.e. dying before the sack of Rome by Goths, A.D.410. One letter by Anastasius is extant. Rufinus wrote to him shortly after his consecration (not later than A.D.400, Constant. Epp. Pont. Rom. p.714) to defend himself against the charge of complicity in the heresy ascribed to Origen. Anastasius replied (see Constant. l.c.) in a tone which, dealing leniently with Rufinus, explicitly condemned Origen. Nine other letters are referred to: -- (1-5) To Paulinus, bp. of Nola (Paul. Nol. Ep.20). (6) To Anysius, bp. of Thessalonica, giving him jurisdiction over Illyria; referred to by Innocent I., in his first letter (Constant.). (7) To Johannes, bp. of Jerusalem. (8) To African bishops who had sent him an embassy to complain of the low state of their clergy. (9) Contra Rufinum, an epistle sent ad Orientem (Hieron. Apol. lib.3).

[G. H. M.].

Anastasius II, bp. of Rome 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).

[G. H. M.].

Anastasius Sinaita Anastasius Sinaita (Anastasios Sinaites). 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 Constantiople 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 under suspicion of Eutychianism (Leo, Epp. ad. Theod.33 ad Pulch.35), he publicly condemned the heresies both of Eutyches and Nestorius, signing the letters of Cyril against Nestorius and of Leo against Eutyches (Leo, Epp.40, 41, 48). In conjunction with Leo of Rome, according to Zonaras (Ann. iii.), he requested the emperor Marcian to summon a general council against Dioscorus and the Eutychians; but the imperial letter directing Anatolius to make preparations for the council at Chalcedon speaks only of Leo (Labbe, Conc. Max. Tom. iv.). In this council Anatolius presided in conjunction with the Roman legates (Labbe, Conc. Max. iv.; Evagr. H. E. ii.4, 18; Niceph. H. E. xv.18). By the famous 28th canon, passed at the conclusion of the council, equal dignity was ascribed to Constantinople with Rome (Labbe, iv.796; Evagr. ii.18). Hence arose the controversy between Anatolius and the Roman pontiff. Leo complained to Marcian (Ep.54) and to Pulcheria (Ep.55) that Anatolius had outstepped his jurisdiction, by consecrating Maximus to the see of Antioch; and he remonstrated with Anatolius (Ep.53). After the council of Chalcedon some Egyptian bishops wrote to Anatolius, earnestly asking his assistance against Timotheus, who was usurping the episcopal throne at Alexandria (Labbe, Conc. Max. iv. iii.23, p.897). Anatolius wrote strongly to the emperor Leo against Timotheus (Labbe, iii.26, p.905). The circular of the emperor requesting the advice of Anatolius on the turbulent state of Alexandria is given by Evagrius (H. E. ii.9), and by Nicephorus (H. E. xv.18). The crowning of Leo on his accession by Anatolius is said (Gibbon, iii.313) to be the first instance of the kind on record (Theoph. Chron.95 Par.).

[I. G. S.].

Anatolius, bp. of Laodicea in Syria Prima 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).

[E. V.].

Ancyra, Seven Martyrs of 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

[G. T. S.].

Andreas of Caesarea Andreas of Caesarea. [[20]Arethas.]

Andreas Samosatensis of Samosata 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 ho drakon. 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, 796, 797). This was before he had see Cyril's letter. On perusing Cyril's own statement his opinions changed. What Cyril had written was orthodox. No prejudice against him ought to prevent his acknowledging it. The peace of the church was superior to all private feelings. His alteration of sentiments exasperated Alexander, who refused to see or speak to his former friend (ib.810, 811). Andreas deeply felt this alienation of one he so much venerated, but it could not lead him to retrace his steps. He used his utmost endeavours in vain to persuade Alexander to attend the council at Zeugma, which acknowledged the orthodoxy of Cyril's letter (ib.805).

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.

[E. V.]

Anicetus, bp. of Rome 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.

[G. H. M.].

Anomoeans Anomoeans (from anomoios, dissimilar), one of the appellations of the radical Arians who, in opposition to the Athanasian or Nicene doctrine of the consubstantiality (homoousia) and the semi-Arian view of the likeness (homoiousia) of the Son to the Father, taught that the Son was dissimilar, and of a different substance (heteroousios). [[21]Arianism.]

[P. S.].

Anonomastus Anonomastus (Iren.56: cf 54). [[22]Valentinus; Epiphanes.]


Anthimus, bp. of Tyana 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. [[24]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, ton homopsuchon hemon). 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 Anthropolatrae (Anthropolatrai), 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 |sarkolatres.|

[A. W. H.].

Anthropomorphitae Anthropomorphitae (Anthropomorphism), (anthropos, man, and morphe, 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 anthropos and pathos, 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 former. All forms of idolatry, especially those of Greece and Rome, are essentially anthropomorphic and anthropopathic. The classical divinities are in character simply deified men and women. The Christian, Jewish, and Mohammedan religions teach that God is a Spirit, and thus elevate him above the reach of materialistic and sensual conceptions and representations. But within the Christian church anthropomorphism appeared from time to time as an isolated opinion or as the tenet of a party. Tertullian is often charged with it, because he ascribed to God a body (Adv. Prax. c.7: |Quis enim negabit, Deum corpus esse, etsi Deus Spiritus est? Spiritus enim corpus sui generis in effigie|). But he probably identified corporeality with substantiality, and hence he maintained that everything real had a body of some kind (de Carne Chr. c.11: |Omne quod est, corpus est sui generis, nihil est incorporale, nisi quod non est|). The pseudo-Clementine Homilies (xvii.2 seq.) teach that God, in order to be an object of love, must be the highest beauty, and consequently have a body, since there is no beauty without form; nor could we pray to a God Who was mere spirit. (Cf. Baur, Vorlesungen über die Dogmengeschichte, vol. i. p.412.) In the middle of the 4th cent. Audius, or Audaeus, of Syria, a bold censor of the luxury and vices of the clergy, and an irregularly consecrated bishop, founded a strictly ascetic sect, which were called Audians or Anthropomorphites, and maintained themselves, in spite of repeated persecution, till the close of the 5th cent. He started from a literal interpretation of Gen. i.28, and reasoned from the nature of man to the nature of God, Whose image he was (Epiphanius, Haer.70; Theod. H. E. iv.9; Walch, Ketzerhistorie, iii.300). During the Origenistic controversies towards the end of the 4th cent., anthropomorphism was held independently by many Egyptian monks in the Scetic desert, who, with Pachomius at their head, were the most violent opponents of the spiritualistic theology of Origen, and were likewise called Anthropomorphites; they felt the need of material conceptions in their prayers and ascetic exercises. Theophilus of Alexandria, formerly an admirer of Origen, became his bitter opponent, and expelled the Origenists from Egypt, but nevertheless he rejected the Anthropomorphism of the anti-Origenistic monks (Ep. Pastr. for 399). In the present century Anthropomorphism has been revived by the Mormons, who conceive God as an intelligent material being, with body, members, and passions, and unable to occupy two distinct places at once.


Antidikomarianitae Antidikomarianitae (Antidikomarianitai = 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 Kolluridianides) 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 (kollurides) 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, bp. of Ptolemais 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 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.

[J. B -- Y.]

Antoninus, Pius, emperor 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 more memorable proof of his tolerance is found, if the document be genuine, in the decree addressed to the general assembly of the proconsular province of Asia, at a time when the Christian church was exposed to outrages of all kinds (pros to koinon tes Asias). It speaks in admiring terms of the innocence of the Christians, declares the charges against them to be unproved, bids men admire the steadfastness and faith with which they met the earthquakes and other calamities that drove others to despair, ascribes the persecution to the jealousy which men felt against those who were truer worshippers of God than themselves. Unfortunately, however, the weight of both textual and internal evidence preponderates against the genuineness of the edict as it stands, but some modern authorities are disposed to regard it as an interpolated form of a real edict of similar character. See, e.g., Renan, L'Eglise Chrétienne, p.302. In any case it is natural to connect the more lenient policy, which there is no doubt that Antoninus adopted, with the memorable Apologia which Justin addressed to him. Confining ourselves to its bearing on the character of the emperor, we note (1) that there had been at least the threat of persecution even unto death (c.68); (2) that it is written throughout in a tone of manifest respect as to men not unworthy of the epithets that were attached to their names (|Pius| to Antoninus, |philosopher| to Verissimus and Lucius); (3) that the mere fact of the dedication and, apparently, presentation of such an address implies a tolerance which had not been often found in preceding emperors; (4) that even the forged document, if it be such, shews a certain verisimilitude in the ascription of such a document to him. See Champagny, Les Antonines (Paris), and Aubé, Hist. des Persécut. (Paris, 1875), pp.297-341.


Antonius 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 (monasteria) 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 he lived to an unusual age, robust, and in full possession of his faculties to the last. He was not morose to others; only to heretics was he austere and repulsive, refusing to hold any intercourse with them even for a moment. He was careful always, though so universally revered, not to arrogate to himself priestly functions, shewing, even in his old age, a marked and studious deference even to the youngest deacons.

Anthony was evidently a man, not merely of strong determination, but of ability, and the discourses, if indeed they are his, which his disciples record as 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) 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, a sect of Monophysites Aphthartodocetae (from aphthartos, incorruptible, and dokeo, 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 Halicarnassus, and his contemporary Xenajas of Hierapolis. They argued, from the commingling (sunchusis) of the two natures of Christ, that the body of our Lord, from the very beginning, became partaker of the incorruptibility of the Logos, and was subject to corruptibility merely kat' oikonomian. They appealed in proof especially to Christ's walking on the sea during His earthly life. Their opponents among the Monophysites, the Severians (from Severus, patriarch of Antioch), maintained that the body of Christ before the Resurrection was corruptible, and were hence called Phthartolatrae (Phthartolatrai, from phthartos and latreia), or Corrupticolae, i.e. Worshippers of the Corruptible. Both parties admitted the incorruptibility of Christ's body after the Resurrection. The word phthora was generally taken in the sense of corruptibility, but sometimes in the sense of mere frailty. This whole question is rather one of scholastic subtlety, though not wholly idle, and may be solved in this way: that the body of Christ, before the Resurrection, was similar in its constitution to the body of Adam before the Fall, containing the germ or possibility of immortality and incorruptibility, but subject to the influence of the elements, and was actually put to death by external violence, but through the indwelling power of the sinless Spirit was preserved from corruption and raised again to an imperishable life, when -- to use an ingenious distinction of St. Augustine -- the immortalitas minor became immortalitas major, or the posse non mori a non posse mori.

The Aphthartodocetae were subdivided into Ktistolatrae, or, from their founder, Gajanitae, who taught that the body of Christ was created (ktiston), 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 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, panu Ioudaious di apechtheias exonta, v.27, 29, ho alogos mison to Ioudaion k.t.l.; 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 (Aiguptiaka), and in a separate treatise Against the Jews (kata Ioudaion biblos, 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 Apolinaris, or Apolinarius Claudius. Apolinarios: 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 pros Hellenas, written according to Nicephorus in the form of a dialogue. (3) Two books peri aletheias. (4) Two books pros Ioudaious: 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. The situation of his see sufficiently accounts for the prominent part taken by Apolinaris in this controversy. We are told indeed by an anonymous writer who probably wrote at the end of the 9th cent. (Auctor, Libelli Synodici apud Labbe et Cossart, i.599) that Apolinaris on this occasion assembled twenty-six other bishops in council, and excommunicated Montanus and Maximilla, as well as the shoemaker Theodotus. Besides the works mentioned by Eusebius, who does not give his list as a complete one, Theodoret (Haer. Fab. ii.21) mentions (6) that Apolinaris wrote against the Encratites of the school of Severus (pros tous Seouerianous Enkratitas). (7) Photius (Cod.14) mentions having read Apolinaris's work pros Ellenas kai peri aletheias kai peri eusebeias. (8) In the preface to the Alexandrian Chronicle a work peri tou pascha is attributed to Apolinaris, from which two extracts are furnished which have given rise to much controversy; the main point being whether (if the fragments are genuine) Apolinaris wrote on the side of the practice of the Roman church, or on that of the Quartodecimans of Asia Minor. In support of the former view is urged the similarity of the language of these fragments with that of Clement of Alexandria and of Hippolytus, who advocated the Western practice; and also the fact that Apolinaris is not claimed as a Quartodeciman by Polycrates, bp. of Ephesus, in his letter to Victor of Rome. On the other side it is urged that Apolinaris speaks of his antagonists as |some who raise contention through ignorance,| language which would rather convey the impression that Apolinaris was writing against the opinions of some small sect than that he was combating the belief of the whole church of Asia Minor to which he belonged; and it is further urged that if Apolinaris had been the first to defend in the East the practice which ultimately prevailed, it is incredible that neither Eusebius nor any early writer mentions this early champion of the Catholic practice. Socrates the historian (H. E. iii.7) names Apolinaris, together with Irenaeus, Clement, and Serapion, as holding the doctrine that our Lord when He became man had a human soul (empsuchon ton enanthropesanta).

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 (Klaudiou Apolinariou tou makariotatou genomenou en Ierapolei tes Asias episkopou).


Apollinarianism, Apollinarians, Apollinarists Apollinarianism, Apollinarians, Apollinarists. [[38]Apollinaris the Younger.]

Apollinaris, St. and Mart 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 the Elder, of Alexandria 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. [[39]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 his literary labours. When the edict of Julian, A.D.362, forbade the Christians to read Greek literature, he undertook with the aid of his son to supply the void by reconstructing the Scriptures on the classical models. Thus the whole Biblical history down to Saul's accession was turned into 24 books of Homeric hexameters, each superscribed, like those of the Iliad, by a letter of the alphabet. Lyrics, tragedies, and comedies, after the manner of Pindar, Euripides, and Menander, followed. Even the Gospels and Epistles were adapted to the form of Socratic disputation. Two works alone remain as samples of their indomitable zeal: a tragedy entitled Christus Patiens, in 2601 lines, which has been edited among the works of Gregory Nazianzen; and a version of the Psalms, in Homeric hexameters. The most that can be said of this Psalter is that it is better than the tragedy, and that as a whole it fully bears out the reputation of the poet (Basil. Ep.273, 406) that he was never at a loss for an expression. Socrates, who is more trustworthy than Sozomen (v.18), ascribes the O.T. poems to the father (iii.16), and adds that the son as the greater rhetorician devoted his energies to converting the Gospels and Epistles into Platonic dialogues. He likewise mentions a treatise on grammar compiled by the elder Apollinaris, christianiko tupo. For different opinions as to the authorship of father and son, cf. Vossius, de Hist. Graec. ii.18; de Poet. Graec. c.9; Duport, Praef. ad Metaph. Psalm. (Lond.1674).

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 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 (soma, psuche, pneuma), for which he quoted I. Thess. v.23 and Gal. v.17, he attributed to Christ a human body (soma) and a human soul (the psuche alogos, the anima animans which man has in common with the animal), but not a rational spirit (nous, pneuma, psuche logike, anima rationalis), and put in the place of the latter the divine Logos. In opposition to the idea of a mere connexion of the Logos with the man Jesus, he wished to secure an organic unity of the two, and so a true incarnation; but he sought this at the expense of the most important constituent of man. He reached only a theos sarkophoros, as Nestorianism only an anthropos theophoros, instead of the proper theanthropos. He appealed to the fact that the Scripture says, |the Word was made flesh| -- not spirit; |God was manifest in the flesh,| etc. To which Gregory Nazianzen justly replied that in these passages the term sarx was used by synecdoche for the whole human nature. In this way Apollinaris established so close a connexion of the Logos with human flesh, that all the divine attributes were transferred to the human nature, and all the human attributes to the divine, and the two merged in one nature in Christ. Hence he could speak of a crucifixion of the Logos, and a worship of His flesh. He made Christ a middle being between God and man, in Whom, as it were, one part divine and two parts human were fused in the unity of a new nature. He even ventured to adduce created analogies of mixtures in nature. Christ, said he, is oute anthropos holos, oute theos, alla theou kai anthropou mixis. On the other hand, he regarded the orthodox view of a union of full humanity with a full divinity in one person -- of two wholes in one whole -- as an absurdity, in a similar category with the mythological figure of the Minotaur. But the Apollinarian idea of the union of the Logos with a truncated human nature might be itself more justly compared with this monster. Starting from the Nicene homoousion as to the Logos, but denying the completeness of Christ's humanity, he met Arianism half-way, which likewise put the divine Logos in the place of the human spirit in Christ. But he strongly asserted Christ's unchangeableness, while Arians taught His changeableness (treptotes).

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 ensarkosis is enanthropesis. To be a full and complete Redeemer, Christ must be a perfect man (teleios anthropos). The spirit or rational soul is the most important element in man, the seat of intelligence and freedom, and needs redemption as well as the soul and the body; for sin has corrupted all the faculties.

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, peri sarkoseos, peri pisteos, peri anastaseos, kata kephaleion 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. (Rom.1854) pt. ii. pp.82-91. Against Apollinaris are directed Athanasius's Contra Apollinarium, or rather peri sarkoseos tou Kuriou hemon I. Ch. (Opera, ed. Bened. tom. i. pt. ii. pp.921-955), written about 372 without naming Apollinaris; Gregory of Nyssa, Logos, antirrhetikos pros ta Apollinariou, first edited by Zaccagni, Rom.1698, and then by Gallandi, Bibl. Vet. Patr. vi.517-577; Basilius M., Ep.265 (Opera, ed. Ben. t. iii. pt. ii.591 sqq.); Epiph. Haer. lxxvii.; Theod. Fabulae Haer. iv.8, v.9. Of the later literature, cf. especially Petavius, de Incarnatione Verbi, i. c.6; Dorner, History of Christology, i.974-1080; Neander, History, i.334-338; Schaff, History of the Christian Church, iii.708-714; Harnack, Dogmengesch. (1909), ii.324-334; Thomasius, Dogmengesch. (1889), 314 f.; Schwane, Dogmengesch. (1895), 277-283; G. Voisin, L'Apollinarisme (Paris, 1901).


Apollonius, M Apollonius, M. [[40]Commodus.]

Apollonius of Ephesus 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 aner ellogimotatos, the author of a mega kai episemon teuchos, 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 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, Voltaire and Lord Herbert had an equal disbelief in both. Naturally, none of these writers held that Philostratus wrote in direct imitation of the Gospels, as it would have marred their point to do so. But equally naturally the orthodox writers, beginning with Huet, bp. of Avranches, and coming down through Paley to our own day, have considered Philostratus a direct though concealed antagonist of Christianity. This view has been opposed in Germany by Meiners, Neander, Buhle, and Jacobs, and in England by Watson (Contemp. Rev. Feb.1867). Baur took an intermediate view in his Apollonius von Tyana und Christus, Tübingen, 1832), which in its main outline will we think commend itself as by far the most probable account. According to this view Philostratus wrote with no strictly polemical reference to Christianity, but, in the eclectic spirit of his time, strove to accommodate Christianity to the heathen religion. We are disposed to believe, without attributing to Philostratus any formal design of opposing or assimilating Christianity, that he was strongly influenced by its ideas and history.

The central aim of his biography is to set forth, not merely wise precepts in the abstract, but an example of supreme wisdom for humanity to imitate. It is not 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 Apostolic Fathers. Definition of the Term. -- The adjective Apostolicus (apostolikos) 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 (Rom. xvi.14; see Origen ad loc. Op. iv.683); but a more authentic tradition ascribes it to the brother of Pius, who was bp. of Rome a little before the middle of 2nd cent. (Canon. Murat. p.58, ed. Tregelles; see pseudo-Tertull. Poem. adv. Marc. iii.294, in Tertull. Op. ii.792, ed. Oehler). Thus again the claim of Papias to be considered an Apostolic Father rests on the supposition that he was a disciple of St. John the Evangelist, as Irenaeus apparently imagines (Haer. v.33, § 4); but Eusebius says that Irenaeus was mistaken, and that the teacher of Papias was not the Apostle St. John, but the presbyter of the same name (H. E. iii.39). Again, there is some uncertainty about the Epistle to Diognetus. Its claim is founded on an expression which occurs in § 11, and which has been interpreted literally as implying that the writer was a personal disciple of one or other of the Apostles. But in the first place the context shews that this literal interpretation is out of place, and the passage must be explained as follows: |I do not make any strange statements nor indulge in unreasonable questionings, but having learnt my lessons from the Apostles (lit. having become a disciple of Apostles), I stand forward as a teacher of the nations|; and secondly, this is no part of the Ep. to Diognetus proper (§§ 1-10), but belongs to a later writing, which has been accidentally attached to the Epistle, owing to the loss of some leaves in the MS. This latter fact is conclusive. If therefore the Epistle has any title to a place among the Apostolic Fathers, it must be established by internal evidence; and though the internal character suggests an early date, perhaps as early as about A.D.117 (see Westcott, Canon, p.79), yet there is no hint of any historical connexion between the writer and the Apostles. Lastly, the so-called Ep. of Barnabas occupies an unique position. If the writer had been the companion of St. Paul who bore that name, then he would more properly be styled, not an |apostolic man,| as he is designated by Clement of Alexandria (Strom. ii.20, p.489, ho apostolikos Barnabas), but an |apostle,| as the same Clement elsewhere styles him (Strom. ii.6, p.445; ii.7, p.447), in accordance with St. Luke's language (Acts xiv.14). But if the writer be not the Apostle Barnabas, then we have no evidence of any personal relations with the Apostles, though such is not impossible, as the Epistle must have been written at some date between the age of Vespasian and that of Nerva. Three names remain, Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp, about which there is no reasonable ground for hesitation.

All the genuine writings of these three Apostolic Fathers 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 within the main stream of Catholic teaching. They are the proper link between the Canonical Scriptures and the church Fathers of the succeeding ages. They recognize all the different elements of the Apostolic teaching, though combining them in different proportions. |They prove that Christianity was Catholic from the very first, uniting a variety of forms in one faith. They shew that the great facts of the Gospel narrative, and the substance of the Apostolic letters, formed the basis and moulded the expression of the common creed| (Westcott, Canon, p.55).

But when we turn to the other writings for which a place among the Apostolic Fathers has been claimed, the case is different. Though the writers are all apparently within the pale of the church, yet there is a tendency to that one-sided exaggeration -- either in the 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 Matt. xx.16, xxii.14, with the usual formula of Scriptural citation, |As it is written (hos gegraptai).| But (4), on the other hand, they assign a special and preeminent authority to the Apostles which they distinctly disclaim for themselves. This is the case with Clement (§§ 5, 7) and Ignatius (Rom.4), speaking of St. Peter and St. Paul; and with Polycarp (§ 3), speaking of St. Paul -- the only Apostles that are mentioned by name in these writings. (5) Lastly, though the language of the Canonical Gospels is frequently not quoted word for word, yet there is no distinct allusion to any apocryphal narrative.


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 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 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 Aquila (Akulas), 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: proselutos de ho Akulas en ou phusei Ioudaios), 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). From this circumstance he is frequently called |Aquila the proselyte.|

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 Job xxx.1, kai nun egelasan ep' emoi braxeis par eme tais hemeras, Ps. xlix.21, hupelabes esomenos esomai homoios soi Ps. cxlix.6, kai machaira stomaton en chersin auton). He carefully endeavoured even to reproduce Hebrew etymologies in Greek, and for that purpose freely coined new forms (as in Ps. xxi.13, dunastaiBasan diedema tisanto me, Ps. cxviii.10, me agnonmatises me). Origen accordingly characterizes him as douleuon te Ebraike lexei (Ep. ad Afric.), and the fragments of the version which have been preserved amply bear out the truth of the description. But the excessively literal character of the work, while impairing its value as a translation for those who were not Jews, renders it all the more valuable as a witness to the state of the Hebrew text from which it was made. (As to the nature and value of the version, see Smith's D. B. iii.1622.)

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 , xvi-xxvii). The chief questions connected with Aquila are discussed by Montfaucon, and by Hody (de Bibliorum Textibus Originalibus, Oxf.1705).


Archelaus, supposed bishop of Carchar 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 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 Ermeneia eis ten Apokalupsin) 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 (par hon hemeis pollas labontes aphormas . . . kathos en tisi topois chreseis touton parethemetha). 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| (anaptuxai ten . . . Apokalupsin, kai tois meta ten autes optasian chronois epharmosai ta propheteuthenta). His method rests on the distinction of a threefold sense in Scripture -- the literal or outward historical (to gramma kai he kat' aisthesin historia), the tropological or moral (he tropologia ex aistheton epi ta noeta hodegousa ton anaginoskonta), and the mystical or speculative (he ton mellonton kai hupseloteron anagoge kai theoria); the expositor of the Revelation is chiefly concerned with the latter. He divided the text into twenty-four logoi corresponding to the four-and-twenty elders, and 72 kephalaia, 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 work of Andreas, by directing fresh attention to the book, contributed in no small degree to its more frequent use and transcription. An interesting passage in the Preface, where the writer mentions Papias among the other Fathers whose testimony to the inspiration of the book rendered it superfluous to enlarge on that point, has been much discussed.

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 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 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 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 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 the Messianic prophecies are fulfilled in our Lord that his opponent, the Jew Papiscus, begs to be baptized.

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, the heresiarch Arius (Areios) 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 homoousios 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 homoousios 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 ousia (essence); (2) that the Son was a created being (ktisma or poiema); and (3) that though He was the creator of the worlds, and must therefore have existed before them and before all time, there was -- Arius refused to use such terms as chronos or aion -- when He did not exist. The subsequent controversy shows that the absence of the words chronos or aion was a mere evasion, and that when defending himself he argued in just the same manner as though he had used those words. Moreover, he asserted that the Logos had an arche (beginning); yet not only Athanasius, but Origen before him, had taught that the relation of the Son to the Father had no beginning, and that, to use Dorner's words (Person of Christ, ii.115), |the generation of the Son is an eternally completed, and yet an eternally continued, act|; i.e. the Father has, from all eternity, been communicating His Being to the Son, and is doing so still.

Arius was obviously perplexed by this 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, aeigennes estin; agennetogenes estin. 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 (atreptos). 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 [[45]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 deuteros (or deutereuon) theos. 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. [[47]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, a town of some importance, on the Sea of Marmora, near Constantinople. The number of bishops present is variously stated at from 250 to 318. But the latter number, as typified by the number of Abraham's servants when he rescued Lot, was generally accepted before the council of Constantinople. No Acts of the council are extant. In the writings of two men of note who were present, Athanasius, then a young deacon of about 28 years old, and the already celebrated and learned Eusebius of Caesarea, we have accounts of what happened. Moreover, well-informed and honest, if sometimes more or less inaccurate, historians have studied and handed down documents of great value, bearing on the proceedings. Constantine himself was present at the council. At first he refused to take part in its deliberations, or even to take a seat until invited. But he afterwards departed from that humble attitude, if some of our authorities are to be trusted, and when he found difficulties arising, did his best to remove them by joining in the discussions. At the outset he administered a well-merited rebuke to the bishops for the spirit in which many of them had come to the council. Producing a number of recriminatory letters from those who were present, he called for a brazier, and burnt them all before the assembly, begging the bishops to lay aside their personal animosities, and to devote themselves whole-heartedly to setting forth the truth. The question next arose, in what form the universal belief of the church from the beginning should be expressed. This, of course, was the crux of the whole situation. Hitherto particular churches had their own forms of creed (pistis) for use at baptisms and in catechetical instruction. There was no substantial difference between them, consisting as they did of a confession of faith in the Trinity, as well as a summary of the main facts recorded in the gospels. But now a dogmatic formula for Christendom had to be drawn up, a task full of difficulty and even of danger. Some few of the bishops, we learn, apparently under the leadership of Eusebius of Nicomedia, presented a document so frankly Arian that it was at once torn to pieces by those present, and Arius was excommunicated by all but Theonas and Secundus. Then, as it seems, the famous scholar and ecclesiastical historian Eusebius of Caesarea intervened, and produced a Palestinian Creed, which he said he had received from |the bishops before him.| He adds that |no one present could gainsay| the orthodoxy of this creed. This statement must, however, be taken with some limitations. The Palestinian Creed could only, if accepted, have been accepted as a basis for discussion. It was not ultimately adopted in the shape in which it was propounded, but underwent considerable alteration. The sentence gennethenta ek tou Patros monogene was made definitely toutestin ek tes ousias tou Patros. Further on, the words homoousion to Patri were added after the words |begotten, not made.| And the word enanthropesanta, which means rather more than |made man,| and implies an intimate association of the Godhead with the Manhood, was added after |was Incarnate| (i.e. made flesh -- sarkothenta -- a phrase which was felt to be insufficient and even misleading by itself). The anathema which was also added embraces those who deny that the Son and the Father were of one ousia or hupostasis, as well as those who say that there was a time when the Son did not exist, or that He was created from nothing, or that He was liable to change or alteration. At this stage of the controversy the words ousia (essence) and hupostasis (substance) were used as synonymous. It will be seen [art. Arius, Followers of] that Basil and the Gregories afterwards wrung from Athanasius a concession on this point. Athanasius had warmly attacked Arius for asserting that there were three hypostases in the Trinity. But at the later date it was agreed that the word ousia might be used to denote what was common to all three Persons, and hupostasis to denote the distinctions (which we call Persons) between them. For the present, however, any distinction between ousia and hupostasis was considered heretical. The council then broke up, after having addressed a letter to the churches in and around Alexandria. Constantine issued a circular letter to the same effect. Arius, Theonas, and Secundus were deposed and banished, while three other bishops, who had displayed leanings toward Arius, namely Eusebius of Nicomedia, Theognis of Nicaea itself, and Maris of Chalcedon, a city on the Asiatic shore opposite Constantinople, were unwilling signatories of the document, but affixed their signatures in deference to the emperor's wishes. Eusebius of Caesarea describes himself, in a letter to some Arians who had accused him of tergiversation, as having demurred to the changes in the creed which he had himself presented, but as having finally accepted them in the interests of peace (Theod. H. E. i.12, from Athan. de Decret. Syn. Nic.).

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 homoousion was not intended to signify that the Son formed an actual portion (meros) 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 due to this very natural apprehension. But Eusebius emphatically condemned the language of Arius, and there is no reason whatever to suspect his sincerity in so doing. On the other hand, Athanasius was convinced -- and the event proves that he was right -- that unless the Essence of the Son was definitely understood to be the same as that of the Father, it would inevitably follow that the Son would at best be no more than the highest of a series of Gnostic aeons. As to Eusebius of Nicomedia, it is clear that Constantine found some reason to suspect his sincerity, as well as that of Theognis and Maris, for he soon after included them in the sentence pronounced on Arius. Philostorgius says that Secundus and Theonas predicted that this would happen when they themselves had been sentenced to banishment. Possibly expressions fell from them in the heat of argument which led Constantine to the conclusion that their submission was not genuine.

It must be confessed that the Nicene 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 manoeuvre, laid his commands on Athanasius to readmit Arius to communion, Athanasius, naturally, pleaded reasons of conscience against doing so. Then the storm burst forth in all its fulness. The accusations of treason against the emperor and the insinuations that the patriarch wished to set up an empire of his own against or above the supreme authority of the divine Augustus had certainly some effect on the mind of Constantine. Charges were made of sacrilege, tyranny, magic, mutilation, murder, of immorality (as some allege), and, worst of all in the emperor's eyes, of raising funds for treasonable objects. They were 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. [[49]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 on those who had induced him to adopt them. That it was Athanasius who had advocated the measures which had so palpably failed needed no demonstration. So he was exiled to Trier (Trèves), after a number of leading bishops had been assembled at Constantinople to try him, and Alexander of Constantinople was ordered to receive Arius back into church communion. But God had otherwise ordained. Alexander was in dire perplexity. He dared not disobey the command, neither dare he obey it. In his extremity he asked the prayers of the orthodox that either he or Arius might be removed from the world before the latter was admitted to communion. The prayer was, we must admit, a strange one. But even Gibbon records the incident as a fact, though he makes it the occasion for one of his characteristic gibes at Christianity and Christians. Meanwhile, as the historian Socrates tells us, Arius was ordered to appear before the emperor, and asked whether he was willing to sign the Nicene decrees. He replied, without hesitation, that he was ready to do so. Asked whether he would confirm his signature by an oath, he agreed to do this also. This last fact Socrates declares (H. E. i.38) that he had verified by an inspection of the imperial archives. The very day before the one appointed for his readmission to communion, Arius died suddenly, and in a most remarkable manner. Whether his death can be described as a miracle or not may be disputed. It seems preferable to attribute it to natural causes. But that the event was one of the numerous occasions in history when we are compelled to recognize a Divine interposition can hardly be doubted. The extraordinary occurrence made a vast impression throughout Christendom. The heresiarch had only been able to obtain the decree for readmission to communion by a feigned adherence to the Nicene symbol. His position was, therefore, in the eyes of Christendom one of gross and palpable deception -- nothing less than an act of glaring and defiant impiety. Socrates tells us that in his time, a century afterwards, the place where he died was still pointed out. Athanasius himself describes the incident (de Morte Arii). There are therefore few facts in history more fully attested. The tragic death of Arius, followed as it was a year later by that of Constantine himself, led to a temporary lull in the controversy. The sequel will be found in the next article.

Bibliography. -- (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 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 changes of opinion most bewildering. Court intrigue occupies a prominent place in the history. Yet it gradually became clear, as far as the march of opinion was concerned, that the West was irrevocably attached to the views of Athanasius, while in the East opinion was divided and variable, and the court influence grew more decisive on the progress of events in proportion as the power of Constantius increased. The second period was that between the councils of Sardica and Ariminum (Rimini, in Italy) in 359, during which opinion was gradually settling down into three distinct forms, which may be roughly described as the orthodox, the semi-Arian, and the Arian view. The last period, that between 359 and 381, is that during which Homoeanism and Anomoeanism (see below) became gradually discredited, while Homoiousians and orthodox approximated by degrees, until the final victory of the Nicene symbol at Constantinople. The ferment of opinion may be gauged by the fact that the historian Socrates gives no less than ten forms of creed -- eleven if we count that presented at Nicaea by Eusebius of Caesarea -- which were produced at various councils in hope of settling the controversy. But the Nicenes remained firmly attached to the creed of Nicaea, while their opponents were divided into three groups -- the Anomoeans, or Arians proper, who taught the unlikeness of the nature of the Son to that of the Father; the Homoeans, who believed the Son's nature to bear only a general resemblance to that of the Father; and the Homoiousians, who believed in the similarity (but not the identity) of the essence of the Son to that of the Father. These last are also called semi-Arians.

The first important step in the history of the controversy after the death of Arius was the return of Athanasius to his diocese (337) permitted by Constantine II., in whose division of the empire Egypt lay. But he was not suffered to remain long 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 homoousion, 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 source of all being. The proceedings at Philippopolis and the outrageous conduct of Stephen, then patriarch of Antioch, gave offence even in the East, and the decision of the Western bishops to hold no communion with their Eastern brethren while the existing state of things lasted produced a reaction. Another council was held at Antioch, and a new and more conciliatory creed, usually called makrostichos from its exceeding length, was substituted for the Lucianic document. As Constans pressed for the restoration of Athanasius, and Constantius had the war with Persia still on hand, the latter gave way, the more readily because Gregory the intruder was now dead (345). Constantius summoned Athanasius to his presence, and after a friendly interview dismissed him, and wrote three letters, one to the bishops and clergy in Egypt, one to the laity, and one to the governors of provinces, explaining that it was his will that Athanasius should be allowed to return in peace to his flock. But when he demanded of Athanasius that he should allow the use of one church to the Arians in Alexandria, the latter preferred a request in his turn that the same thing should be done in cities where the Arians were in possession -- a request which Constantius did not deem it prudent to grant. Athanasius therefore, unfettered by conditions, returned (346) to Alexandria, and the people, wearied of Arian violence and cruelty, received him with the warmest demonstrations of joy.

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 (homoiousios) 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 (prosopa), and the use of the words ousia and hupostasis, 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 (homoiousion) 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 homoousion, 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 its pompous opening, and for its assumption that the Catholic faith had, at the date given, been proclaimed for the first time. It is clear, he adds, from their own confession, that theirs is a new faith, not the old one.

We now enter upon the last stage of the controversy. It is marked by the first attempt to make a distinction between ousia and hupostasis -- 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 ousia was used to indicate the Divine Nature, while hupostasis was henceforth used by the Greeks of the Persons in the Trinity. (It should, however, be observed that substantia remained the Latin equivalent of ousia.) 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 hupostasis in an able minute he issued, criticizing the proceedings at Sirmium, by pointing out that a word was needed -- and it must be neither ousia nor arche -- to denote the underlying and definitely existing (huparchousas) distinctions (idiotetas) of the Persons (prosopon); and he acutely remarks that if ousia was a term not to be found in Scripture, the Godhead was indicated there by the words ho on. 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 homoousion. The Homoeans, under the leadership of Acacius of Caesarea in Cappadocia, condemned the expressions homoousion and homoiousion, but anathematized the expression anomoion. |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 homoiousion. 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 [[54]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 ousia and hupostasis, 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 which, in the East and West, is repeated whenever Christians who profess the Catholic faith meet for communion with one another and their Lord. Arianism had no moral strength with which to resist persecution. But it still lingered among the Goths for some centuries. They were not an educated race, and Ulphilas, who converted them to Christianity, was a missionary rather than a theologian. And so it came to pass in the end that, so far as this vital doctrine of the Christian faith is concerned, |they all escaped safe to land.|

The bibliography of this period is much the same as has been given in art. Arius, only that the Life of 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 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 martyrdoms which followed the edict of Nicomedia appears speedily to have touched him; and a dream or vision (says St. Jerome) warned him to submit to Christ. He presented himself to the church at Sicca; but |they were afraid of him,| and demanded from their late enemy some hostage for sincerity. The result was the composition of the Disputations against the Pagans; whether in their present form or not. He was thereupon baptized, and (according to Trithemius) attained the rank of presbyter. Of his subsequent history we know nothing. Some doubt attaches to the exact date of the conversion of Arnobius and publication of his treatise. On the whole the evidence points to some date between 303 and 313 (Hieron. de Scr. Eccl. c.79; id. in Chronicon Eusebii; Trithemius, de Scr. Eccl. p.10 a).

The title of Arnobius's work usually appears as Disputationes adversus Gentes; 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 I. Cor. iii.19 is quoted verbatim; and even this is introduced as illud vulgatum (ii.6). He records apocryphal miracles as evangelical (i.46, 53); he knows nothing of any promise of temporal happiness (ii.76); he confuses the Pharisees with the Sadducees (iii.12). Of the O.T. he was apparently quite ignorant. In one passage (iii.10) he even seems to speak of it with disrespect; though the passage has been explained of the Rabbinical books. In many places he shews by implication a total ignorance of the national election and the ritual of the Jews (to whom he scarcely alludes at all), and of the Scriptural prophecies and chronology. These phenomena are, of course, in great measure accounted for by the alleged circumstances of the composition of the work. They render more remarkable the faintness of the tinge of Gnosticism in its pages. Obviously the authority of Arnobius on points of Christian doctrine is reduced almost ad nihilum by these indications; and we can hardly wonder that in the 5th cent. his treatise was banished by pope Gelasius to the index of apocryphal works.

Critical opinions on the merits of Arnobius have been very various. St. Jerome's verdict varies between praises of his libri luculentissimi and censure of his defects as inaequalis, nimius, confusus, in style, method, and doctrine. Dr. Woodham (in his edition of Tertullian's Apology, preliminary Essays, ed.1850) protests against the obscurity and neglect which have attended his name; holds that his |peculiar position and character invest his sentiments and reasoning with very singular interest and value|; pronounces him to be in some respects |the keenest of the apologists,| and to be remarkably apposite to the popular arguments of modern times (pp.21, 29, 52, 53).

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 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 Ps. cviii. (cix.) 16, 17, he speaks of the heresy, |quae dicit Deum aliquos praedestinâsse ad benedictionem, alios ad maledictionem.|

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 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. He was consecrated archbishop on June 27, 404. Chrysostom, on hearing of it, denounced him |as a spiritual adulterer, and a wolf in sheep's clothing| (Ep.. cxxv.). The diocese soon made it plain that they regarded the new archbishop as an intruder. The churches once so thronged became empty; with the exception of a few officials, the dependants of the court party, and the expectants of royal favour, the people of Constantinople refused to attend any religious assembly at which he might be expected to be present. Deserting the sacred edifices, they gathered in the outskirts of the city, and in the open air. Arsacius appealed to the emperor Arcadius, by whose orders, or rather those of Eudoxia, soldiers were sent to disperse the suburban assemblies. Those who had taken a leading part in them were apprehended and tortured, and a fierce persecution commenced of the adherents of Chrysostom. [[56]Olympias (2)]. We learn from Sozomen (H. E. viii.23) that Arsacius was not personally responsible for these cruel deeds; but he lacked strength of character to offer any decided opposition to the proceedings of his clergy. They did what they pleased, and Arsacius bore the blame. His position became intolerable. In vain all the bishops and clergy who, embracing Chrysostom's cause, had refused to recognize him were driven out of the East (Nov.18, 404). This only spread the evil more widely. The whole Western episcopate refused to acknowledge him, and pope Innocent, who had warmly espoused Chrysostom's interests, wrote to the clergy and laity of Constantinople strongly condemning the intrusion of Arsacius, and exhorting them to persevere in their adhesion to their true archbishop (Soz. H. E. vi.22, 26). It is no cause for surprise that Arsacius's episcopate was a brief one, and that a feeble character worn out by old age should have soon given way before a storm of opposition so universal. He died Nov.11, 405 (Socr. H. E. vi.19; Soz. H. E. viii.23, 26; Phot. C.59; Pallad. Dial. c. xi.; Chrys. Ep. cxxv.).


Arsenius 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 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 with placing Euclid above Christ, and abandoning the Scriptures for dialectics and mathematics. This indicates a critical or sceptical turn of mind. The views of Artemon were afterwards more fully developed by Paul of Samosata, who is sometimes counted with the Artemonites. The sources of our fragmentary information are Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. v.28; Epiphanius, Haer. lxv.1, 4; Theodoret, Haer. Fab. ii.4; Photius, Biblioth.48. Cf. Schleiermacher's essay on the Sabellian and Athanasian conceptions of the Trinity (Works, vol. ii.), and Dorner's Entwicklungsgeschichte der L. v. d. Person Christi, 2nd ed. i.508 ff.


Asterius, a bishop of Arabia 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. [[57]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, bp. of Amasea 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 ).

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, archbishop of Alexandria 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.| Their power throughout the churches of Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis was, by ancient custom, which the Nicene council afterwards confirmed, almost monarchical, extending over about a hundred bishops, who revered their judgments as the decisions of the see of Rome were revered in Italy. One experience of a different kind, most fruitful in its consequences, was Athanasius's acquaintance with the great hermit Anthony. He tells us, in his Life of Anthony, that he often saw him; and although that reading of the conclusion of the preface, which makes him say that |he himself for some time attended on him, and poured water on his hands,| may be considered doubtful, yet we know that he was afterwards spoken of as |the ascetic,| and that when, years later, he took shelter in the cells of the monks of Egypt, he found himself perfectly at home. He contracted an admiration for monasticism, which will not surprise those who remember that the spiritual intensity of the Christian life had found a most emphatic, though a one-sided expression, in the lives of men who fled, like Anthony, from a society at once tainted and brutalized beyond all modern conception. [[60]Antonius.]

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. [[61]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 into a league with the Meletians of Egypt, of whom a bishop named John Arcaph was the head. |He bought them,| says Athanasius, |by large promises, and arranged that they should help him on any emergency| by that machinery of false accusation which they had already employed against three archbishops. The charges were not to be theological: to attack Athanasius's teaching would be to declare against the Nicene doctrine, and this was a step on which Eusebius could not venture. He began by writing to Athanasius in behalf of Arius, and urging that, as a man whose opinions had been seriously misrepresented, he ought in justice to be received to church communion. Athanasius's answer shews the ground on which he took his stand. |It cannot be right to admit persons to communion who invented a heresy contrary to the truth, and were anathematized by the oecumenical council.| It is probable that (as Fleury thinks, though Tillemont and Neander date it much later) we should refer to this period the visit of Anthony to Alexandria (Vit. Ant.69), when he confounded the Arians' report that he |agreed with them.| This would be a great support to Athanasius. But Eusebius had recourse to Constantine, who thereupon wrote, commanding Athanasius to admit into the church |all who desired it,| on pain of being removed from his see by sheer State power. This gave him an opportunity of laying before Constantine his own views of his duty. |There could be no fellowship,| he wrote, |between the Catholic church of Christ and the heresy that was fighting against Him.| Not long afterwards, in compliance with instructions from Eusebius, three Meletians, Ision, Eudaemon, and Callinicus, appeared before the emperor at Nicomedia with a charge against Athanasius that he had assumed the powers of the government by taxing Egypt to provide linen vestments for the church of Alexandria. But two of Athanasius's priests, happening to be at court, at once refuted this calumny; and Constantine wrote to Athanasius, condemning his accusers, and summoning him to Nicomedia. Eusebius, however, persuaded the accusers to meet him on his arrival with a bolder charge: |he had sent a purse of gold to Philumenus, a rebel.| This, being easily overthrown, was at once followed up by the famous story of the broken chalice. A certain Ischyras, a layman pretending to the character of a presbyter, officiated at a little hamlet called |the Peace of Sacontarurum,| in the Mareotis; Athanasius, being informed of this while on a visitation tour, sent a priest named Macarius, with the actual pastor of the district, to summon Ischyras before him, but found him ill. Ischyras, on recovering, attached himself to the Meletians, who, resolving to use him as a tool, made him declare that Macarius had found him in church |offering the oblations,| had thrown down the holy table, broken the chalice, and burnt the church books; of which sacrilege Athanasius was to share the responsibility. But Athanasius was able to prove before Constantine at Nicomedia, early in 332, that, point by point, it was a falsehood. About mid-Lent he returned home with a letter from Constantine reprobating his enemies and praising him as |a man of God|; whereupon Ischyras came to him, asking to be received into the church, and piteously protesting that the Meletians had set him on to assert a falsehood. But he was not admitted to communion; and the story was ere long revived in an aggravated form -- Athanasius himself being now called the perpetrator of the outrage (Apol.62, 64, 28, 74, 17, 65, 68).

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 more hands than two.| The case of the broken chalice now remained; it was resolved to send a commission of inquiry to the Mareotis. Ischyras accompanied the commissioners, as |a sharer in lodging, board, and wine-cup|; they opened their court in the Mareotis. It appeared in evidence that no books had been burned, and that Ischyras had been too ill to officiate on the day of the alleged sacrilege. An inquiry of such an ex parte character called forth indignant protests from the Alexandrian and Mareotic clergy, one of the documents bearing the date Sept.7, 335. The commissioners, disregarding remonstrance, returned to Tyre (Apol.27, 73-76, 17, 15).

Athanasius, regarding the proceedings of the council of Tyre as 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 Rome; on the other hand, Athanasius sent to Rome presbyters to state his case, and an encyclic -- the invaluable document which has furnished us with so much information -- from |the holy synod assembled at Alexandria out of Egypt, Thebais, Libya, and Pentapolis,| composed, says Athanasius, of nearly 100 prelates. At Rome his envoys gave such evidence respecting Pistus as to cause the senior of the Eusebian envoys to decamp by night in spite of an indisposition. His companions asked Julius to convoke a council, and to act, if he pleased, as judge. He accordingly invited both parties to a council, to be held where Athanasius should choose. Thus matters stood about the end of 339.

Early in 340 a new announcement disquieted the Alexandrian church. It was notified in a formal edict of the prefect that not Pistus, but a Cappadocian named Gregory, was 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). Narcissus, Maris, and two other prelates appeared before Constans at Trèves, spoke in support of the decisions against Athanasius, and presented a creed which might, at first sight, appear all but to confess the |Homoousion.| But Constans, doubtless swayed by bp. Maximin, who would not admit the Eastern envoys to communion, dismissed them from his presence (Athan. de Syn.25; Soz. iii 10; Hil. Fragm. iii.27).

Athanasius remained at Rome until the summer of 343, when, |in the fourth year| from his arrival, he received a letter from Constans, 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.| Athanasius travelled northward about midsummer; visited Constans, passed through Hadrianople (Hist. Ar.18), proceeded to Antioch, and saw Constantius for the third time (Ap. ad Const.5). The reception was gracious: the emperor valued himself on his impassive demeanour (Ammian. xvi.10). Athanasius, without vilifying his enemies, firmly desired leave to confront them (Ap. ad Const. l.c.; Hist. Ar.22, 44). |No,| said Constantius, |God knows, I will never again credit such accusations; and all records of past charges shall be erased.| This latter promise he at once fulfilled, by orders sent to the authorities in Egypt; and he wrote letters in favour of the archbishop to the clergy of Egypt and the laity of Alexandria. One thing he asked, that Athanasius would allow the Alexandrian Arians a single church. Athanasius promptly replied that he would do so, if a church might be granted at Antioch to the |Eustathian| body, which held aloof from the crypto-Arian bp. Leontius, and whose services, held in a house, he had been attending. The emperor would have agreed to this, but his advisers stood in the way.

From Antioch Athanasius proceeded to Jerusalem, where an orthodox council met to do him honour, and to congratulate his church. And now 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.| He believed at the time that they were sincere; they afterwards ascribed their act to fear of Constans (Hist. Ar.29). This motive, if it existed, was ere long removed; the revolt of Magnentius brought Constans to an ignominious death at the foot of the Pyrenees, in Feb.350. This tragedy was a severe shock to Athanasius. He received, indeed, letters from Constantius, assuring him of continued favour, and encouraging him to pursue his episcopal work. The Alexandrian authorities were also commanded to suppress any |plotting against Athanasius.| Thereupon in presence of high state officers, including the bearers of these letters, Athanasius desired his people, assembled in church, |to pray for the safety of the most religious Constantius Augustus.| The response was at once made, |O Christ, help Constantius!| (Ap. ad Const.9, 10, 23; Hist. Ar.24, 51). He had leisure for writing On the Nicene Definition of Faith and On the Opinions of Dionysius, his great predecessor in the 3rd cent., whose language, employed in controversy with Sabellianism, had been unfairly quoted in support of Arianism. [[62]Dionysius.] He also brought out, at this time, what is called his Apology against the Arians, although he afterwards made additions to it. It may have been about this time that he chose the blind scholar Didymus, already renowned for vast and varied learning, to preside over the |Catechetical School.| [[63]Didymus.] When Magnentius sent envoys to Constantius, one of them visited Alexandria; and Athanasius, in speaking to him of Constans, burst into tears. He at first had some apprehension of danger from Magnentius; but it was soon evident that his real danger was from the Arianizing advisers of Constantius. Valens and Ursacius, having now recanted their recantation, were ready to weave new plots; and Liberius, the new bp. of Rome, was plied with letters against him, which were outweighed, in the judgment of a Roman synod, by an encyclic of eighty Egyptian prelates; and Rome remained faithful to his cause. (See Liberius's letter to Constantius, Hil. Fragm.5. Another letter, in which Liberius is made to say that he had put Athanasius out of his communion for refusing to come to Rome when summoned, is justly regarded as a forgery.) This was in 352; and Athanasius, in May 353, thought it well to send 5 bishops (Soz. iv.9, and Fragm. Maff.), one being his friend Serapion of Thmuis, and 3 presbyters, to disabuse Constantius of bad impressions as to his conduct. Five days later, May 23, Montanus, a |silentiary| or palace chamberlain, arrived with an imperial letter forbidding him to send envoys, but granting a request for himself to go to Milan. Athanasius, detecting an attempt to decoy him, replied that as he had never made such a request, he could not think it right to use a permission granted under a misconception; but that if the emperor sent him a definite order, he would set forth at once (Ap. ad Const.19-21). Montanus departed; and the next news that Athanasius received from Europe was such as to make him forget all personal danger. The Western usurper had been finally overthrown in August; and Constantius, having gone to Arles for the winter, was induced by the Arians to hold there, instead of at Aquileia, the council which Liberius and many Italian bishops had requested him to assemble. The event was disastrous: Vincent, the Roman legate, was induced to join with other prelates in condemning Athanasius; but Paulinus of Trèves had inherited Maximin's steadfastness, and preferred exile to the betrayal of a just cause.

In the Lent of 354 the Alexandrian churches were so crowded that some persons suffered severely, and the people 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. The calm contemplation of fast-approaching trials, which would make a severe demand on Christian men's endurance, shews a |discernment| of the |signs| of 354-5 in Athanasius.

For, in the spring of 355, he would hear of the success of Constantius in terrorizing the great majority of a large council at Milan, which had been summoned at the urgent desire of Liberius. A few faithful men, such as Eusebius of Vercelli, Lucifer of Caliaris, Dionysius of Milan, after a momentary 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, who could not, he tried to hope, have sanctioned the late outrage. But he was deterred by the news of one woe following upon another (Ap. ad Const.27, 19). Bishops of the West who had refused to disown him were suffering under tyranny, or had been hurried into exile. Among the latter class was the Roman bishop himself, who had manfully spurned both gifts and menaces (Theod. ii.16); and Hosius, on addressing to Constantius a remonstrance full of pathetic dignity, had been sent for to be detained at Sirmium. Then came news which touched Athanasius more closely. It was given out that one George, a Cappadocian of evil reputation and ruthless temper, was coming to supersede him; and that a vague creed, purporting to be simply Scriptural, but in fact ignoring the Nicene doctrine, was to be proposed for his suffragans' acceptance. This last report set him at once to work on a Letter to the Egyptian and Libyan Bishops. But he had soon to hear of a repetition of the sacrileges and brutalities of the days of Gregory. As before, Lent was the time chosen for the arrival of the usurper. Easter brought an increase of trouble in the persecution of prelates, clergy, virgins, widows, the poor, and even ordinary Catholic householders. On the evening of the Sunday after Pentecost, when |the brethren| had met for worship, apart from the Arians, in the precincts of a cemetery, a military commander, named Sebastian, a fierce-tempered Manichean, whose sympathies went with George, came to the spot with more than 3000 soldiers, and found some virgins and others still in prayer after the general congregation had broken up. On their refusal to embrace Arianism, he caused them to be stripped, and beaten or wounded with such severity that some died from the effects, and their corpses were kept without burial. This was followed by the banishment of sixteen bishops, doubtless for rejecting the new-made creed; more than thirty fled, others were scared into an apparent conformity, and the vacated churches were given over to men whose moral disqualifications for any religious office were compensated by their profession of Arianism. Tragical as were these tidings, Athanasius still clung to his purpose of presenting himself before Constantius, until he learned that one imperial letter had denounced him as a fugitive criminal who richly merited death, and another had exhorted the two Ethiopian sovereigns to send Frumentius to Alexandria, that George might instruct him in the knowledge of |the supreme God.|

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. Phil. ii.9, 10; Ps. xlv.7, 8; Heb i.4). The second, written after some interval, pursues this line of comment, especially on a text much urged by Arians in the LXX version (Prov. viii.22). The third explains texts in the Gospels, and in so doing sets forth the Christ of the church, as uniting in Himself true Godhead and true Manhood; and it then passes to the consideration of another Arian statement, that the Sonship was a result of God's mere will. Differing from other writers, Dr. Newman considers the fourth Discourse to be an undigested collection of notes or memoranda on several heresies, principally that which was imputed to his friend Marcellus, and to persons connected with him -- an imputation which Athanasius, about 360, began to think not undeserved. It may be thought by some who have no bias against the theology of the Discourses that his tenderness towards an old associate is in striking contrast with the exuberance of objurgation bestowed on the Arian |madmen| and |foes of Christ.| But not to urge that the 4th cent. had no established rules of controversial politeness, and that the acerbity of Greek disputation and the personalities of Roman society had often too much influence on the tone of Christian argument, one must remember that Athanasius is not attacking all members of the Arian communion, but representatives of it who had been conspicuous, not for heterodoxy alone, but for secularity in its worst form, for unscrupulousness, and for violence. He followed up his Discourses by four Letters to Serapion of Thmuis, of which the second briefly repeated the teaching of the Discourses, while the others were directed against a theory then reported to him by Serapion as springing up, and afterwards known as Macedonianism; which, abandoning the Arian position in regard to the Son, strove with singular inconsistency to retain it in regard to the Spirit. Athanasius met this error by contending for |a Trinity real and undivided,| in which the Spirit was included with the Father and the Son.

The general aspect of church affairs was very unhopeful. At Constantinople an Arian persecution had again set in. But the 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; then proceeded southwards to Tabenne. At midsummer, according to another narrative, he was at Antinoe, apprehensive of being arrested and put to death, when Theodore and another abbot named Pammon came to see him, and persuaded him to embark with them in Theodore's closely covered boat, in order to conceal himself in Tabenne. Athanasius was in prayer, agitated by the prospect of martyrdom, when Theodore, according to the story, assured him that Julian had at that very hour been slain in his Persian war. The day of Julian's death was June 26, 363.

|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.66). He wanted Athanasius to promote the recognition by the Westerns of Meletius as rightful bp. of Antioch, and to induce Paulinus to negotiate. In the autumn Basil wrote again (Ep.69), and the tone which he adopts towards Athanasius is very remarkable. He calls him the foremost person (literally, the summit) of the whole church, the man of |truly grand and apostolic soul, who from boyhood had been an athlete in the cause of religion| -- |a spiritual father,| whom he longed earnestly to see, and whose conversation would amply compensate for all the sufferings of a lifetime (Ep.69, 80, 82). But although Athanasius consented to act as a medium between Basil and the Westerns (Ep.90), he could not take any direct part in favour of Meletius, whose rival's position he had unequivocally recognized. Nothing came of the application.

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| (Ecclus. xi.20).

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 on the |Titles of the Psalms| was edited by Nic. Antonelli at Rome, in 1746; and in 1777 appeared at Padua an ed. in 4 vols. fol., combining the labours of previous editors.

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).


Athanius, bp. of Anagastus 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, bp. of Scythopolis 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, bp. of Perrha 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, bp. of Ancyra 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 (ethnon kai poleon archas dieuthunantos); 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 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 the divine Scriptures in order to carry on the contest with the greater accuracy, was thus himself caught by the all-holy Spirit, so that, like the great Paul, from a persecutor he became a teacher of the faith which he persecuted.| Philippus says, continues Nicephorus, |that Clemens, the writer of the Stromata, was his pupil, and Pantaenus the pupil of Clemens.| But Philippus's statement about Pantaenus is not true, according to Clemens and Eusebius; his character as an historian is severely criticized, and his book pronounced valueless by Socrates Scholasticus (Hist. Eccl. vii.27) and Photius (Cod.35, p.7, Bekker); and his assertion that the Apology was addressed to Hadrian and Antoninus is contradicted by its very inscription. Nevertheless, as he was a pupil of Rhodon (head of the school in the reign of Theodosius the Great) he may be supposed to have had some facts as the groundwork of what he has said. The only other source of information about Athenagoras is the inscription of his Apology with such internal evidence as may be gathered from his works themselves. The inscription runs thus: |The embassy (presbeia) of Athenagoras of Athens, a Christian philosopher, concerning Christians, to the emperors Marcus Aurelius, Antoninus, and Lucius Aurelius Commodus, Armeniaci, Sarmatici, and, greatest of all, philosophers.| Without at present considering the peculiar difficulties involved in this inscription (of which below), we learn from it in general that Athenagoras was an Athenian and a philosopher, which character and profession he evidently retained after his conversion. His connexion with Athens (probably his birth there) and profession of philosophy are thus substantiated; and the manner in which he became converted to Christianity may very well have been as described by Philippus, whose account that he was head of the Academics is probably but an exaggeration of the fact that he had belonged to that sect. That he was ever leader of the Catechetical school of Alexandria cannot be definitely proved. In the Commentatio of Clarisse, § 8, is the acute conjecture that the treatise de Resurrectione was written at Alexandria rather than Athens, from c.12, p.52 A, where the builder of a house is represented as making stalls for his camels; and on a supposed Alexandrian tinge in the philosophy of Athenagoras vide Brucker (Hist. Crit. Philosophiae, iii.405 seq.). Of his death nothing is known, the idea that he was martyred apparently arising from a confusion between him and Athenogenes. That the Apology was really intended to be seen and read by the emperors is obvious; how it reached them is less clear; we are hardly entitled to assert that it was in any formal or public manner delivered to them by Athenagoras himself, an idea which may be due to the title it bears, of Presbeia, or |Embassy.| Presbeia, however, according to Stephanus (Thesaur. Ling. Graec. iii. col.543), is occasionally used for an apology, intercession, or deprecation.

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 Germanikois for Armeniakois. 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 and Date. -- There is no independent external evidence for the authorship of this work; but there is no reason whatever to doubt that, as its inscription informs us, it is from the pen of Athenagoras. It closely agrees with the Apology in style and thought, and all that has been said above of the internal evidence for the genuineness of the former work applies equally to this. That such a treatise was in Athenagoras's mind when he wrote the Apology appears from the words near its close, c.36, p.39 c, |let the argument upon the Resurrection stand over|; from which words we may not unfairly gather that the Treatise on the Resurrection shortly followed the former work. This is the only clue to its date which we possess. >From the closing sentences of c.23 (p.66 C) it seems that it was intended as a lecture. |We have not made it our aim to leave nothing unsaid that our subject contained, but summarily to point out to those who came together what view ought to be taken in regard to the Resurrection| must allude not merely to a few friends who might happen to be present when the book was read, but to a regular audience. From a reference, c.1. p.41 B, to an occasional mode for arranging his arguments, it may be supposed that Athenagoras was in the habit of delivering public lectures upon Christianity. The arrangement, too, and peculiar opening of the treatise decidedly favour the view that it was a lecture, somewhat enlarged or modified for publication.

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 agein in the sense of ducere, to think, and ta episumbebekota Theo 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 eternal, rational Mind, there dwelt from eternity the |Logos| (|Reason,| |Expression,| or |Word|) as His Son, and in the Son dwelt the Father. To bring matter into existence, and afterwards give it form and order, the Divine Word |came forth| (i.e. the eternal Son assumed, towards the finite, the office and relation of |the Word| or Manifestor of God), to be the Archetype and Effectuating Power of creation (Apol. c.10, p.10 D). His Incarnation is only indirectly mentioned, in the supposition at c.21, p.21 D (ib.), of God assuming flesh according to divine dispensation.

The Holy Ghost is said to be the Spirit Who spoke by the prophets, and an Emanation from God (Apol. c.10, p.10 D), flowing forth and returning as a 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 the exordium of Justin's first Apology and that of Athenagoras. Hence Clarisse infers (Comm. in Athenag. § 57) that Athenagoras intended to rearrange and epitomize the work of his predecessor. In the treatise On the Resurrection, c.8, p.48 C, is an apparent imitation of Tatian, Or. ad Graec. c.6, p.146 B.

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, Peri ton eis eanton, 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 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 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 district and leaves no further trace than the débris which the torrent has washed down. But in Eastern Europe, though Attila's kingdom was dismembered at his death, the great body of the Huns, who had followed him from the wilds of Central Asia, settled permanently in the wide plains of the Lower Danube; while, viewed as a special instrument of Providence, |a Messiah of grief and ruin,| whose mission it was to chastise the sins of Christians, the |scourge (or rather flail) of God| had an abiding influence over Western Christendom, and the virtues and merits of the saints who thwarted him by bold resistance or prudent submission shone forth the brighter, the darker became the picture of the oppressor.

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| (Ps. cxix.25) (Frodoard. Martyr. Remens. p.113). Tongres, Arras, Laon, and Saint-Quentin also fell. The inhabitants of Paris had resolved on flight, but the city was saved by the resolution and devotion of St. Geneviève (Genovefa), the maiden of Nanterre who was warned in a vision that Paris would be spared (Act. SS. Boll. Jan. i.143-147). Attila did not wish to wage war against Christianity, though doubtless some of his followers were stimulated by polemical rancour; he fought against Rome, not its church. Nor did he intend to give up Gaul to indiscriminate pillage; he hoped to crush the Visigoths first, and then to cope separately with Aetius and the Roman forces. About April 10 he left Metz for Orleans. Anianus (St. Agnan), bp. of Orleans, hastened to Arles to apprise Aetius of their danger, but Orleans was only relieved by the influence of the senator Avitus of Clermont, who secured the help of Theodoric, when the gates had actually been opened to the Huns and pillage was beginning (Vita S. Aniani, in Bouquet, Rec. i.645). Attila retreated precipitately towards Châlons-sur-Marne, in the Campi Catalaunici. Near Troyes he was met by its bishop, Lupus (St. Loup), at whose intercession Attila spared the defenceless inhabitants of Champagne, carrying Lupus with him as a hostage to the banks of the Rhine. For the subsequent military movements and the battle of Châlons, see Thierry, Hist. d'Attila, pp.172-188, 428-437, and art. |Attila| in the Nouv. Biog. Gén. In the spring of 452 Attila penetrated into Italy by the passes of the Julian Alps (Prosp. Aquit. Chron.), Aetius having sent Valentinian for safety to Rome. Attila received his first check at the walls of Aquileia; but after three months' resistance he observed some storks preparing to leave their nests with their young (Jorn. Reb. Get.42), and, taking this as a favourable omen, redoubled the vigour of his siege, and a century afterwards Jornandes (ib.) could scarcely trace the ruins of Aquileia. Milan and Pavia were sacked, and probably also Verona, Mantua, Brescia, Bergamo, and Cremona. An embassy, sent by the people and senate of Rome, to endeavour to obtain Attila's peaceful evacuation of Italy, met the invaders on the Mincio, near Mantua and Vergil's farm. At its head were two illustrious senators and the eloquent Leo the Great, who had been bp. of Rome since 440. His appearance in pontifical robes awoke in Attila some feeling akin to awe, and he retired as before a power superior to his own. Soon after he died from the bursting of a blood-vessel, though not without suspicion of foul play. Cf. Leo I..

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 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 issues; § 11. Augustine and Greek Christendom; § 12. Augustine and the hierarchy: (a) Church authority and episcopate, (b) Equality of episcopate, (c) Rome and the episcopate: Case of Apiarius, (d) Rome and doctrinal authority, (e) Ultimate authority; § 13. Death and character.

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.211^4; nieces, Possid. xxvi.; nephew Patricius and nieces, Serm.356^3, 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 of the origin of evil by the assumption of an independent evil principle. For nine years (373-382, Conf. IV. i., de Util. Cred.2) Augustine was an ardent Manichean. He brought over his friends Alypius and Honoratus, and his patron Romanianus, to the same convictions, and delighted in controversy with Catholics. He remained an |auditor| only. The |electi| were bound to strict continence, and Augustine was increasingly conscious of the chasm between his ideal and his practice. |Make me chaste, but not yet,| was his prayer during this period of his life (Conf. VIII. vii.). Augustine completed his studies, and returned to Thagaste as a teacher of grammar. His mother, overwhelmed with horror at his new opinions, refused to receive him at home. At first, therefore, he lived with Romanianus. Monnica's prayers were answered by a consoling dream (Conf. III. xi.) and a friend, a bishop, himself a convert from Manicheism, whom she entreated to argue with her son, while wisely refusing her request, dismissed her with the words, |It cannot be that the son of those tears of yours should be lost.| She accepted the words as a voice from Heaven, and received Augustine into her household. The death of a dear friend -- Augustine was a man of warm friendships (Conf. IV. ix.) -- moved him to leave Thagaste, and return, as a teacher of Rhetoric, to Carthage. Here he studied zealously, devoting attention to the |liberal arts,| astronomy, and other subjects, and lived a life of cultivated society and successful literary effort. He tells us of a prize poem which won a crown in the theatre from the proconsul Vindicianus, a wise old physician who convinced him (but see Conf. VII. vi.) of the futility of astrology (Conf. IV. iii.; this apparently occurred at Carthage). About this time he wrote a work in two or three books, de Pulcro et Apto, which he inscribed to Hierius, a professor of Rhetoric at Rome, whom he had come to admire by reputation. These books he did not preserve; they appear to have been his first. Meanwhile, he began to be less satisfied with the Manichean view of existence; these misgivings were intensified by disillusion in regard to the morals of the electi (de Moribus Man.68 sqq.). But his Manichean friends urged him to await the arrival at Carthage of Faustus, a |bishop| of the sect, who enjoyed a reputation for brilliant ability and learning, and who could be trusted to resolve all his doubts. But when the great Faustus appeared, Augustine soon discovered him to be a very ordinary person, |of charming manner and pleasant address, who said just what the others used to say, but in a much more agreeable style| (Conf. V. iii.6). When, after his addresses to the crowd, Augustine laid before him some of his doubts, his mediocrity was transparent. |He knew that he did not know, and was not ashamed to confess the fact . . . and for this I liked him all the better.| But he liked the system all the less; and without formally separating from the Manicheans, he adopted an |academic| suspense of judgment in regard to the opinions he had hitherto adopted; henceforth he held them provisionally, pending the discovery of something better (de Vit. Beat. i.4).

§ 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 and interesting work, honourable position, and delightful social surroundings made his lot outwardly enviable. But he pronounces, and apparently with some truth, that at this period he touched his lowest moral level (Conf. VI. xvii., VII. i., VIII. v.). At any rate the contrast between his actual life and his habitual idealism was never more painfully realized. His ideal was the philosophic life, and but for his matrimonial plans and his still active ambition, he would probably have joined his friends in founding a small philosophic community with a common purse and household (Conf. VI. xiv.; c. Academ. II. ii.4, de Beat. Vit. i.4, ne in philosophiae gremium celeriter advolarem, uxoris honorisque illecebra detinebar). But his enthusiasm burned low (c. Acad. II. ii.5), until it was kindled afresh by his study of the Platonic philosophy. A friend (apparently Theodorus, who became consul in 399 -- see Retr. I. ii. Displicet autem, etc., and Conf. VII. ix. immanissimo typho turgidum) put into his hands (Conf. VII. ix., de Beat. Vit. i.4) some translations of the neo-Platonist authors, probably by Victorinus. The effect was rapid and profound. Much Christian truth he found there, but not inward peace: the eternal Word, but not Christ the Word made flesh. But his flagging idealism was braced, he was once for all lifted out of materialism, and his tormenting doubts as to the origin of evil were laid to rest by the conviction that evil has its origin in the will, that evil is but the negation of good, and that good alone has a substantive existence (Conf. VII. vii. xiv.). His first impulse was to give up all earthly ties (|omnes illas ancoras,| Vit. Beat.4), resign his professorship, and live for philosophy alone. But this he delayed to do, until, after his conversion, a serious lung-attack gave him what was now a welcome excuse (Conf. IX. ii., cf. Solil. I. i.1; c. Acad. I. i.3; de Beat. Vit. i.4 ). Meanwhile he read with care the Epistles of St. Paul, in which he found a provision for the disease of sin, which he had vainly sought in the Platonic books. But his life remained unregenerate, and his distress thickened. He then laid his case before Simplicianus, the spiritual adviser, and eventually the successor, of Ambrose. Simplicianus described to him the conversion of the aged Victorinus, to whose translation of the Platonists he had owed so much (Conf. VIII. ii.). Augustine longed to follow the example of his public profession of faith, but the flesh still held him back, like a man heavy with drowsiness who sinks back to sleep though he knows that the hour for rising has struck. So he went on with his usual life.

§ 6. Conversion (386-387). -- One day a Christian fellow-townsman, Pontitianus, who held an appointment at court, called to visit Alypius. Observing with pleasure a volume of St. Paul's Epistles, he went on to talk to his friends of the wonderful history of the hermit Anthony, whose ascetic life had begun from hearing in church a passage of the gospel (Matt. xix.21), on which he had promptly acted; he then described the spread of the monastic movement, and informed his astonished hearers that even at Milan there was a monastery in existence. As Pontitianus told his tale, Augustine was filled with self-reproach. Conscience shamed him that after ten years of study he was still carrying a burden which men wearied by no research had already cast aside. When Pontitianus had gone, he poured out his incoherent feelings to the astonished Alypius, and then, followed by his friend, fled into the garden. |Let it be now -- let it be now,| he said to himself; but the vanities of his life plucked at his clothes and whispered, |Do you think you can live without us?| Then again the continence of the monks and virgins confronted him with the question, |Can you not do as these have done?| Alypius watched him in silence. At last he broke down and, in a torrent of tears, left his friend alone. He threw himself down under a fig-tree, crying passionately, |Lord, how long? -- to-morrow and to-morrow! -- why not now?| Suddenly he heard a child's voice from the next house repeating, in a sing-song voice, |Take and read| (tolle, lege). He tried to think whether the words were used in any kind of children's game; but no, it must be a divine command to open the Bible and read the first verse that he should happen upon. He thought of Anthony and the lesson in church. He ran back to Alypius and opened |the Apostle| at Rom. xii.13, 14, |Not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying; but put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh to fulfil the lusts thereof.| |No further would I read, nor was it necessary.| The peace of God was in his heart, and the shadows of doubt melted away. He marked the passage and told Alypius, the friends exchanged confidences, and Alypius applied to himself the words, a little further on, |Him that is weak in the faith receive| (Rom. xv.1). They went in, and filled the heart of Monnica with joy at the news (Conf. VIII. viii.). It was now the beginning of the autumn vacation. Augustine decided to resign his chair before the next term, and meanwhile wrote to Ambrose to announce his desire for baptism. His friend Verecundus, who was himself on the eve of conversion, lent his country house at Cassiciacum, near Milan, to Augustine and his party; there they spent the vacation and the months which were to elapse before baptism (winter 386-387). At Cassiciacum he spent a restful, happy time with his mother and brother, his son Adeodatus, Alypius, and his two pupils, Licentius and Trygetius, the former a son of his old patron Romanianus. He wrote several short books here, |in a style which, though already enlisted in Thy service, still breathed, in that time of waiting, the pride of the School| (Conf. IX. iv.). These were the three books contra Academicos, two de Ordine, the de Beata Vita, and two books of Soliloquies; to this period also belong letters 1-4, of which 3 and 4 are the beginning of his correspondence with Nebridius (Conf. IX. iii.). Ambrose had, in answer to his request for advice, recommended him to read Isaiah. But he found the first chapter so hard that he put it aside till he should be more able to enter into its meaning. The Psalms, however, kindled his heart at this time. To him, as to many in most diverse conditions, they seemed to interpret the depths of his soul and the inmost experiences of his life (Conf. IX. iv.). But Augustine's main intellectual interest was still philosophical. Except when engaged upon the classics with his pupils, or on fine days in country pursuits (|in rebus rusticis ordinandis,| c. Acad. I. v.14; cf. II. iv.10), the time was spent in discussing the philosophy of religion and life. The above-mentioned books, of which those de Ordine are perhaps the most characteristic, are, excepting of course the Soliloquies, in the form of notes of these discussions. The time to give in his name for baptism was approaching, and the party returned to Milan. Augustine was baptized by Ambrose, along with his heart's friend Alypius, and his son Adeodatus. The church music, which Milan, first of all the Western churches, had recently adopted from the East, struck deep into his soul: |The tide of devotion swelled high within me, and the tears ran down, and there was gladness in those tears.|

§ 7. (a) Early Christian Life. Death of Monnica. Return to Africa. Life as a 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 ut nobiscum esset in monasterio.| The monasterium is clearly prospective). This was probably early in 391. Augustine had come to Hippo intending to stay no time, |with nothing but his clothes|; but as it happened, he entered the church just as Valerius, the aged bishop, was addressing the people on the necessity of choosing a new presbyter. Valerius, by birth a Greek (Possid. v. |homo natura Graecus|), wanted a fluent Latin preacher. Augustine's reputation had come before him. With one accord the people seized Augustine, and presented him to Valerius for ordination. With sincere reluctance and many tears Augustine yielded; Hippo became his home, and the Christian ministry his calling. Knowing of his plans, Valerius gave him a monasterium in the episcopal gardens. He had possibly already sold his small estate at Thagaste; if not, he did so now: the proceeds were spent on the poor of that place, and the people of Hippo approved and felt no jealousy (see Ep.126^7, I57^39). He assembled in his monastery a number of brethren like-minded, each with nothing of his own and all things common; above all, the common aim, |commune nobis ut esset magnum et uberrinum praedium ipse Deus.|

(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 period also began to correspond with Jerome (Ep.28); in a letter of about this date he indignantly rejects the theory that the scene at Antioch between SS. Paul and Peter was to be explained patrocinium mendacii suscipiendo.

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| (Ps. cxl.5, Vulg.). The question at issue, then, was really that of the essential nature of the church as a holy society (see Reuter, pp.236 sqq, note 2). The Catholics, in reply, insist on the fact that the church throughout the world is on their side, and that the Donatists are, by their separation, offenders against the bond of charity which maintains the peace and unity of the church: |Una est columba mea, speciosa mea| (Cant. vi.9).

(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 Mauretanian schism of Rogatus, whose followers unchurched the other Donatists, and repudiated the Circumcellions; in the moderate Donatism of Tyconius (the author of a work on exegesis, of which Augustine speaks highly, de Doctr. Chr. III. xxx.), who exposed the inconsistencies of the Donatist position, and was consequently excommunicated by Parmenianus; and lastly, in the formidable Maximianist schism of 393, which resulted in the election of a second Donatist bishop, Maximianus, at Carthage, in opposition to Primianus. the successor of Parmenianus. Over 100 bishops sided with Maximianus; a council of 310 Donatist bishops in 394 decided against him. The civil authority was then invoked against the dissidents, who were persecuted with the usual severity.

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 of the validity of Donatist orders and sacraments was imposed upon Augustine by the settled judgment of the Catholic church, especially of the council of Arles, in 314 (Can. xiii., cf. viii., rejecting the Cyprianic view). But he clearly found it difficult to grasp habitually the distinction between the |Spiritus Sanctus,| the agent in every |valid| sacrament (=|gratia gratis data|), and the |Spiritus caritatis,| which makes the sacrament a means of grace (|gratum faciens|) to the Catholic recipient. His frequent denials that |the Holy Spirit| could be possessed outside the visible unity of the church relate really to the latter, though there are passages which seem to extend to the former. But on the whole his mind is clear. He distinguishes sharply between Office and Person; between the sacramental act and its benefit to the soul. The former can exist outside the Catholic church, the latter only within it. In this respect Augustine is an uncompromising assertor of Cyprian's axiom, extra ecclesiam nulla salus. But it must be observed that he subordinates the institutional to the spiritual conception of the church. The Donatists are wrong, because they have broken the bond of caritas which unites the Catholic society. It is this, and not the mere fact, necessary though it be, of the episcopal succession, that unites Catholics with the Apostolic churches and through them by an |inconcussa series| with the Apostles themselves. (See below, § 16, b, c; also Gore, The Church and the Ministry, latter part of c, iii.; Hatch, Organisation, v.; Reuter, pp.231-283, an able and thorough discussion.)

§ 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.138^1, 9-16, cf.136^3), 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.169^1) 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 seemed like a giving way of the solid earth beneath men's feet. Lesser men were moved to write: Orosius, mentioned above, in 417, and Salvian, whose lurid indictment of the sins of the Christian world (de Gubernatione Dei) was penned in 451, four years before the sack of Rome by Gaiseric. But it was Augustine who brought the problem under a single master-idea. This idea (which occurs already in de Catech. Rud., written as early as A.D.400) is that of the two civitates, which, after a refutation of paganism as useless alike in this world (I.-V.) and in the next (VI.-X.), are treated of constructively in the remainder of the work, in respect of their origin (XI.-XIV.), history (XV.-XVIII.), and destiny (XIX.-XXII.). The work would have gained by condensation, but as it stands, with all the marks of discontinuous production, it is a priceless legacy of Augustine's most characteristic thoughts (on Ep.102, which illustrates the de Civ., and was written about 409, see below, § 16a). By the word civitas, commonly rendered |city,| Augustine means rather a bond of union, or citizenship (cf. Philipp. iii.20 Gk., |duo quaedam genera humanae societatatis| XIV. i., the |civitas| takes visible form in the shape of a government, but its essential character is in the spirit that animates it). There are then two, and only two, civitates, the one heavenly, the other earthly. The civitas terrena began with the fall of the angels, was continued by that of man, in the history of the Cainites, of Babel, and of the great world-empires. The civitas Dei began with Creation; its earthly realization is traceable in the history of the Sethites, of Noah, Abraham, Israel, of Christ, and of His people. The one is rooted in love of God, usque ad contemptum sui; the other in love of self, usque ad contemptum Dei. The chief good of the one is the pax coelestis (XIX.13), that of the other, the pax terrena. The great empires are, in their genesis, the State is per se (remota justitia), |latrocinium magnum| (IV.4). So that, looked upon in the abstract, since there are but two civitates, the state is the civitas diaboli, the church the civitas Dei.

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. Luke xiv.23: Cogite intrare.

§ 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 (I. Cor. iv.7), |What hast thou that thou hast not received?| coupled with Rom. ix.16. The change may be assigned to the year 396 when, in the first book, he wrote as a bishop (de Divers. Quaest. ad Simplic. I.), as he says (Retr. II. i.1), |to solve this question, we laboured in the cause of the freedom of the human will, but the grace of God won the day| (cf. de Don. Pers.52, plenius sapere coepi). To Simplicianus he says, I. ii.13: |If it is in man's own power not to obey the call, it would be equally correct to say, 'Therefore it is not of God that sheweth mercy, but of man that runs and wills,' because the mercy of Him that calls does not suffice, unless the obedience of him who is called results. . . . God shows mercy on no man in vain; but on whom He has mercy, him He calls in such sort as He knows to be fitted for him [congruere], so that He does not reject him that calleth.| Here we have the essential of the |Augustinian| doctrine of grace, the distinction of the vocatio congrua and vocatio non congrua (|Illi enim electi qui congruenter vocati|), formulated more than fifteen years before the Pelagian controversy began (see also Loofs, pp.279-280, who shows in detail that Augustine's whole later position is virtually contained in de Div. Quaest. ad Simplician.). For the details of this controversy, see the church histories; D. C. B. (4-vol. ed.), s.v.; Bright, Introd. to Anti-Pelagian Treatises, and other authorities. (A lucid summary in Gibson, XXXIX. Articles, art. ix.) It will suffice here to mention the main outlines.

(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.181^1, 181^2; 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 adherents. Zosimus at once came round to the side of the Africans. In a circular letter (tractoria) he condemned Coelestius and Pelagianism alike, and required all the bishops of his jurisdiction to signify their adhesion. Thus ended the official support of Pelagius in the West. (On Augustine's view of Zosimus, see Reuter, pp.312-322, and below, § 12 d. On the whole question, see Garnier in Marii Mercat. opp. I p.19. Zosimus appears to have imperfectly grasped the points at issue, and in this case, as in that of Apiarius in the same year (infra, § 12, c), and in that of the metropolitan rights of Arles, he appears to have been in a greater hurry to assert the claims of his see than to ascertain the merits of the question in debate.

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 Arbitrio and de Correptione et Gratia (426-427) relate to the moral issues of the question, while the de Praedest. Sanctorum and de Dono Perseverantiae (428, 9) are in direct controversy with the |brethren| of Southern Gaul.

(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. [[66]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 (Ep.186^36, de Gest. Pel.37 seq., |sanctus Johannes|), and that Pelagianism was formally condemned at the council of Ephesus. But Augustine is somewhat biased in his review of the proceedings in Palestine by the assumption, which it never occurred to him to question, of the absolute doctrinal homogeneity of the East and West. Accordingly he explains the acquittal of Pelagius by the difficulty of language, and by the evasive answers of Pelagius, without allowing for the strangeness to Greek theology of the very categories of the question at issue. The catholicity of the church, he argues against the Donatists, is to be tested by communion, not only with the apostolic see of Rome, but with the other apostolic churches, and with Jerusalem, the common source of all (ad Don. Post Collat. xxix.50; de Unit. x. xi.; Ep.52^3). In Augustine's time the first symptoms of the coming rift between the Greek and Latin churches had indeed appeared, but few realized their meaning. Augustine certainly did not. He meets the arguments of Julian, who claimed the Greek Fathers for his side, by an appeal to the Greek text of Chrysostom. On the other hand, he does not, even in the de Trinitate (written 400-416: |juvenis inchoavi senex edidi|), spontaneously build much upon Greek theology. The Nicene Creed, which he accepted of course ex animo, is but seldom referred to in that work; of the |Constantinopolitan| Creed he shews no knowledge. The de Trinitate is Western in the texture of its thought, true to the original sense of the homooision, a formula imposed on the Eastern church at Nicaea by Western influences (see the present writer's Prolegomena to Athanasius in Nic. Lib. IV. p. xxxii., etc.) in the interest of the Divine Unity. Augustine paves the way, by his insistence on the doctrine of the One Personal God, for the scholastic doctrine of the Una Res, the specifically Western product of Trinitarian theology. The same holds good of Christology. At Chalcedon, Leo's tome, which shews the profound influence of Augustine, carried the day in the teeth of the dominant tone of Greek Christology; and it is interesting to find Theodoret, who of all Greek churchmen had most reason to welcome the result, quoting Ambrose and Augustine as authorities in his dogmatic Dialogues -- an exception to the general indifference of the East to Latin theologians. Another exception, due in part to independent controversial reasons, is the protest of Leontius and the |Scythic monks,| under Justinian, against the |semi-Pelagianism| of Faustus of Reii; Leontius shews some knowledge, direct or second-hand, of Augustine (Loofs's Leontius, pp.231 ff.). Augustine's influence, then, on Greek Christianity has been very slight. But although he has powerfully contributed to the divergence in thought and feeling of Latin Christianity from Greek, he is personally unconscious of any such tendency. Of his own knowledge of Greek he speaks slightingly; Gibbon (c. xxiii.^28) and others take him strictly at his word, but Reuter (pp.179, etc.) shews that we must rate it somewhat more highly than Augustine himself does.

§ 12. Augustine and the Constitution of the Church. The Roman See. -- Augustine's view of the relation of the church to the civil power (see above, § 9) prepared the way for the medieval system. But in Augustine's hands the theory lacked elements indispensable for its practical application. Not only did his conception of the church hover between the transcendental spiritual ideal and the 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| (Ps. lxvii.^26 Vulg.; see Enarr. in loc.), and |patres| (Ps. lxiv.^17 and Enarr.); now that they are gone, we have their filii in their place, the bishops, who are principes super omnem terram. The Apostles still live on in the bishops, who are accordingly the vehicle of the supreme authority of the church. The Donatist bishops cannot claim this status (Ep.53^3, etc.), because they are out of communion with the apostolic churches. Hence (b) the unity and continuity of the episcopate are essential to its Apostolic rank. In this unity even mali praepositi are authoritative, |non enim sua sunt quae dicunt, sed Dei, qui in cathedra unitatis doctrinam posuit veritatis| (Ep.105^16). This is the old Cyprianic doctrine, which Augustine, like Cyprian, finds in the symbolic foundation of the Church upon Peter, who represents the whole body. All bishops are equal; there is no Episcopus episcoporum (de Bapt. III.5, VI.9, quoting Cyprian). But as Peter represented his co-equal colleagues, the Apostles, so his successors in the Roman see represent their co-equal colleagues the bishops (cf. ad Classic. in Ep.250, ad fin. . . . |in concilio nostro agere cupio, et si opus fuerit ad Sedem Apost. scribere, ut . . . quid sequi debeamus communi omnium auctoritate . . . firmetur|). All bishops alike hold the cathedra unitatis, all alike trace their succession to one or other of the Apostles. This is more easily traceable in some cases (i.e. the churches quibus Apostoli scripserunt) than in others, but most obvious in the Roman see, whose bishops, from the sedes (i.e. episcopate, c. Ep. Fund.5; cf. |primae sedis episcopus,| supra, § 8; init.) of Peter himself, have followed one another in a succession known to all (Psalm c. Donat. sub fin., Ep.53^3). The successio sacerdotum at Rome and the successiones episcoporum generally (de Util. Cred. xvii.35) are, to Augustine, co-ordinate and convertible ideas. Even with regard to the authority of councils, there is no real finality. Earlier councils are subject to correction by later (de Bapt. II. iii.4). This is the position of Julius I. (see below, § 16, and the present writer's Roman Claims to Supremacy, iii. fin.).

(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.46^30), 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 reappears at Carthage. But not only did the culprit finally and ignominiously break down before the council: the replies from the Eastern churches had come in, with authentic copies of the Nicene canons; and the canons put forward by Zosimus and his successors were not there. [It must be noted that, although Gratus of Carthage was possibly present at Sardica in 343 (see Nicene Lib. vol.4, Athanasius, p.147), the African church knew nothing of the canons passed there. They only knew Sardica by repute as an |Arian| synod, and friendly to the Donatists (Ep.44^6; c. Crescon. IV. xliv.52). The canons of Sardica had not passed into the generally accepted rules of the church.] The council press the ignominious exposure, which makes a clean sweep of papal jurisdiction in Africa, with a firm but respectful hand. They are content to ask Coelestinus to observe the canons, not to receive appellants, not to send legates tanquam a latere, and, above all, not to inflict Faustinus upon them anymore. The Roman chancery did not learn from this painful experience not to tamper with the canons (see the present writer's Roman Claims to Supremacy, iv., S.P.C.K.1896), but the incident is decisive as to the mind of the African church. Though Reuter, in his scrupulous desire to be fair, minimizes the part taken by Augustine in the case (pp.306 seq.), there is nothing to shew that in this matter he was in other than perfect accord with Aurelius and the African bishops. On the contrary, he says, late in his life, of clergy who merely evade his own rigorous diocesan rule: |interpellet contra me mille concilia, naviget contra me quo voluerit, adjuvabit me Deus ut ubi ego episcopus sum, ille clericus esse non possit.| This tone implies that the Apiarius case is now matter of history (Serm.156^1). But Reuter is probably right in his view that Augustine's interest in constitutional questions was small compared to his concern for doctrine.

(d) The Roman See and the Final Doctrinal Authority. -- Augustine shews no jealousy of the power and prestige of the Roman see. On the contrary, he regarded it as, in a special degree, the depository of apostolic tradition. What degree of dogmatic authority did this imply? The principal data for answering this question are connected with the Pelagian controversy (supra, § 10, a, b). Innocentius certainly reads into the letters of the Africans (Aug. Epp.175-177, see 181-183) a hyper-Sardican attitude towards his chair of which they were innocent. But it is clear that the 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.177^3, 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.190^22 (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.214^5). 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 worse than he will allow, Augustine evidently shrinks from pushing the conclusion to its full consequences to the extent of censuring Zosimus by name. |Rather| he would brand |the Roman clergy| in confuso. But this reserve must not be misconstrued as an anticipation of later Roman infallibilism; not even St. Peter was strictly infallible in Augustine's eyes (refs. in Reuter, pp.326 ff.), much less his successors', none of whom |Petri apostolatui conferendus est| (de Bapt. VI. ii.3).

(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

Quisquis amat dictis absentem rodere vitam,

Hanc mensam indignam noverit esse sibi.

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. He never would speak to them solus cum solis. He was prompt in visiting the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and the sick. But he would never visit the feminarum monasteria except under urgent necessity. In regard to death, he was fond of quoting the dying Ambrose, who replied to his friend's entreaty that he would ask God for a respite of life: |I have not so lived as to be ashamed to remain with you; but neither do I fear to die, for we have a gracious God.| To this artless picture, drawn by Possidius, it seems impertinent to add supplementary touches. Possidius, as Loofs has excellently remarked, shews himself saturated by the consciousness that he is erecting a lasting memorial to a great historical personage.

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.1 John), belong to the ripest period of his theological power, about 416; these and the somewhat later Enarrationes in Psalmos are his most important exegetical works.

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, Matt. xviii.15, cl. Serm.352). The Encheiridion (c.421) is Augustine's most complete attempt at a brief summary of Christian doctrine. Nominally it is based on the triple scheme of Fides, Spes, Charitas. But the latter two are very briefly treated at the end; practically the whole comes under the head of Fides, and is an exposition of the Creed and its corollaries. It should be compared with the much earlier tract de Fide et Symbolo (supra, § 7, b). On the de Trinitate, see above, § 11. The last work to be specially mentioned is the de Doctrina Christiana (written in 397 as far as III. xxv.), which contains Augustine's principles of Scriptural exposition, and a discussion of the exegetical |rule| of Tyconius. Bk. iv. (added in 426) is on the method and spirit in which the sense of Scripture should be taught. It supplements the more special |pedagogics| of the de Catech. Rudibus.

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 in his last letter to count Bonifatius, that practically the one escape from an immoral life was in the vow of monastic continence. He is aware of the difficulties of the questions raised, and endeavours to face them in his books de Bono Conjugali, de Virginitate (401, against Jovinian), and de Continentia. He is specially anxious not to depreciate marriage; but in his attempt to explain the transmission of original sin, not merely by the fact |that the human embryo grows from the very first in a soil positively sinful,| but by the assumption that the mode of ordinary human generation is inevitably sinful, he fairly lays himself open to the charge of doing so (de Nupt. II.15; Enchir. xii.34; de Civ. XIV. xvi.-xxi.). The orthodox theology of original sin has by common consent dropped this element of the Augustinian theory, which shifts the fundamental Christian condemnation of sensuality from the basis of moral insight to that of semi-Manichean dualism. But Julian was wrong in setting it down wholly to Augustine's Manichean past. This may at most account for a bias, which neither his subsequent philosophical studies nor the atmosphere of the church were likely to eradicate. Augustine only exaggerates an instinct not dominant, but really present (Matt. xix.12; I. Cor. vii.1, 26) in the Christian religion from the first, strengthened by the influences of the times, especially that of the Christian Platonism , and by the end of the 4th cent, elevated to unassailable supremacy. In that cent. the influx of heathen society into the church threatened her distinctive character as a holy society. The monastic ideal of life, with its corollary of a double standard of Christian morality -- baleful as the latter was in its effects -- was probably the church's then only possible response to the challenge of a momentous peril. Augustine introduced monachism into North Africa, and its spread there was rapid. In Hippo it was compulsory for the clergy. At first, Augustine permitted a |secular| clergy, but toward the end of his life the permission was revoked. With celibacy went the common life and the obligation of absolute personal poverty. We saw above (§ 7, a) how Augustine had followed, early in his Christian career, the example of Anthony. He took the communism of Acts iv.32 as the normal ideal of Christian life (Enarr. in Ps. cxxxi.5), and his community wad modelled upon it (supra, § 13). At the same time, in the book de Opere Monachorum (c.400), he insists that monks must work, and not idly rely upon the alms of the faithful. He shews an almost prophetic appreciation of monastic abuses (cf. what he says of the Euchites, de Haer. lvii.). He regards poverty as a consilium (de Bono Conj. xxiii.30, Ep.157^29), not a praeceptum. Worldly possessions are allowed to the good as well as to the evil, |et a malis habetur et a bonis; tanto melius habetur quanto minus amatur| (Ep.153^26, cf. de Civ. XVIII. liv.). The Pelagians, who naturally insisted on human effort as a condition of salvation, took a severer view of wealth than did Augustine (Epp.157, 186^32, divites baptizatos, sqq.). He combats them on Biblical grounds: Dives and Lazarus, the rich Abraham, the rich young man, the camel and the needle's eye, St. Paul's charge to the rich in this world; but his treatment of the question is not constructively built on first principles. He perceives that it is the spirit, not the mere fact of riches or poverty that is all-important; even a rich man may be poor in spirit and ready to suffer not only the loss of all, but martyrdom itself, for Christ's sake (see Serm.50^5, 14; Ep.157,^29, 34, 36, etc.; de Virg.14). Yet riches -- and this is the reflection towards which he gravitates -- are, as a matter of experience, a great hindrance; the rich are as a rule the chief offenders |difficile est ut non plura peccata contrahant| (in Psalm. cxxxii.4), therefore |abstineamus nos, fratres, a possessione rei privatae . . . fac locum domino| (ib. cxxxi.^6); the counsel of poverty is the safe course. Augustine bases this on the temptation to misuse of wealth; this would tend to place the man who uses his wealth well and wisely, overcoming temptation, in God's service, higher than him who evades the trial. But the drift of church feeling was too strong for this thought to prevail. Augustine and Pelagius were agreed that monks as a class must rank above |secular| Christians; widely removed as Augustine was from the Pelagian idea of merit, yet practically he often subordinates the importance of the inward to the outward, of character to works. But monks must live, and, as we have seen, Augustine would have them work. To |take no thought for the morrow| means to seek first the Kingdom of God; not improvidence or laziness, but singleness of aim is the note of the Christian life (in Serm. in Mont. II.56).

Augustine had occasion (Ep.211) to address a long letter to his nuns, giving directions for the abatement of evils incidental to the 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 Acts iv.32 implies a permanent condemnation of private property. This was even more conspicuously the case with St. Ambrose, who speaks very strongly of the duty of Christians to treat their possessions as the property of the poor. Augustine, in a passage not wholly consistent with some referred to above, speaks similarly of the private property of Christians as the common property of all; to treat it otherwise is damnabilis usurpatio (Ep.105^35). This |Christian communism,| it may be remarked in passing, differs from that of Proudhon (|la propriété c'est le vol|) as the duty to give differs from the right to take. In one point Augustine takes the opposite view to Ambrose, namely, in the theory of church property. Ambrose, in his resistance to the action of the empress Justina, who attempted to transfer the church at Milan to the Arian bishop, anticipated the medieval theory of the absolute right of the church to ecclesiastical property, a right with which the emperor, who is intra ecclesiam, may not presume to tamper. This agrees perfectly with principles laid down by Augustine in the de Civitate Dei (supra, § 9: imperium in ecclesia, etc.). But Augustine, defending the action of Honorius (or his ministers) in transferring to the Catholics the church property of the Donatists, strongly maintains that all rights to property are created by the State. The church's external power, and property are hers by indirect Divine right, i.e. because they are conferred on her by the ordinatissima potestas of the sovereign power (Ep.105^5, 6). |Per jura regum possidentur possessiones| (in Joh. Tr. vi.25); the Donatist objects to state interference with religion, but |Noli dicere Quid mihi et Regi! Quid tibi et possessioni?| (ib.15). As one side of Augustine's theory of the church prepares the way for the Gregorian system (§ 9), so here we have that conception of Apostolic poverty consistently applied to church property, which underlies so much medieval reaction against the Gregorian system from Arnold of Brescia onwards.

§ 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| (Ps. lxxii.28, Vulg.) is the immovable centre upon which his whole religion and theology turns. But his theism was also speculative and metaphysical, and intimately bound up with the philosophical framework of his theology. God, though not beyond our apprehension (|ex minima quidem parte, sed tamen sine dubitatione,| c. Ep. Fund.5), is beyond our knowledge; |ego sum qui sum quae mens potest capere?| (in Joh. Tr. viii.8). To be good, to be one, are correlative attributes; they belong to God alone. All things that exist, do so by |participation| of God (in Joh. Tr. xxxix.8 -- the Platonic doctrine of methexis; but by comparison with God they are non-existent (Enarr. in Ps. xxxviii.22, cxxxiv.4). Real being is incommutable being, which belongs to God only. Reality, then, can only be found out of time: |ut ergo et tu sis, transcende tempus| (in Joh. Tr. xxxviii.10); anything mutable is not really existent -- it is in process, has been, is to be, but is not in being: |praesens quaero, nihil stat| (ib.). Absolute good is therefore the only reality, namely, God. Absolute evil is the non-existent. All created existence, so far as it has reality (|Deus fecit hominem, substantiam [i.e. aliquid esse] fecit,| Enarr. in Ps. lxviii.5), is good (|in quantum sumus, boni sumus,| de Doctr. I.35). There is no |natura tenebrarum,| no evil substance (Conf. IV. xv.24). Sin has its roots in the evil will; it is negative (|non est substantia,| Ps. lxviii.3, Vulg.); the evil will consists in |inordinate moveri, bona inferiora superioribus praeponendo| (de Gen. ad lit. xi.17); sin is therefore an inclinatio in nihilum; yet the sinner |non penitus perit, sed in infimis ordinatur| (Enarr. in Ps. viii.19) -- even Satan, in that he exists, has something of the good, though he is worse than the worst we know. |In quantum mali sumus, in tantum etiam minus sumas| (de Doctr., u.s.). It is easy to see that this idealism, taken by itself, tends to lower the importance of everything that takes place in time, of everything empirical and historical, in comparison with the transcendent being and unchangeable will of God, in which nothing |takes place,| but all is eternally, immovably real. In Augustine this idealism did not stand alone; but under all his passionate appreciation of the church and the historical elements of Christianity there is in the background, as a limiting influence, the appeal to the view of things sub specie aeterna; and the drift of his theological reflection strengthened this element in his view of ultimate problems.

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.189^15).

(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 the church as the nurse and home of the Christian life, and the saving virtue of her means of grace. The church to him is the society of the saints, the Kingdom of God on earth. With the whole drift of contemporary churchmanship, asceticism, miracles, relics the incipient cultus of saints (he believes in their intercession, but strongly dissuades from |placing our hope| in them: |noli facere|; if we pray to God alone, we shall be the more likely to benefit by their intercession: |non solum tibi non succensebunt; sed tunc amabunt, tunc magis favebunt|; but Augustine is evidently correcting a known tendency to invocation, Serm.46^17), he is in entire sympathy. It is unnecessary to multiply examples of what every page of his writings abundantly illustrates. But it must be noted that his interest throughout is in the spiritual life rather than in the external system; the latter is but the means to the former. Augustine, first of all extant Christian writers, identifies the Kingdom of God (so far as it exists on earth; its full realization, in common with all Christian antiquity, he reserves for the end) with the Catholic church: but not in respect of its government or organization. It is the Kingdom of Christ in so far as Christ reigns in His saints and they (even on earth, in a sense) reign with Him. From this point of view, we may trace the negative influence of Augustine's idealism (supra, a) upon his view of the church. We saw above (§ 15, e) his inability to complete his theory of church authority by the essential feature of an infallible organ of authority. Councils are authoritative, but earlier councils are subject to later ones, there is no final expression of absolute positive truth (of course there is relative truth; the church will never rehabilitate Arianism nor Pelagianism inferiora superiosibus praeponendo, see above, a). Truth is, ideally, perceived by the reason (de Util. Cred.34); infallibility is an ideal attribute of the church, its realization now is subject to the semi-reality which is the condition of all things on earth. She has catholica veritas, but never as ultimate truth that man can explicitly grasp. To the church, as to the individual, it may be said, |ut et to sis, transcende tempus.| Ideally, authority is but the |door| to reason; authority is for the babes, the stulti, who are not the type of mature Christian growth. The intelligendi vivacitas is for the paucissimi, the credendi simplicitas is safest for the turba (c. Ep. Fund.5). But Augustine does not press these thoughts to their full issue. |Alia est ratio verum tacendi, alia verum dicendi necessitas . . . ne pejores faciamus eos qui non intelligunt dum volumus eos qui intelligunt facere doctiores| (de Dono Persev.40). Practically they operate negatively, by leaving in the vague the question of an infallible organ of authority, while the positive conception of the church is left unaffected. In the sphere of transcendent reality, the decrees of councils may be provisional only; but in practice any authoritative decision is final, even the appeal to a general council (supra, § 10, b, Julian) may be ignored, |causa finita est| (supra, 15, d). Medieval ecclesiasticism accepted Augustine's homage to the external fabric of the church, and concerned itself little with his metaphysical conception of Reality (see references to Gregory VII., in Reuter, pp.499 seq.).

(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.177^15: |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 God, it is really of the communio sanctorum that he is thinking. The logical incompatibility of the predestinarian and the Catholic view of the church is obvious, and Augustine never effected their reconciliation. The obvious reconciliation, upon which he often appears to fall back, is that although the church contains many who are not |elect,| it yet contains all the elect. But this is to assume that the Divine election is absolutely bound to external means, which Augustine does not really hold. On the contrary, his conception of the universality of the One Religion of Christ (supra, a, sub fin.) brings in Job, the Sibyl, and doubtless many others |qui secundem Deum vixerunt eique placuerunt, pertinentes ad spiritalem Hierusalem| (de Civ. XVIII. xlvii.). Again, there are the unjustly excommunicated, who have nothing of the character of schismatics: |hos coronat in occulto Pater,| etc. (de Vera Relig. ii. cf. de Bapt. I.26, Epp.78.3, 250, fragm. ad. fin.). But practically Augustine passes to and fro between the thought of the numerus praedestinatorum and that of the visible church without being careful to distinguish them, and he freely applies to the latter the exalted and ideal prerogatives which are theoretically proper to the former.

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 (Longmans, 2s.6d.). Preaching and Teaching acc. to S. Aug. is a new trans. of the de Doct. Christ. bk. iv., and de Rudibus Catech. with 3 intro. essays by Rev. W. J. V. Baker and C. Bickersteth and a preface by Bp. Gore (Mowbray, 2s.6d.).

(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).

[A.R., 1901]

Augustinus, archbp. of Canterbury 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 on Whitsunday, June 2, 597, probably at St. Martin's church.

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 Mar.12, 604, Gregory died, and two months afterwards according to some authorities, or a year after according to others, Augustine followed his patron and benefactor, and was buried in the cemetery which he himself had consecrated, beside the Roman road that ran over St. Martin's Hill from Richborough to Canterbury.

The most important modern authorities for the life of the first archbp. of Canterbury are Montalambert, Monks of the West, iii.; Hook, Archbishops of Canterbury, i.; Stanley, Memorials of Canterbury, 4th ed.1865; Milman, Hist. of Latin Christianity, ii.4th ed.1867; A. J. Mason, The Mission of St. Aug. to Eng., 1897; Bp. Browne, Aug. and his Companions, 1895; Gasquet, Missions of St. Aug.; Bp. Collins, Beginnings of Eng. Christianity.


Aurelian, Roman emperor 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, Roman emperor 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 (parataxis) of the Christians.| |The wise man,| he says, |should meet death semnos kai atragodos.| 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 (Metathesthe, sophronisthete).| 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 it was in that year that the persecution broke out and that Justin suffered. These calamities roused the superstition of the great mass of the people, and a wild fanaticism succeeded to an epicurean atheism. The gods were wroth, and what had roused their anger but the presence of those who denied them? |Christianos ad leones| seemed the remedy for every disaster. The gods might accept that as a piacular offering. On the other hand, the Christians saw in them signs of the coming judgment, and of the end of the world; and now in apocalyptic utterances, now in Sibylline books, uttered, half exultantly, their predictions of the impending woe (cf. Tertull. ad Scap. c.3). All this, of course, increased the irritation against them to the white heat of frenzy (Milman's Hist. of Christianity, bk. ii. c.7). They not only provoked the gods, and refused to join in sacrifices to appease them, but triumphed in their fellow-citizens' miseries.

Two apparent exceptions to this policy of repression have to be noticed. (1) One edition of the edict pros to koinon tes Asias, 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).

[E. H. P.]

Ausonius, Decimus Magnus, poet 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 embittered affection on the one side, and of an attachment almost filial tempered by firm religious principle on the other. Paulinus nowhere chides Ausonius for his paganism; on the contrary, he assumes his Christianity (Paulin. Ep. ii.18, 19), and this is still further confirmed by a casual passage in one of the poet's letters to Paulinus, in which he speaks of the necessity of returning to Bordeaux in order to keep Easter (Ep. viii.9). Ausonius was not a Christian in the same sense as Paulinus; he was one who hovered on the borderland which separated the new from the old religion: not ashamed, it is true, to pen obscenities beneath the eye and at the challenge of his patron, yet in the quiet of his oratory feeling after the God of the Christians; convinced apparently of the dogma of the Trinity, yet so little penetrated by its awful mystery as to give it a haphazard place in a string of frivolous triplets composed at the dinner-table (Gryph. Tern.87): keenly alive to natural beauty, and susceptible of the tenderest affection, he yet fell short of appreciating in his disciple the more perfect beauty of holiness, and the entire abnegation of self for the love of a divine master. Probably his later Christianity would have disowned his own youthful productions.

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, archbishop of Vienne 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 in Migne's Patrologia, vol. lix. Oeuvres, ed. N. Chevallier (Lyons, 1890).


<<  Contents  >>

Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy